How do inverted classroom (flipping the classroom ...



Students’ Perceptions of an Inverted Classroom Model of Instruction in an Undergraduate Human Resource Development Course The Internet presents innovative pedagogical opportunities and learning spaces for educators in higher education to further engage students in academia (Rourke & Coleman, 2010). There is overwhelming evidence corroborating the notion that new innovative ideas and resources continue to evolve seeking to enhance education and improve transfer of learning. Wang (2010) corroborates “Currently, many educators are focusing their efforts on the design and implementation of more active and collaborative methods of teaching and learning, in order to better prepare learners for the teamwork and project/problem solving approaches necessary for work places in the 21st century” (p. 831). Online learning has provided new tools and applications for merging innovative learning environments to engage the needs and learning preferences of students (Ishtaiwa & Abulibdeh, 2012). In the last 12 years, educational research has provided ample support for the assertion that students in online-learning conditions perform better than those receiving face-to-face instruction (Ke & Kwak, 2013). With the focus on enhancing the design and implementation of active teaching methods and the perceived success of online learning, the use of a new blended learning environment has been inspired. A blended learning environment seeks to further engage students and improve transfer of learning in academia by utilizing face-to-face and online components. Commonly referred to as “flipping the classroom,” the inverted classroom incorporates a blended learning environment. Silberman (2006) argues that, “With a blended solution, trainers can use e-learning [online] to deliver information content, assess performance, and provide individual feedback. Time spent in the classroom is then reserved for whole group discussions, practice, and rehearsals, and face-to-face interaction” (p. 201). Mason, Shuman and Cook (2013) define the inverted classroom by describing its characteristics: “In an inverted classroom, course content is disseminated outside the classroom through traditional formats such as assigned readings and homework problems and through new formats such as video lectures, PowerPoint presentations and Web-based tutorials” (p. 430). An inverted classroom incorporates face-to-face time with the instructor to discuss and apply the course content learned outside of class through interactive and collaborative activities (Mason, Shuman, & Cook, 2013). Strayer (2012) adds, “Because the two different learning experiences are so different, there is a real opportunity for a blended learning environment to have a synergistic effect in which the whole is greater than the combined parts” (p.191). Through a blended learning approach, the inverted classroom attempts to strengthen the assets of the face-to-face and online components while minimizing their drawbacks (Wang, 2010). Although, previous literature ascertains that educators are focusing their efforts on new innovative instructional designs and resources to enhance education and increase transfer of learning, minimal research on students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction creates barriers to understanding the impact of the model on the students.Purpose of the StudyThe primary purpose of this study was to analyze students' perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction applied in the Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485) course of the Human Resource Development (HRD) minor at James Madison University. Various innovative instructional strategies are being implemented in higher education to enhance education and increase transfer of learning. The inverted classroom disseminates course content outside the classroom and then provides opportunities for discussion and application of the content during face-to-face time with the instructor. By evaluating students' perceptions of an inverted classroom model, higher educators have the opportunity to understand the impact this model has on their students and the future of academics. Although there has been relatively little research on students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model, Ke and Kwak (2013) advocate the view that, “Among multiple measures for online learner success, learner satisfaction is an important measure” (p. 98). Analyzing students’ perceptions, and ultimately satisfaction, of the inverted classroom model of instruction provides valuable information on the students’ perceived success of the inverted classroom.Research QuestionsBy identifying and analyzing students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the researcher will attempt to answer the following research questions in this study:RQ1: What are students’ perceptions of their attitudes, feelings, and preferences towards the inverted classroom model of instruction?RQ2: What are students’ perceptions of the procedures, operations, methods, and techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction?RQ3: What are students’ perceptions of their acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content in the inverted classroom model of instruction?Hypotheses1. The more the students positively perceive the inverted classroom model of instruction based on their attitudes, feelings, and preferences, the more they will positively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and techniques.2. The more the students positively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the more they will positively perceive their acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content.3. The more the students negatively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the more they will negatively perceive their acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content.Assumptions, Limitations, and ScopeIn this study, it is assumed the Development of Materials and Programs was taught using an inverted classroom model of instruction based on the course design in the syllabus and the students’ responses to the questions provided in this study. The study is limited because it only considers two sections of the course during a single semester at a medium-sized university in Virginia. Also, the course uses an alternative approach to the inverted classroom model of instruction where the students are required to read assigned chapters in the textbook and then actively participate in an inverted (flipped) discussion board. Class sessions are then centered on project work and training facilitations that are derived from the readings and involve active dialogue. The scope of the study includes students in the Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485) during the 2014 spring semester. Significance of the StudyThe analysis of students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction will provide valuable information to aid higher educators who are seeking to incorporate new innovative ideas and resources to enhance education and improve transfer of learning. With the results of this study, higher educators will be able to gather information concerning what students think and feel about the inverted classroom model of instruction. The present study will also be able to identify barriers to implementing the inverted classroom. By identifying the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the course, the Development of Materials and Programs inverted classroom may be able to foster a more supportive environment for the students.Aside from supporting the students by understanding the implications for teaching and learning, the study will benefit future facilitators of the Development of Materials and Programs course. Future facilitators of the course will be able to review the results of students’ perceptions regarding the inverted classroom, and then alter their instruction to increase the positive attributes associated with the course. As a result of the teacher’s implementation of the inverted classroom model of instruction, students’ academic achievement has the potential to increase. For teachers implementing the traditional classroom model of instruction, the inverted classroom model of instruction is a proven teaching strategy that will benefit all students. The inverted classroom model of instruction has many features such as student-centered learning, active learning, educational technology and blended learning. As a result, this research will help increase awareness of the benefits of the inverted classroom model of instruction and provide teachers with a rationale for implementing the model in order to ensure student success in the classroom. DefinitionsA number of frequently used terms are defined in the following section as a point of reference for this study. All of the following terms will be described and their relationship to the study will be examined in further detail in later sections of this paper.Student-Centered Learning: “Student-centered learning environments provide interactive, complimentary activities that enable individuals to address their unique learning interests and needs, examine content at multiple levels of complexity, and deepen understanding” (Cubukcy, 2012, p. 51-52).Blended Learning: “Blended Learning is learning that is facilitated by the effective combination of different modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning, and founded on transparent communication amongst all parties involved with a course” (Heinze & Procter, 2004, p. 12).Learning Management System (LMS): “Learning management systems provide a secure and highly structured online learning environment, supporting various types of pedagogical approaches” (Tomberg, Laanpere, Ley, & Normak, 2013, p. 110).Personal Learning Environment (PLE): “By contrast, when using Web 2.0 tools, a student or teacher is able to build a personal learning environment (PLE), which gives their owners high levels of choice and control over their learning activities” (Tomberg et al., 2013, p. 110).Inverted Classroom: An inverted style of the traditional pattern of teaching that utilizes technology to introduce content to students outside of the classroom while assigning in-class activities to engage students further inside the classroom (Strayer, 2012).Now that key terms have been defined, the next section of this paper presents a review of the literature, beginning with a look at eclectic instructional design and learning theories. These theories will serve to explain and help illuminate the theoretical frameworks behind the creation of instruction. This section will also explain various educational technologies. Finally, the inverted classroom model of instruction will be examined in order to understand the components of the model and provide advantages and challenges for teachers and students.Literature ReviewIn an attempt to understand students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction a review of literature was conducted. The following chapter includes the literature review methodology, the conceptual framework, theoretical framework and a review of the pertinent literature. Additional literature was used to provide background information and context; however, the following section specifically addresses the variables and hypotheses discussed in the first chapter.Literature MethodologyTo begin this review, several research databases were used to identify articles for inclusion, including: Academic Search Complete, Education Databases EBSCO Combined Search, ERIC, and Education Research Complete. The James Madison University library website was used to select the relevant databases. Articles were eliminated from inclusion in the review based on publishing date. Only articles between 2000 and 2013 were used. Specific search words and phrases such as “inverted classroom,” “flipped classroom,” “blended learning,” and “student-centered learning” were utilized. A combination of these different terms yielded the results summarized in the following review. In addition to these research databases and search words, the author also referenced several college level textbooks. These were used to provide the initial idea for the study, as well as provide background information and context for the author’s hypotheses.Conceptual FrameworkThe conceptual framework depicted in Figure 1 demonstrates the relationship between instructional design, educational technology, and the inverted classroom model of instruction as perceived by the researcher. This framework was developed based on extensive research conducted on the inverted classroom model of instruction. Throughout the research, the researcher found three common variables: instructional design, educational technology, and the inverted classroom model of instruction. The inverted classroom model of instruction incorporates various instructional design concepts and educational technologies to enhance education and transfer of learning. Figure 1 provides the systematic organization of the three variables and provides the primary focus of this study on the students’ perceptions regarding the integration and interpretation of information.Figure 1: Conceptual FrameworkInstructional Design“Instructional design is the process of planning instruction, delivering instruction, and assessing student learning” (Hamdani, Gharbaghi, Sumarni, & Sharifuddin, 2011, p. 1). The models and theories incorporated in the instructional design process provide theoretical implications for designing and implementing an inverted classroom model of instruction. A study by Hamdani et al. (2011) discussed postmodernism instructional design approaches, types and trends in three different domains: 1. instructional design is a diagrammatic or theoretical process, 2. designers determine the process according to desired learning theories, and 3. designers divide the process into three different orientations. The authors state that the type of model used by designer is determined by their personal theoretical beliefs on – behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. The present study examines pertinent learning theories and approaches for designing and implementing an inverted classroom model of instruction through an eclectic design of instruction. Honebein and Sink (2012) advise that, “Practicing eclectic instructional design benefits from a good understanding of learning theory and a willingness to integrate some additional components into your instructional design process” (p. 26). The process of eclectic instructional design encourages the designer to blend ideas from multiple learning theories in order to construct a more significant learning experience than a course designed from a single theoretical influence. Eclectic designers consider learning theories and their associated methods as a toolbox to enhance instruction. The next sections will discuss the various theoretical constructs of greatest relevance to the design and implementation of an inverted classroom model of instruction.Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal DevelopmentA prominent theoretical construct that influences the design and implementation of an inverted classroom model of instruction is Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). ZPD has been defined as, “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). The ZPD is not only about learning, but also about development (Levykh, 2008). The ZPD is the difference between what a learner can do independently and what they are capable of doing with targeted assistance. Heinze and Procter (2004) argue, “Essentially the ZPD states that the learner has greater potential when developing in collaboration with others of when supported by competent facilitators” (p. 237). Vygotsky believed that learning could lead development under certain conditions created by the educator. Lui (2012) states, “Instruction focused within each students’ ZPD is not too difficult or too easy, but just challenging enough to help him or her develop new skills by building on ones that have already been established” (p. 2). Students and teachers are part of this collaborative educational inspiration. Students create their own knowledge and communicate it to others in a safe, emotionally supportive environment. Once the students have created their own knowledge and communicated it to others, the ZPD helps educators determine the mental functions that have already developed and the functions that are still in process of developing (Levykh, 2008). As an extension of this concept, Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) termed the word scaffolding associated with the ZPD. Providing effective instructional scaffolding to the functions that are still in process of developing assists the student’s mastery of the task in order to complete the task on their own again. ZPD is influential while designing learning activities in the inverted classroom model of instruction. The structure of the development of instruction outside of the classroom and the face-to-face interactions within the classroom of the inverted model need to support the student’s ZPD. Lui (2012) lists common practices among highly affective teachers include tools and activities that: 1. Include clear goals and objectives, 2. Use available space and appropriate resources, 3. Involve movement around the classroom, 4. Include a range of individual, small group, and whole group instruction, and 5. Promote and encourage inquiries and discussion (p. 7). As illustrated in Figure 2, locating the ZPD enables educators to define the learner’s immediate needs and plan more targeted instruction for the whole class based on the appropriate tasks difficulty. Lui (2012) argues, “Ultimately, aligning classroom teaching strategies to students’ ZPD can help educators more effectively guide all students toward achieving learning goals” (p. 2).Figure 2. Locating the ZPD (Lui, 2012).ConstructivismThe significance of understanding constructivism while seeking to practice eclectic instructional design is imperative to the purpose of this research. The notion that learners construct their reality based upon their perception of experiences is grounded in the constructivist theory of teaching and learning (Alonso, López, Manrique, & Vi?es, 2005). Constructivism supports students’ active and creative engagement in course content (Muniandy, Mohammad, & Fong, 2007). From the constructivist perspective, the authors suggest that through concrete experience, collaborative discourse, and reflection, learners are able to resolve inner cognitive conflicts to construct knowledge. Through the implementation of an inverted classroom, students first experience course content through an online component and then actively and creatively engage in the same content during a face-to-face component. Fostering these two experiences provides students the opportunity to self-regulate their learning outside of the classroom while providing concrete experience, collaborative discourse and reflection during the classroom time. In Figure 3, Bellefeuille (2006) illustrates a framework for developing instructional design through a constructivist perspective.AssumptionsValuesInstructional Design PrinciplesInstructional StrategiesExemplars of a Constructivist Learning EnvironmentIndividuals interpret and construct meaning based on their experiences and evolved beliefsCollaborationPersonal autonomyGenerativityReflectivityActive engagementPersonal relevancePluralismEmphasize the affective domain of the learnerMake instruction personally relevant to the learnerHelp learners develop skills, attitudes, and beliefs that support self-regulation of the learning processPromote personal autonomyEmbed reason for learning into the learning activityInteractiveExperientialIndependentDirectIndirectScaffoldingEmbedding skills and knowledge in holistic and realistic contextsAuthentic learning tasksMultiple perspective building and multiple representationsCollaborative learning activitiesFigure 3: Framework for Developing Instructional Design through a Constructivist Perspective (Bellefeuille, 2006).Bellefeuille (2006), states, “With this in mind, I submit that technology-mediated learning, or e-learning, not only offers an inventive means by which to infuse constructivists principles (where learners function as self-motivated, self-directed, interactive, collaborative participants in their learning experience), but also serves to enhance the creation of effective constructivist learning environments” (p. 87).Rooted in the constructivist view, a study conducted by Ke and Kwak (2013) investigates an alternative to teacher-directed instruction called student-centered learning.Student-Centered LearningStudent-centered learning is rooted in the constructivist view that students construct knowledge and the instructor facilitates the learning. Leading to perceptual changes in relation to education, learning and teaching, Cubukcu (2012) affirms, “Student-centered learning environments provide interactive, complimentary activities that enable individuals to address their unique learning interests and needs, examine at multiple levels of complexity, and deepen understanding” (p. 51-52). The author encourages teachers to ensure they allocate time for activities to allow students to work on their own. Student ownership is essential for a student-centered approach and will encourage in-depth understanding and intrinsic motivational orientation. Current research appears to validate a student-centered learning approach to designing instruction. A study conducted by Ke and Kwak (2013) focused on technology-based student-centered learning. The authors claim learner satisfaction is an important outcome measure for learner success. Key values proposed when designing instruction based on student-centered learning environment include: learner autonomy, authentic learning, learner relevance, and the use of technology to scaffold learning. The authors found relevance to be the strongest determinant of the online course satisfaction in a student-centered learning environment. While attempting to provide theoretical implications for an inverted classroom model of instruction, student-centered learning plays an integral role in improving skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving and reflective thinking (Cubukcu, 2012). Another method of teaching and learning design strongly emphasized in the constructivist view is Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Theory.Kolb’s Experiential Learning TheoryAs a well-accepted and efficient pedagogical model for learning, Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Theory has provided clear methods of teaching and learning design that are strongly emphasized in the constructivist view (Abdulwahed & Nagy, 2009). Experiential Learning Theory suggests that successful learners encounter four stages: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and experimentation. Abdulwahed and Nagy (2009) advise, “Hence, the optimal learning takes place when learners have adequate balance of these four stages during their learning experience” (p. 284). Figure 4 illustrates each of these experiences in the construction of learning as shown by Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model. Kolb’s (1984) model illustrates that learning requires individuals to first be introduced to the course content through a concrete experience followed by a reflective observation of the material. During the design and implementation of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the concrete experience and reflective observation are encountered during the online component. Next, Kolb (1984) suggests learners experience an abstract conceptualization followed by an active experimentation. These experiences ultimately provide the means for learners to cultivate attitudes, develop and practice skills, and promote understanding of the course content. Through the face-to-face component of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the teacher serves as a facilitator to support the conceptualization of the course content as well as provide relevant classroom activities for active experimentation. By fostering each of the four stages demonstrated in Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Theory in the inverted classroom, the instructional strategies facilitate the enhancement of different learning preferences and performance.Figure 4: Kolb’s Experiential Learning TheoryExpanding upon his theory further, Kolb (1984) suggests individuals have different perceptual or learning preferences. Werner and DeSimone (2012) describe, “A learning style represents how an individual choice made during the learning process affects what information is selected and how it is processed” (p. 90). Kolb (1984) identified four learning preferences in his Experiential Learning Theory: divergent, assimilation, convergent, and accommodative. Each of these learning preferences can be taken into account when assessing the different instructional strategies for the inverted classroom. Werner and DeSimone (2012) define each of these learning preferences: Divergent-a combination of concrete experiences and reflective observation (feeling and watching). Assimilation-a combination of abstract conceptualization and reflective observation (thinking and watching). Convergent-a combination of abstract conceptualization and active experimentation (thinking and doing). Accommodative-a combination of concrete experience and active experimentation (feeling and doing)(p. 91). Bandura’s Social Cognitive TheoryThe emphasized importance of observation and modeling of attitudes, behaviors, and emotional reactions of others is illustrated by Bandura’s (1977) Social Cognitive Theory. Bandura’s (1977) theory asserts individuals collect knowledge through observation, imitation and modeling of others. Bandura (1977) argues that people form their own ideas of how a behavior is performed through the observation of other’s behaviors. Once these new ideas are formed they can use them as a guide for the future. The necessary elements for effective learning to occur include attention, retention, reproduction and motivation (Bandura, 1977). These invaluable elements structured by Bandura (1977) in the Social Cognitive Theory are essential when designing and implementing the inverted classroom model of instruction.A central concept of Bandura’s (1977) Social Cognitive Theory highlights the importance of self-efficacy. Bandura (1977) believes that the key to enhancing learning is directly related to an individual’s self-efficacy. In a study conducted by Zheng et al. (2009), the findings illustrate the effects of self-efficacy as a mediator on learners’ problem solving. Zheng et al. (2009) state, “the more confidant the participants were about themselves as learners, the higher the test scores would be, the less time they spent in problem solving and the lower the cognitive load” (p. 800).Similar to points on a triangle (shown in Figure 5), Bandura’s (1986) triadic reciprocal determinism includes behavior, environment, and human behavior. Essentially, Bandura (1986) proposed that the environment not only affects behavior, but personal factors and behaviors influence the environment. These reciprocal and interconnected concepts represented are necessary to recognize when introducing the inverted classroom of instruction through a blended learning environment.Figure 5: Bandura’s (1986) reciprocal determinism.Gagné’s Conditions of LearningGagné’s (1985) Theory of Conditional Learning is a theoretical framework that consists of three distinct components: 1) Taxonomy of learning outcomes, 2) Specific learning conditions, and 3) Nine instructional events. The overarching premise stipulated by Gagné (1985) indicates that different learning levels exist and therefore, different instructional methods require focus on the corresponding level of learning. To address the needs of the learner, Gagné (1985) developed the taxonomy of learning outcomes to break down human learned capabilities into five abilities: verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, attitudes, and motor skills. Extending the theory further, Gagné (1985) addresses specific learning conditions. Breaking down the conditions into internal and external conditions, Gagné (1985) focused on the previous knowledge capabilities of learners and the current method of instruction provided to the learner.Gagné (1985) formulated a set of nine events deemed as effective instruction. Figure 6 addresses these nine events and the internal mental process undergone during the event. The events are proposed to encourage the transfer of knowledge from perception through the various stages of memory.Figure 6: Gagné’s (1985) Nine Events of InstructionWhile focusing on the instructional design strategies utilized in the inverted classroom model of instruction, Gagné (1985) Conditions of Learning provides a theoretical framework to understand individual’s abilities, their learning conditions, and focus on presenting the nine events of instruction to enhance active learning.Educational TechnologyResearch suggests digital video recording, digital media, and interactive Web pages have enabled the advent of the inverted classroom model of instruction (Mason, Shuman, & Cook, 2013). Strayer (2012) emphasizes, “With the increased availability of the internet and computer applications over the past 20 years, college and university professors have strengthened their commitment to use computer technology to enhance classroom learning” (p. 171). Appropriate theoretical implications of designing eclectic instructional design by blending various learning theories have emerged along with the commitment to incorporate technology to enhance learning. According to Alonso et al. (2005), a dysfunction exists between the profusion of technological features and the scarcity of pedagogical principles in e-learning. Good educational practice is governed by pedagogical principles and good educational practice in e-learning is represented by the instructional technology. The following are pertinent instructional technology components of the inverted classroom model of instruction found in the research.Blended Learning EnvironmentAfter reviewing various theoretical constructs, a deeper understanding of a blended learning environment of an inverted classroom model of instruction is essential. According to Puzziferro and Shelton (2008), “Developing or creating an online course is a highly complex and multifaceted process” (p. 119). The inverted classroom centers on providing course content through multimedia channels outside of class. With the rapid advancement of technology, an important issue during the development of an inverted classroom requires flexibility of the instructional framework. Puzziferro and Shelton (2008) suggest, “The course production framework must also be flexible enough to adapting to changes in technology, student and faculty evolving expectations, new research in the field of online pedagogy, and curricular changes” (p. 121). Research suggests strong pedagogy and instructional design as the core principles to enhance learning (Kolb, 1984; Bandura, 1977; Mayer 2001; Gagné, 1965). As Silberman (2006) states, “It is through the blending of high-tech and high-touch that an active trainer can create memorable learning experiences that extend far beyond the hours spent either in a classroom or in front of a computer screen” (p. 203). In order to enhance education and transfer of learning, a successful implementation of a blended learning environment requires structuring the face-to-face and online components so that they coherently reinforce one another (Strayer, 2012). Positive aspects of implementing a successful blended learning environment are: flexibility, positive interaction with professors, independent learning, authenticity, engaging various learning preferences, and a positive social presence (Napier, Dekhane, & Smith, 2011). Two elements of instructional technology used in a blended learning environment are learning management systems and personal learning environments.Learning Management Systems Technology-enhanced learning in formal education is assisted by the aid of institutional learning management systems (Tomber, et al., 2013). The authors identify a learning management system (LMS) as a secure and highly structured online learning environment. The authors state, “Modern learning management systems provide teachers and learners with a set of tools for sharing learning resources, communicating within a study group, course enrollment, assignments, tests, assessments, activity monitoring, and other types of learning or course management activities” (p. 110). Learning management systems support various types of pedagogical approaches and provide the inverted classroom model of instruction tools for success. Personal Learning EnvironmentTomber et al. (2013) state, “Highly structured, top-down managed hierarchies in an LMS induce highly structured pedagogical behavior, which cannot be changed by the students. In contrast, in a personal learning environment the learner uses bottom-up design: The learners are free to adapt the system for their tasks” (p. 115). Personal learning environments have been adopted by learners and teachers, which gives the owners high level of choice and control over the learning activities. New types of web-based tools such as blogs and wikis are becoming increasingly popular (Tomber et al., 2013). Shifting from the teacher-centered learning management system to the learner-centered personal learning environment provides the learner with freedom of choice and supports the constructivist approach as well as the self-regulation of learners. The authors express further, “The requirement for combining the LMS and PLE functionalities stems from the different kinds of affordances they offer. While LMS has more affordances for course management, Web 2.0 tools and social media have more affordances for individual expression of students, self-directed learning, expression of ideas, and group collaboration” (p. 111). For the purpose of this study, review of one of the Web 2.0 tools considered in an inverted classroom model of instruction is discussed next.BlogsIn a study conducted by Do and Demir (2013), the authors state, “Blogs have evolved from simple online diaries to communication tools with the capacity to engage people in collaboration, knowledge sharing, reflection and debate” (p. 1335). The inverted classroom model of instruction incorporates blogs as a technology-enhanced learning component. Blogs empower students and can act as constructive repositories of the students’ reflections (Do & Demir, 2013). Ongoing, prompt feedback of blogs creates a platform to discuss the students’ own learning and redesign of learning activities. The authors proclaim, “In this study we have concluded that blogs can be used for students to reflect on the learning theme, to explain ideas, to give information about their own learning and expectations” (p. 1342). The study proved that blogs allow students to construct their own knowledge and can be used as a learning instrument in an inverted classroom model of instruction.Inverted ClassroomMason, Shuman and Cook (2013) describe, “In an inverted classroom, course content is disseminated outside the classroom through traditional formats such as assigned reading and homework problems and through new formats such as video lectures, PowerPoint presentations, and Web-based tutorials” (p. 430). The materials learned outside the classroom are further discussed and applied face-to-face with an instructor in a classroom. Figure 7 illustrates the difference between the traditional classroom and the flipped classroom (inverted classroom). The authors mention three primary motivations for using an inverted classroom: 1. Frees class time for interactive activities, 2. Allows an educator to present course content in several different formats, and so engage the students’ various learning preferences, and 3. Encourages students to become self-learners (Mason, Shuman, & Cooke, 2013, p. 430).Figure 7. Traditional Classroom Model of Instruction compared to the Flipped Classroom (Inverted Classroom) Model of InstructionIn another study conducted by Enfield (2013), the author mentions advantages for teachers and students of an inverted classroom model of instruction. The advantages for the teachers for incorporating an inverted classroom model of instruction include: providing video lessons that students could watch as many times as needed greatly reduced the need for repetitive instruction and the videos also provide the department with the option of providing the same core instruction to all students taking the course, regardless of the instructor. Advantages for students include: Most students found instructional videos helpful, engaging, and appropriately challenging, they appreciated the ability to move through the instruction at their own pace and found note taking, answering questions provided, and working along with videos all effective strategies for learning the content provided in the videos, most students found regular quizzes to be a strong motivation to keep up with the instructional videos that were assigned, and students also reported that the in-class activities were engaging.Problems with implementing an inverted classroom include: 1. Time-consuming, 2. Online learning may frustrate some students, 3. Discrepancy in the literature about the appropriateness of an inverted classroom for different course levels (Mason, Shuman, & Cooke, 2013, p. 430). Additional challenges addressed by Enfield (2013) include: sufficient time must be spent developing the videos or finding pre-existing materials that sufficiently cover the content, technical issues should be addressed, and ensure that the instructional materials comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 508. While students are relatively understanding of mistakes and pauses in face-to-face instruction, they tend to expect instructional videos to be edited so that there are no errors or unneeded pauses, and in-class activities also need to be well planned and this takes a great deal of time.Mason, Shuman, & Cooke (2013) studied the effectiveness of the inverted classroom by comparing content coverage, quiz and exam performance, and student perception of teaching, learning, and the inverted classroom format. The authors used a survey to evaluate course organization, instructor’s use of class time, attitude and teaching style of the instructor, effectiveness of exams and reports, students’ personal effort and approximate number of hours per week spent studying for the course. The authors found that students recognized that the new format required self-discipline and necessitated some adjustment to their study habits (Mason et al., 2013, p. 433). The authors also found that the inverted classroom model of instruction allowed the instructor to cover more course material. The literature review provides theoretical implications and background information on the inverted classroom model of instruction. As previously mentioned, utilizing instructional design, learning theories and educational technology in the review of literature reveals the advantages and challenges of designing and implementing an inverted classroom model of instruction. It is the purpose of this study to focus on discovering students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction. In the sections to follow, the methodology of the study is addressed, including the design and analysis of the data collection process.MethodologyAlthough, previous literature maintains educators are focusing their efforts on new innovative instructional designs and resources to enhance education and increase transfer of learning, minimal research on students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction creates barriers for educators to implement an effective inverted classroom. Past research indicates advantages and challenges of designing and implementing an inverted classroom model of instruction. The current study aims to unveil students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction and broaden the potential to understand the impact this model will have on future academics. The following section describes the design of the study, sample population, data collection instrument, procedures, and analysis as well as the threats to the study. Since the inverted classroom model of instruction is a relatively new model, the researcher has identified the independent variables in this study as: Instructional Design, Educational Technology, and the Inverted Classroom Model of Instruction. The dependent variable in this study is represented by three variables related to students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction.Research DesignThe overarching goal of this study is to analyze students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction. Specifically, this study was designed to empirically test the impact of the inverted classroom’s instructional strategies on students’ attitudes, feelings, and preferences, the procedures, operations methods and techniques, and the students’ perceptions of the acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content in an inverted classroom model of instruction in the Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485) course in the Human Resource Development (HRD) minor at James Madison University in Virginia. LTLE485 is designed to provide students with the basic skills necessary to design and develop performance-based training programs and courses. LTLE485 is the only inverted classroom in the HRD minor and has been taught as an inverted classroom for the past three years. Although the course is offered during the fall and spring semesters of the academic year, due to the scope of the research the researcher is only collecting data in the middle of the spring 2014 semester.By identifying and analyzing students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the researcher will attempt to answer the following research questions in this study:RQ1: What are students’ attitudes, feelings, and preferences towards the inverted classroom model of instruction?RQ2: What are students’ perceptions of the procedures, operations, methods, and techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction?RQ3: What are students’ perceptions of their acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content in the inverted classroom model of instruction?The researcher predicts the following research outcomes:1. The more the students positively perceive the inverted classroom model of instruction based on their attitudes, feelings, and preferences, the more they will positively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and techniques.2. The more the students positively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the more they will positively perceive their acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content.3. The more the students negatively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the more they will negatively perceive their acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content.The research questions are addressed using a mixed-methods survey approach to obtain quantitative and qualitative data. Mixed-methods research helped clarify and explain the relationships found between the variables while exploring those relationships more in depth and authenticating the concluding relationship discovered (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2012). Quantitative and qualitative data were obtained through the use of an online electronic survey consisting of a series of eleven open-ended, multiple choice, Likert-type scales, and rating scale questions through the James Madison University sponsored Qualtrics online survey database system to create and distribute the survey. Appendix B illustrates the full survey instrument. The online survey was distributed to the participants enrolled in the Development of Materials and Programs course via an announcement on Canvas after being approved by the Institutional Review Board. The approved request is found in Appendix A. The announcement included a consent form with a cover letter requesting voluntary consent to participate in the survey, as well as a direct link to the Qualtrics survey.Throughout the literature review, several qualitative investigations examined the impact of instructional strategies on learning outcomes and goals (Gedik et al., 2012; Ishtaiwa & Abulibdeh, 2012; Muniandy et al., 2007; Wang, 2010). A qualitative investigation allows the researcher to examine the relationship between each essential variable more inclusively. The confirmatory quantitative investigation will then be useful while examining the conclusions acquired by the qualitative investigation and which will ultimately be combined to interpret the overall results.InstrumentationAs previously mentioned, a mixed method triangulation approach was used to discover students’ perceptions of the LTLE485 inverted classroom model of instruction. The primary data collection instrument used in the evaluation was a survey designed by the researcher. Russ-Eft and Preskill (2013) describe several advantages of using a survey as a research data collection method. An advantage the authors state is, “The same questions are presented in the same manner to all respondents, with no interpretation on the part of the evaluator, thus reducing the chance of evaluator bias” (p. 276). A web-based survey was chosen to obtain data from students in the spring 2014 LTLE485 course. Focusing on the research questions and variables of the study, the researcher provided a series of eleven open-ended, multiple choice, Likert-type scales, and rating scale questions. The first three questions asked demographic questions about the students’ current level at James Madison University, major, and gender. The next two questions pertain to students’ use of educational technology and previous experience in an inverted classroom. The next three questions consisted of a four point Likert-type scale based on the three research questions of the study. The last three questions consisted of an overall satisfaction scale and open-ended questions about the students’ favorite and least favorite experience in the inverted classroom model of instruction. Once the researcher developed the survey, two research professors, Dr. Jane Thall and Dr. Noorie Brantmeier, at James Madison University examined the survey. The survey was also piloted to 3 students in a first-year research methods course. Once the professors evaluated the survey, the researcher made corresponding changes and then provided a copy of the survey to the Institutional Review Board along with the research protocol. Once all changes had been made to the survey and instrument validity and reliability had been determined, the survey was sent to a purposive sample via an anonymous Qualtrics survey link to an inclusive list of students’ in the LTLE485 course.Sample PopulationParticipants in the study were undergraduate students in the Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485) in the Human Resource Development minor program at James Madison University during the spring 2014 semester. JMU is a public, coeducational, master’s level university located in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The HRD minor at JMU is an 18-credit hour, technically oriented program that engages students from various disciplines. The program consists on average of about 300 students who want to develop instructional, analytical, and leadership skills. The Development of Materials and Programs course is the capstone course in the HRD minor program in the College of Education. Students enrolled in the course are assumed to have all pre-requisites courses for the minor. The course is described as dissimilar to previous courses because the students take a more active role in the teaching and learning process implemented by the inverted classroom model of instruction. The course is designed to provide students with the basic and necessary skills to design and develop skills-based training programs and courses. A variety of instructional methods are used throughout the semester including: lecture, small group interaction, total group interaction, simulation, reading assignments, invited guests and other methodological approaches. After completing assigned readings, students are required to complete “warm-ups.” The warm-ups are brief reflections that provide the student with the opportunity to reflect on salient aspects of the prior week’s class session and guide their critique, analysis, and synthesis of the readings. Students are required to post their reflections on Canvas before the class to provide the professor and teaching assistant the opportunity to read the responses and respond to any areas the students may struggle with or need additional clarification. Class sessions center on project work and training facilitations that are derived from the readings and involve active dialogue. Through an inverted classroom model of instruction, warm-ups, group facilitation activities, projects and assessments require the students to synthesize and present course content. For the purpose of this study, a purposive sample of 63 undergraduate students enrolled in LTLE485 during the spring 2014 semester participated in the study because of their interaction in the inverted classroom model of instruction.Data Collection ProceduresThe quantitative and qualitative data collected for this study were gathered from a series of eleven open-ended, multiple choice, Likert-type scales, and rating scale questions. The online survey was distributed to the participants enrolled in the Development of Materials and Programs course via and announcement in Canvas. The announcement included a consent form with a cover letter requesting voluntary consent to participate in the survey, as well as a direct link to the Qualtrics survey.Throughout this study, the researcher took into consideration various ethical issues. The AHRD Handbook states, “Human Resource Development is based on more than knowledge, skills, and self-awareness. It is also based on values. These values include honesty and respect for the rights of others” (p. 19). The researcher took into consideration general ethical standards developed by Academy of Human Resource Development (1999-2000) which include: respecting others, research, and evaluation in a professional context. The researcher took into consideration the respect of the students by providing a voluntary consent form attached to the announcement made in Canvas. While researching and evaluating the data, the researcher took into consideration designing, conducting, and reporting the research and evaluation in accordance with recognized standards of research competence and ethics. The researcher took into consideration the rights and welfare of the students affected by the study and did not collect any identifying information attached to the survey. Statistical information was only analyzed for reporting purposes in this research project. The Institutional Review Board approved the human research review request on October 21, 2013. As stated on the approved request, data were stored and analyzed within Qualtrics, the online survey instrument being utilized for this research study. The survey being issued was anonymous, in that there was no identifying information attached to any of the research questions being asked. Furthermore, any statistical information analyzed for reporting purposes was stored on a desktop computer that was password protected, with any statistical documents password protected as well. A back-up copy of these documents was kept on a portable hard drive, which was also password protected. The researcher was the only individual who had access to this data, which remained within a password-protected electronic file once the research had been completed. At the end of the study, all records were destroyed.Data AnalysisAs previously mentioned, the research questions were addressed using a mixed-methods approach to analyze quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data from the web-based survey questions were analyzed using descriptive statistics through Qualtrics. While analyzing the quantitative data, a description of the data will be given, specific relationships will be examined, and frequency distributions will be illustrated. Qualitative data adds depth and detail to the quantitative data. Qualitative data from the open-ended survey questions were analyzed by deriving categories from the current data set. Due to the scope and boundaries of the research, the data analysis process was not guided by any preexisting schema or theoretical literature. Russ-Eft and Preskill (2013) state, “When you want to see how the data can be organized without any overarching framework, then you would use content analysis to inductively review the text and develop specific categories” (p. 370). Validity, Reliability, and GeneralizationFraenkel et al. (2012) state, “Validity is the most important idea to consider when preparing or selecting an instrument for use” (p. 147). The authors define validity as the means to which inferences about the research can be made (p. 147). The two types of validity that impact the implications made from research are: external validity and internal validity. External validity refers to both population and ecological generalizability. According to Fraenkel et al. (2012), “The whole notion of science is built on the idea of generalizing. Every science seeks to find basic principles or laws that can be applied to a great variety of situations and, in the case of social sciences, to a great many people” (p. 103). The authors describe two factors that need to be addressed when considering generalizability: population generalizability and ecological generalizability (p. 103-105). Ensuring the sample represents the population and can be extended to other settings is essential in analyzing external validity and generalizability. For the intent of this study, a purposive sample was chosen because of their experience in the inverted classroom model of instruction. This is a limitation because it lacks the evidence to generalize the data results to a larger population. Fraenkel et al. (2012) define internal validity as, “any relationship observed between two or more variables should be unambiguous as to what it means rather than being due to ‘something else’” (p. 166). In order to establish a correlation between the variables in the research, threats to the internal validity need to be addressed. Possible threats to the internal validity of students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction have been carefully evaluated. The biggest threat to subject characteristics within this study revolves around learner’s autonomy and self-efficacy.Data AnalysisThis study employed a mixed methodology research design utilizing quantitative and qualitative data collection procedures to identify students’ perceptions of an inverted classroom model of instruction. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from an eleven question, web-based survey created with Qualtrics. The survey was distributed via Canvas to students in both sections of the Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485) course for the spring 2014 semester at James Madison University. The quantitative data provides baseline data that is wide in breath, while the qualitative data provides data deep in scope. Students were asked to complete eight quantitative questions and three qualitative questions, with one of the qualitative questions only asking for demographic information. Of the 63 students who were asked to participate, 40 students started the survey and 38 students completed the survey. The response rate was 60 percent. The next section will discuss the process by which the data were generated, gathered, and recorded.ProceduresIn order to establish validity, the researcher designed a mixed method data collection framework, which employed two different data collection methodologies. Data were generated from an eleven question, web-based survey using Qualtrics created by the researcher. The survey was distributed via Canvas to students in both sections of the 2014 spring LTLE485 course. All data obtained throughout the duration of this research study were collected and stored within the Qualtrics survey management system. The researcher was the only individual with access to the user name and password to this information, and no data were collected in any other fashion. The researcher downloaded the data directly from Qualtrics, and these were stored on a password-protected hard drive. Statistical analysis was conducted through the survey management system. The quantitative results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while a thematic analysis was conducted for the qualitative results. The next section will discuss the survey results and findings from the data collection.Results and FindingsThis section reports the results and findings from the mixed methodology research design. The results and findings of this research consist of two parts. The first part is the analysis of the quantitative data collected from eight of the eleven questions on the web-based survey including one of the qualitative questions with regard to demographic information. The second part is a thematic analysis of the qualitative data collected from the last two questions on the survey.The first five questions presented on the web-based survey report demographic responses. While demographic information did not play a role in the formulation of research questions and hypotheses for this study, utilizing them in the data collection provided the researcher with further insight into potential trends regarding beliefs about students’ perceptions of an inverted classroom model of instruction.Question 1. The first question of the survey asked participants to select their current student level at James Madison University. The levels consisted of Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, and Other. The response rate (n=40) to their current student level elicited a distinct trend, whereas the majority of the participants were Seniors (98%) with only one individual at the Junior level (3%). Question 2: The second question of the survey asked participants to state their current major at James Madison University. Eleven majors emerged from the response rate (n=40). Figure 8 provides a bar graph of the majors represented from the survey. Psychology represented the largest demographic with nine students indicating their current major was Psychology (22.5%). Communication Studies and Hospitality each were represented by eight students (20%). Health Services Administration, Marketing, and Writing, Rhetoric and Technical Communication (WRTC) were each represented by three students (0.08%). Communication Sciences and Disorders, Business Management, Public Policy and Administration, Sociology and Studio Art were each represented by one student (0.3%).Figure 8. Participants’ Majors at James Madison UniversityQuestion 3: The third question asked the participants to indicate their gender. The participants could either respond as Male, Female, or Prefer not to respond. Female participants made up the majority of the participants with thirty-three of the participants indicated they were Female (83%), while only seven indicated they were Male (17%) and none of the students chose not to respond. Figure 9 illustrates the gender demographics of the participants.Figure 9. Participants’ GenderQuestion 4: The fourth question sought to understand how participants accessed the Internet for educational purposes. Participants were allowed to respond with multiple answers. Figure 10 provides a bar graph of the results. Thirty-nine students indicated they access the Internet for educational purposes using their personal desktop or laptop (98%). While the majority of responses indicated participants access the Internet with their personal desktop or laptop, an additional fourteen responses indicated participants access the Internet for educational purposes on their smart phone (35%). Thirteen more responses indicated participants also access the Internet using a university desktop or laptop (33%) and nine indicated using a tablet (23%).Figure 10. How participants access the Internet for educational purposes.Question 5: The fifth and last demographic question asked the participants if they have ever been involved in an inverted classroom prior to the Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485) course. Figure 11 illustrates participants’ previous involvement with an inverted classroom. Twenty-three participants (58%) indicated they had previously been involved in an inverted classroom while ten participants (25%) indicated they had not previously been involved in an inverted classroom. Seven participants (17%) indicated they did not know if they had ever been in an inverted classroom previously.Figure 11. Participants’ involvement with an inverted classroom.Following the demographic questions, a series of three Likert scale questions were presented to the participants. The three Likert scale questions directly correlate with this study’s research questions and hypotheses. Each of the questions were rated with a response of either strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree, and were coded with numbers one through four, respectively. The responses to each of the three questions were analyzed through the use of Qualtrics’ statistics software, recording the mean, variance, and standard deviation for each question regarding students’ perceptions of an inverted classroom model of instruction. The responses to each of the questions were analyzed individually, and tables displaying the averages, as well as other descriptive statistics, are provided below in tables and bar graphs.Question 6: The sixth question on the survey provided participants with a series of four statements and asked participants to indicate whether they agree or disagree based on their attitudes, feelings, and preferences of an inverted classroom model of instruction. The four statements were: 1. I enjoy learning course content outside of the classroom, 2. I enjoy the online discussion boards, 3. I enjoy engaging in hands-on activities inside of the classroom with the help of an instructor, and 4. Overall, I enjoy the inverted classroom model of instruction. Figure 12 presents a bar graph that illustrates the responses and Table 1 provides descriptive statistics of the data. Thirty-three participants indicated they strongly agree or agree they enjoy learning course content outside of the classroom, while seven do not enjoy learning course content outside of the classroom. Fifteen participants indicated they enjoy the online discussion, while twenty-five indicated they do not enjoy the online discussion. A majority of participants indicated they agree or strongly agree they enjoy engaging in hands-on activities inside of the classroom with the help of an instructor. Thirty-six participants indicated they overall enjoy the inverted classroom model of instruction, while only four do not enjoy the inverted classroom model of instruction.Figure 12. Participants’ attitudes, feelings, and preferences of an inverted classroom model of instruction (n=40).Table 1 Participants’ attitudes, feelings, and preferences of an inverted classroom model of instructionDescriptive StatisticI enjoy learning course content outside of the classroom.I enjoy the online discussion boards.I enjoy engaging in hands-on activities inside of the classroom with the help of an instructor.Overall, I enjoy the inverted classroom model of instruction.Mean3.002.333.53.08Variance0.460.740.310.38Standard Deviation0.680.860.550.62Total Responses40404040Question 7: The seventh question on the survey provided participants with a series of four statements and asked participants to indicate whether they agree or disagree based on the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of an inverted classroom model of instruction. The four statements were: 1. Technology is an effective way to deliver course content outside of the classroom, 2. Online discussion boards enhance learning, 3. Hands on activities in class are an effective way to enhance learning and engagement, and 4. Overall, the inverted classroom model of instruction enhances learning. Figure 13 presents a bar graph that illustrates the responses and Table 2 provides descriptive statistics of the data. Thirty-eight participants indicated they strongly agree or agree that technology is an effective way to deliver course content outside of the classroom while only two indicated they disagreed. Only nineteen participants indicated they agree or strongly agree that online discussion boards enhance learning, while twenty-one participants indicated they disagreed or strongly disagreed. One hundred percent of the participants indicated they either agreed or strongly agreed that hands on activities in class are an effective way to enhance learning and engagement. Thirty-five participants indicated they overall feel the inverted classroom model of instruction enhances learning based on the procedures, operations, methods and techniques while only five disagree or strongly disagree.Figure 13. Participants’ views on the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of an inverted classroom model of instruction (n=40).Table 2. Participants’ views on the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of an inverted classroom model of instruction.Descriptive StatisticTechnology is an effective way to deliver course content outside of the classroom.Online discussion boards enhance learning.Hands on activities in class are an effective way to enhance learning and engagement.Overall, the inverted classroom model of instruction enhances learning.Mean3.332.383.483.00Variance0.330.750.260.36Standard Deviation0.570.870.510.60Total Responses40404040Question 8: The eighth question on the survey provided participants with a series of four statements and asked participants to indicate whether they agree or disagree based on the content presented in an inverted classroom model of instruction. The four statements were: 1. I effectively learn the course content outside of the classroom, 2. I effectively learn the course content through online discussion boards, 3. I effectively learn the course content through in-class activities with the help of an instructor, and 4. Overall, I effectively learn the content in the inverted classroom model of instruction. Figure 14 presents a bar graph that illustrates the responses and Table 3 provides descriptive statistics of the data. Twenty-nine participants out of thirty-eight responses indicated they agree or strongly agree that they effectively learn the course content outside of the classroom while nine participants either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Only fifteen participants indicated they effectively learning the course content through online discussion boards while twenty-three students disagree or strongly disagree they do not learn the course content through online discussion boards. One hundred percent of the participants indicated they either agree or strongly agree that they effectively learn the course content through in-class activities with the help of an instructor. Thirty-three participants indicated they learn the course content in the inverted classroom model of instruction while only five participants disagreed.Figure 14. Participants’ views on learning the course content in an inverted classroom model of instruction (n=38).Table 3. Participants’ views on learning the course content in an inverted classroom model of instruction.Descriptive StatisticI effectively learn the course content outside of the classroom.I effectively learn the course content through online discussion boardsI effectively learn the course content through in-class activities with the help of an instructorOverall, I effectively learning the content in the inverted classroom model of instructionMean2.872.343.473.03Variance0.440.660.260.30Standard Deviation0.660.810.510.54Total Responses38383838Question 9: The ninth question asked the participants to rank their overall satisfaction level of the inverted classroom model of instruction using a draggable slider scale of one being very unsatisfied and ten being very satisfied. Participants ranked their satisfaction level between a four and a ten with the average value being 7.24 (n=38). The standard deviation was 1.34. Figure 15 represents the participants’ overall satisfaction.Figure 15. Participants’ overall satisfaction (n=38). Qualitative FindingsThrough the implementation of qualitative research, a word-based analysis and thematic analysis present a number of suggestions regarding how students perceive the inverted model of instruction. The following three key variables were investigated about students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction: 1. Their attitudes, feelings, and preferences of the inverted classroom model of instruction, 2. The procedures, operations, methods, and techniques of the inverted class model of instruction, and 3. Their acquisition of information and concepts related to course content. Themes were developed based on qualitative codes that allowed the researcher to identify commonalities and differences among students’ perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the inverted classroom model of instruction as they relate to the three key variables; therefore, a thematic analysis was conducted to help determine the elements where participants positively or negatively viewed the inverted classroom model of instruction.The following sections identify and describe the word-count analysis the researcher first evaluated for each qualitative question and identify and describe both implicit and explicit ideas within the data. The results for the thematic analysis are organized under the three key variables identified previously. This process served as a way to begin categorizing the data and then further capturing the complexities of meaning within the textual data. A number of themes and sub-themes were identified in relation to each variable and are reported in the following section.Question 10: The tenth question was an opened ended question that asked participants what they thought were the major strengths of the inverted classroom model of instruction. Thirty-three participants responded. Table 4 illustrates the ten most frequently used words.Table mon words found in participants’ view of the strengths of the inverted classroom model of instruction.WordFrequencyLearn20Experience7Work7Student6Class5Hand5Better4Classroom4Time4Table 5.Participants’ perceptions of the strengths of the inverted classroom model of instruction based on their attitudes, feelings, and preferences and thematic analysis (n=33).Attitudes, Feelings, and Preferences.StrengthsThemeGain better experience.ExperienceAutonomy.AutonomyConvenience to students.ConvenientDifferent experience than sitting through a lecture.ExperienceYou can complete work on your own time – flexibility with schedule.AutonomyYou are more in charge of how well you learn: the responsibility is on you.AutonomyI like the dynamic aspect.ExperienceI can speak about my experience in interviews (related to real world situation projects).ExperienceDiverse learning experiences.ExperienceAble to complete assignments on your own time.AutonomyFreedom to do your work at your won place and learning to motivate yourself, not be forced to complete work.AutonomyStudents learn time management.AutonomyCan apply their own learning techniques.AutonomyConvenient.ConvenientGood feedback from each facilitation.ExperienceIndependent work.AutonomyYou don’t have to go to class.AutonomyIndependence and autonomy.AutonomyI like that the professor is not just lecturing.ExperienceMakes class less uptight.ExperienceIndependent learning and project based learning.AutonomyYou can do the learning and work at your own pace.AutonomyIt allows students to work more independently.AutonomyMore flexible approach to learning.ExperienceTable 6.Participants’ perceptions of the strengths of the procedures, operations, methods, and techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction and thematic analysis (n=33).Procedures, Operations, Methods, and TechniquesStrengthsThemeHave better discussion.DiscussionThey (students) are not just sitting through a lecture, but presenting the material to enhance learning.Non-lectureI like asynchronous style, where I have objectives/guidelines and times by which to submit my work.Non-lectureInteractive group learning.InteractiveDiscussionDiscussionHands on for the students.InteractiveEngaging activities outside of the classroom make you think and apply what you learn in the classroom.InteractiveWhen teachers create an online design that is interactive using videos that you can actively participate in, students tend to retain much more information.InteractiveMore hands on, so I learn better because I am active learner.InteractiveBy preparing presentations, I learn more about what I am presenting on because I do a lot of research and rehearsing.InteractiveBy doing projects (like this client one), I feel like I really get to apply what I learn in the classroom and book into a real world situation.InteractiveI like that it allows us to come to class with more specific questions on what we don’t understand.InteractiveI like asynchronous style, where I have objectives/guidelines and times by which to submit my work.PracticalHands on activities in class instead of lectures.InteractiveI feel like hands on experience in and outside of class are helping me learn more than I have learned in most of the HRD courses I have taken.InteractiveYou get hands on experience.InteractiveAbility to retain information through active learning.InteractiveReal world challenges and experience.PracticalPractical applications are evident because of project based learning.PracticalPractical application of materials instead of tests on abstract concepts.PracticalDiverse learning experiences.ExperienceTable 7.Participants’ perceptions of the strengths of the acquisition of information of concepts related to course content in an inverted classroom model of instruction and thematic analysis (n=33).Acquisition of Information and Concepts Related to Course ContentStrengthsThemeInverted classrooms give the students the ability to learn the material more effectively.LearnWhen teachers create an online design that is interactive using videos that you can actively participate in, students tend to retain much more information.LearnMore hands on, so I learn better because I am active learner.LearnBy preparing presentations, I learn more about what I am presenting on because I do a lot of research and rehearsing.LearnBy doing projects (like this client one), I feel like I really get to apply what I learn in the classroom and book into a real world situation.LearnI feel like hands on experience in and outside of class are helping me learn more than I have learned in most of the HRD courses I have taken.LearnAbility to retain information through active learning.LearnQuestion 11. The eleventh question was an opened ended questions that asked participants what they thought were the major weaknesses of the inverted classroom model of instruction. Table mon words found in participants’ view of the weaknesses of the inverted classroom model of instruction.WordFrequencyClass(room)12Discussion12Student10Work8Board6Much5Post5Teach5Sometime4Table 9.Participants’ perceptions of the weaknesses of the inverted classroom model of instruction based on their attitudes, feelings, and preferences and thematic analysis (n=27).Attitudes, Feelings, and Preferences.WeaknessesThemeNot easy to adapt to suddenly because so many classes are primarily lecture based.AdaptabilityPeople argue against inverted classrooms because the professor does little teaching, which is what we are paying them to do. Many don’t realize the benefits of the inverted classrooms.Role of TeacherMost are likely to do the work and that’s all.Lack of MotivationInverted classrooms do not challenge the learner.Lack of InterestDistractions.Lack of InterestZone out for others during lecture.Lack of MotivationForgetting when things are due because lack of communication hurts my motivation.Lack of CommunityYou can BS through the online portion, or just disregard the readings and not do work that isn’t graded.Lack of MotivationWork can be slacked.Lack of MotivationLessens classroom community.Lack of CommunityLessens motivation.Lack of MotivationStudents do not take it seriously.Lack of InterestI sometimes feel lost in the mix.Lack of MotivationThe student has to be prepared.Lack of InterestI don’t like teaching myself things when I can have a teacher teach me.Lack of MotivationTable 10.Participants’ perceptions of the weaknesses of the procedures, operations, methods, and techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction and thematic analysis (n=27).Procedures, Operations, Methods, and TechniquesWeaknessesThemeNot always getting feedback right away.Lack of FeedbackFace to face interaction lacks.Lack of InteractionIt fills up Canvas/Blackboard with too much information sometimes and it becomes hard to keep up.Too much InformationMandatory discussion boards with specific amounts of posts hurt my motivation.Discussion BoardsRequiring students to do more “fluff work” rather than meaningful projects hurts my motivation.Busy WorkA lot of the assignments are busy work.Busy WorkYou can BS through the online portion, or just disregard the readings and not do work that isn’t graded.Busy WorkIt gets really boring just sitting through classmates’ presentations, especially when classmates just read off of index cards or PowerPoint slides.Lack of InteractionI really don’t like online discussion posts and don’t benefit from those at all.Discussion BoardsI don’t think discussion boards are always effective.Discussion BoardsDiscussion boards are completely useless.Discussion BoardsI feel like the work outside of the classroom is just busy work and I’m not really taking much from it.Busy WorkToo much busy work, not enough instruction from professors.Busy WorkDiscussion board posts are not that engaging in my opinion.Discussion BoardsMay not take the time to learn the materials outside of class.Busy WorkI feel like discussion board postings and a lot of assignments I can BS. I am learning as much not doing them as I am doing them…except how to BS more effectively.Discussion BoardsOnline discussion sucks. It doesn’t come close to mirroring what in class dialog can produce in terms of learning.Discussion BoardsThe discussion boards are not helpful.Discussion BoardsTable 11.Participants’ perceptions of the weaknesses of the acquisition of information of concepts related to course content in an inverted classroom model of instruction and thematic analysis (n=27).Acquisition of Information and Concepts Related to Course ContentWeaknessesThemeNot able to learn all the material.Lack of LearningI don’t think we fully understand the concepts or the direction of the class when so much information is left up to the students’ discretion.Lack of LearningI don’t think students are taught how to teach, so when they teach other students, it is boring and sometimes ineffective.Lack of LearningSometimes it is difficult to fully understand the lecture outside of class because the instructor is not immediately available when you approach a problem you don’t know or understand.Lack of LearningI feel like the work outside of the classroom is just busy work and I’m not really taking much from it.Lack of LearningI feel like discussion board postings and a lot of assignments I can BS. I am learning as much not doing them as I am doing them…except how to BS more effectively.Lack of LearningOnline discussion sucks. It doesn’t come close to mirroring what in class dialog can produce in terms of learning.Lack of LearningThe three variables explored within this research were considered to be key entities of the inverted classroom model of instruction that were aimed at supporting multiple hypotheses. This confirmatory, hypothesis-driven, study was guided by specific hypotheses the researcher wanted to assess. The following hypotheses were posed:H1. The more the students positively perceive the inverted classroom model of instruction based on their attitudes, feelings, and preferences, the more they will positively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and techniques.H2. The more the students positively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the more they will positively perceive their acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content.H3. The more the students negatively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the more they will negatively perceive their acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content.After reviewing the results of this study, the researcher accepts H1 and H2. The basis for this acceptance comes from the responses gathered from the open-ended, qualitative portion of the survey and the responses elicited in the quantitative portion. Hypothesis 1 states, in general terms, if students enjoy the inverted classroom model of instruction based on their personal preference that they will like the techniques utilized in the inverted classroom, while hypothesis 2 states if they like the techniques utilized in the inverted classroom they will feel like they are effectively acquiring the course content. Participants indicated twenty-four strengths associated with their attitudes, feelings, and preferences of the inverted classroom model of instruction. The thematic analysis of these strengths included participants’ autonomy, experience, and convenience in the course. On average, the participants enjoy the inverted classroom model of instruction (2.98). Participants’ perceived twenty-one strengths of the inverted classroom based on the procedures, operations, methods, and techniques with the thematic analysis centering on the interactive and practical techniques implemented versus a lecture style classroom. On average, the participants’ find the inverted classroom instructional strategies as an effective way to enhance learning (3.05). Participants’ perceived only seven strengths with regard to acquisition of information and concepts related to course content with the thematic analysis centering on learning the content. Indicated as the lowest average but still in the positive region of the results, participants’ perceive themselves as effectively learning the course content (2.93).Evidence of QualityInternal/External Validity and Reliability. Validity can be defined as the means to which inferences about the research can be made. The two types of validity that impact the implications made from the research are: internal validity and external validity. With regard to internal validity, this study can be challenged by a few arguments. The first argument surrounds the experience of the survey participants. Fifty-eight percent of the participants indicated they had previously been enrolled in an inverted classroom model of instruction while twenty-five percent said they had not and eighteen percent said they did not know. Prior experience in an inverted classroom model of instruction may have had an impact on their perceptions of each of the three variables assessed as well as the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the model of instruction. Some participants’ indicated the model was difficult to adjust to while those who may have had prior experience could have been adjusted to this model of instruction. The more experience participants who have been involved in an inverted classroom model of instruction may have a better idea of what they perceive as strengths and weaknesses than novice participants.Another argument against internal validity is there is no guarantee the participants clearly know what an inverted classroom model of instruction entails or that the Development of Materials and Programs course is taught in an inverted style. Students’ may have felt confused by the concepts of the inverted classroom and may be confused by labeling LTLE485 an inverted classroom. The participants may have felt obliged to answer the questions whether or not they agree with the classification of their course. Due to the fact that there is no way to determine the willingness or apprehension that occurs in the minds of the survey participants, the only way to control validity issues was to create a structured survey that provided three main attributes of an inverted classroom model of instruction which included the delivery of course content outside of the classroom, discussion boards to foster content mastery, and in-class activities.In terms of external validity, the timing of the survey may have impacted survey participants. The survey was distributed half way through the semester of the course; therefore, the students may have not had enough time encounter the full effects of the inverted classroom model of instruction. While many of the survey participants responded with key perceptions and recommendations, there is no way to tell what could have been recorded if the survey was issued at a more opportune time at the end of the semester. Another challenge of external validity is the sample for this study. For the purpose of this study, a purposive sample was chosen because of their experience in the inverted classroom model of instruction. This is a limitation because it lacks the evidence to generalize the data results for larger populations. A further discussion of this issue is addressed in recommendations for future study.Despite the threats to internal and external validity, the reliability of the study does not appear to be jeopardized. The survey was distributed to students in both sections of the Development of Materials and Program course during the spring 2014 semester. The data collection can be assumed that all responses came from appropriate subjects in the two sections. This enables other researchers to conduct a similar study in nature at other universities, and replicate its findings accordingly. The only limitation to this reliability is that the study was only conducted for a Human Resource Development minor course at one mid-sized university in Virginia, and the results may be unique to the subject and collegiate level of the course.The data analysis and results section of this research study recorded and analyzed the quantitative and qualitative data collection from the mixed methodology research design regarding students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction. It was determined that the majority of the participants agree that they enjoy the inverted classroom model of instruction, they find the techniques utilized in the inverted classroom model of instruction to enhance learning, and effectively learn the course content. The participants’ suggestions were complemented by their perceptions that culminated in the qualitative questions on the survey. While students positively perceive the inverted classroom model of instruction, students provided specific strengths and weaknesses of the inverted classroom model of instruction. The next section of this study provides a brief overview of the study, interpretations of the findings on students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction, recommendations for action and further study, and a reflection of the researcher’s experience.ConclusionThe purpose of this study was to analyze students' perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction employed in the Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485) course in the Human Resource Development (HRD) minor at James Madison University. By evaluating students' perceptions of an inverted classroom model, higher educators have the opportunity to understand the impact this model has on their students and the future of academics. Although there has been relatively little research on students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model, Ke and Kwak (2013) advocate the view that, “Among multiple measures for online learner success, learner satisfaction is an important measure” (p. 98). Analyzing students’ perceptions, and ultimately satisfaction, of the inverted classroom model of instruction provides valuable information on the students’ perceptions of their success in an inverted classroom. This study employed a mixed methodology research design utilizing quantitative and qualitative data collection procedures to identify students’ perceptions of an inverted classroom model of instruction. The author also conducted research on instructional design, educational technology, and the inverted classroom model of instruction in order to better examine students’ perceptions of the various elements in the implementation of the inverted classroom. A review of the findings, recommendations for action and future research, limitations of the study and a reflection of the researchers’ experience will be discussed in the next sections of the study.Interpretation of FindingsA number of findings from this research are important for the future study of students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction. This research identified a number of themes based on the three variables evaluated in the survey, which are pertinent and valuable to higher educators and those implementing an inverted classroom model of instruction. The researcher attempted to answer the following research questions in this study:RQ1: What are students’ perceptions of their attitudes, feelings, and preferences towards the inverted classroom model of instruction?RQ2: What are students’ perceptions of the procedures, operations, methods, and techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction?RQ3: What are students’ perceptions of their acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content in the inverted classroom model of instruction?Attitudes, Feelings, and Preferences. Through the collection and analysis of the data, it is clear that the students positively perceive the inverted classroom based on their attitudes, feelings, and preferences. A majority of the students indicated they enjoy learning the course content outside of the classroom and engaging in hands-on activities inside of the classroom with the help of an instructor. Mason et al. (2013) indicate three primary motivations for using an inverted classroom model of instruction, which directly correlate to the data found in this study. The authors assert a motivation that is supported in the data for students’ attitudes, feelings, and preferences in the inverted classroom is the encouragement for students to become self-directed learners. However, many students have a negative perception about online discussion boards with regard to their attitudes, feelings, and preferences. The qualitative data assisted in providing in-depth rationale of students’ perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the inverted classroom. Various strengths centered on students’ autonomy, experience and convenience of the course while the weaknesses centered on a lack of motivation, interest and community, adaptability and the perceived role of the teacher. Students suggested the inverted classroom model of instruction allows students the freedom to do work at their own pace, while some students suggested the inverted classroom decreases motivation.Procedures, Operations, Methods, and Techniques. From the results of this study, students positively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction. As the highest average, students’ perceptions of the procedures, operations, methods and techniques suggest students think technology is an effective way to deliver course content outside of the classroom and hands-on activities in class are an effective way to enhance learning and engagement. As previously mentioned, Mason et al. (2013) indicated 2 primary motivations for implementing an inverted classroom.: 1) It allows educators to present course content in several different formats, and 2. It frees up class time for interactive activities. The authors’ assertions are supported by the data collected in the present study for the procedures, operations, methods, and techniques of students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction. Similar to students’ negative perceptions of online discussion boards previously mentioned, students did not perceive online discussion boards as an effective way to enhance learning. However, a majority of students listed the interactive and practice techniques utilized in an inverted classroom model of instruction as an effective way to enhance learning. While some students find mandatory discussion boards online to be busy work, other students suggest they feel like the hands-on experience in and outside of class are helping them to learn more than previous courses.Acquisition of Information and Course Concepts. Conclusions from the results of this study indicate students positively perceive their acquisition of information and course concepts related to course content. A majority of students indicated they effectively learn the course content outside of the classroom and inside the classroom through in-class activities with the help of an instructor. However, over half of the participants disagreed that they effectively learn the course content through online discussion boards. Applying students’ perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the inverted classroom model of instruction, some students stated the inverted classroom gives the student the ability to learn the material more effectively, while other students suggested they don’t think they fully understand the concepts or direction of the class when so much information is left up to the students’ discretion.In addition to the three variables addressed in the data collection, the researcher also attempted to gauge the students’ overall satisfaction level of the inverted classroom model of instruction. Overall, students appear to be satisfied with the inverted classroom model of instruction. Students also indicated a greater number of strengths associated with the inverted classroom model of instruction than weaknesses, which complements the assumption of their satisfaction level.Recommendations for ActionAs more educators are focusing their efforts on the design and implementation of more active and collaborative methods of teaching, the inverted classroom model of instruction provides new innovative instructional design techniques and resources to enhance education and increase transfer of learning. Minimal research on students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction created an opportunity for this study to present a greater understanding of the impact the model has on the students’ satisfaction level.This research provides a foundation to the unveiling of students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction at a mid-sized Virginia university. The analysis of students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction provided valuable information to aid higher educators in the successful implementation of the model into their instructional design toolbox. With the results of this study, instructors in higher education can gather information about students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction. This study was conducted for the Development of Materials and Programs course at James Madison University for the spring 2014 semester; therefore, the professor and teaching assistants of the course should analyze the results to have a better understanding of the students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction. In order to successfully implement an inverted classroom with a greater satisfaction level of the students, it is necessary for the professor to decide on effective instructional strategies and then implement them. The qualitative results regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the inverted classroom model of instruction will also prove valuable for not only the professor of LTLE485 but also other educators who may be interested in implementing an inverted classroom. Recommendations for Further StudyThe analysis and results of this study suggest that students positively perceive the inverted classroom model of instruction. Future research should continue to develop an understanding of students’ perceptions of the specific strategies of the inverted classroom model of instruction. A further, in-depth analysis of literature focusing on the various instructional strategies of the inverted classroom needs to be carried out. While the researcher found instructional design and educational technology as major components of the inverted classroom model of instruction, each of these components have various sub-components that need to be analyzed.When inquiring into students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction, it is critical for future research to delve into the students’ acquisition of course content. This study focused on students’ perceptions of how well they perceived their acquisition of content, while future studies need to study the actual acquisition and mastery of the course content. Future studies may want to study quiz, test, or final grades of students in an inverted classroom compared to those in a traditional classroom. Other ways of understanding students’ acquisition of course content could be done by observations or interviews.Understanding the barriers or concerns, which impact students’ efficacy in an inverted classroom model of instruction, is another area for future research. Students’ efficacy may be affected by the implementation of different instructional strategies or educational technologies. In this study, some students indicated autonomy as a positive aspect of the inverted classroom, while other students indicated their lack of being able to fully understand the concepts when the information is left up to the students’ discretion.According to Gikas and Grant (2013), “As mobile devices continue to grow as part of the higher education landscape, mobile computing devices present both opportunities and challenges to higher education institutions (p. 18). As presented in the findings, mobile devices or smart phones accounted for 35% of how students accessed the Internet for educational purposes. Future research should focus on the implications of assessing educational materials and content via a mobile device or smart phone.LimitationsOne underlying limitation in this study is the sample size. The sample was small and therefore not generalizable to the entire population. This study cannot be compared to other studies that examined the inverted classroom model of instruction, as the instructional strategies may differ, but it does set the framework for future research. It also provides educators with an idea of students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction as well as specific strengths and weaknesses they perceive.The researcher’s quantitative scale needs to undergo additional validity testing to ensure accuracy of the measures. Because the researcher did not find any previously validated quantitative scale, she had to create her own. Even though the researcher lacked significant experience in creating quantitative measures, the qualitative data supported and expanded on the quantitative results, improving the validity of the study.Due to time constraints on the part of the researcher, other inverted classroom models of instruction courses were excluded from the study. The researcher only took into account two sections of one course in a minor study course. Another limitation is researcher bias. To minimize researcher bias, coding, external audits, and member checks should be developed. If the survey would have been distributed at the end of the semester, the students may have had different perceptions and felt more confidence in their responses.ConclusionThis research provides a foundation to the unveiling of students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction at a mid-sized Virginia university. The analysis of students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction provided valuable information to aid higher educators in the successful implementation of an inverted classroom model of instructional. The results of this study highlight students’ positive perceptions of the instructional strategies of an inverted classroom model of instruction. Furthermore, the exploration of strengths and weaknesses of the inverted classroom presented invaluable information regarding students’ perceptions of specific elements regarding the model. While past and current studies support the ideas of effective instructional design and educational technology, future research should be geared towards building upon these theoretical constructs, as well as finding new ways to appeal to the students’ perceptions. With the overwhelming evidence corroborating the notion that new and innovative ideas and resources continue to evolve, educators who are seeking to enhance and improve learner satisfaction and transfer of learning should focus on the implementation of theoretically based instructional design and educational technology to implement an inverted classroom model of instruction, ultimately transforming the classroom.Appendix AIRB Approval FormJames Madison UniversityHuman Research Review RequestFOR IRB USE ONLY: Exempt:Protocol Number: 1st Review: FORMTEXT ?????Reviewer: FORMTEXT ????? FORMTEXT ????? FORMTEXT ????? FORMTEXT ?????Expedited: XIRB: 14-01332nd Review: FORMTEXT ?????Reviewer: FORMTEXT ????? FORMTEXT ????? FORMTEXT ????? FORMTEXT ?????Full Board: Received: FORMTEXT ?????3rd Review: FORMTEXT ?????Project Title: Students’ Perceptions of an Inverted Classroom Model of Instruction in an Undergraduate Human Resource Development CourseProject Dates:From: 10/01/13To: 05/09/14(Not to exceed 1 year minus 1 day) MM/DD/YYMM/DD/YY Minimum # of Participants: 20Maximum # of Participants: 63External Funding: Yes: FORMCHECKBOX No: FORMCHECKBOX Internal Funding:Yes: FORMCHECKBOX No: FORMCHECKBOX If yes, Sponsor: FORMTEXT ?????Will monetary incentives be offered with funding? Yes: FORMCHECKBOX No: FORMCHECKBOX If yes: How much per recipient? FORMTEXT ????? In what form? FORMTEXT ?????Must follow JMU Financial Policy: Responsible Researcher(s):Meganne Nicole DowneyE-mail Address:downeymn@dukes.jmu.eduTelephone:(540) 421-3757Department: Adult Education/Human Resource DevelopmentAddress (MSC): 6913Please Select: FORMCHECKBOX Faculty FORMCHECKBOX Undergraduate Student FORMCHECKBOX Administrator/Staff Member FORMCHECKBOX Graduate Student(if Applicable): Research Advisor:Dr. Noorjehan BrantmeierE-mail Address:brantmnk@jmu.eduTelephone:(540) 568-4530Department: Adult Education/Human Resource DevelopmentAddress (MSC):6913Investigator: Please respond to the questions below. The IRB will utilize your responses to evaluate your protocol submission. 1. FORMCHECKBOX YES FORMCHECKBOX NODoes the James Madison University Institutional Review Board define the project as research? The James Madison University IRB defines "research" as a "systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” All research involving human participants conducted by James Madison University faculty and staff and students is subject to IRB review. 2. FORMCHECKBOX YES FORMCHECKBOX NOAre the human participants in your study living individuals?“Individuals whose physiologic or behavioral characteristics and responses are the object of study in a research project. Under the federal regulations, human subjects are defined as: living individual(s) about whom an investigator conducting research obtains: (1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual; or (2) identifiable private information.” 3. FORMCHECKBOX YES FORMCHECKBOX NOWill you obtain data through intervention or interaction with these individuals? “Intervention” includes both physical procedures by which data are gathered (e.g., measurement of heart rate or venipuncture) and manipulations of the participant or the participant's environment that are performed for research purposes. “Interaction” includes communication or interpersonal contact between the investigator and participant (e.g., surveying or interviewing). 4. FORMCHECKBOX YES FORMCHECKBOX NOWill you obtain identifiable private information about these individuals? "Private information" includes information about behavior that occurs in a context in which an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or recording is taking place, or information provided for specific purposes which the individual can reasonably expect will not be made public (e.g., a medical record or student record). "Identifiable" means that the identity of the participant may be ascertained by the investigator or associated with the information (e.g., by name, code number, pattern of answers, etc.). 5. FORMCHECKBOX YES FORMCHECKBOX NO Does the study present more than minimal risk to the participants? "Minimal risk" means that the risks of harm or discomfort anticipated in the proposed research are not greater, considering probability and magnitude, than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests. Note that the concept of risk goes beyond physical risk and includes psychological, emotional, or behavioral risk as well as risks to employability, economic well being, social standing, and risks of civil and criminal liability. CERTIFICATIONS:For James Madison University to obtain a Federal Wide Assurance (FWA) with the Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, all research staff working with human participants must sign this form and receive training in ethical guidelines and regulations. "Research staff" is defined as persons who have direct and substantive involvement in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research and includes students fulfilling these roles as well as their faculty advisors. The Office of Research Integrity maintains a roster of all researchers who have completed training within the past three years. Test module at ORI website of Researcher(s)Training Completion DateMeganne Nicole Downey09/18/2012Dr. Noorjehan Brantmeier09/19/2013For additional training interests, or to access a Spanish version, visit the National Institutes of Health Protecting Human Research Participants (PHRP) Course at: . By signing below, the Responsible Researcher(s), and the Faculty Advisor (if applicable), certifies that he/she is familiar with the ethical guidelines and regulations regarding the protection of human research participants from research risks. In addition, he/she agrees to abide by all sponsor and university policies and procedures in conducting the research. He/she further certifies that he/she has completed training regarding human participant research ethics within the last three years.Meganne Nicole Downey 09/25/2013Principal Investigator Signature Date___________________________________________________Principal Investigator Signature Date__________________09/30/2013Faculty Advisor Signature DatePurpose and ObjectivesThe primary purpose of this study is to understand students’ perceptions of the instructional strategies of the inverted class, Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485), in the Human Resource Development (HRD) minor at James Madison University. Various innovative instructional strategies are being implemented in higher education to enhance learning outcomes. The inverted classroom employs various e-learning tools and applications to present course content outside of the classroom and then allows the students to further engage in the content during the face-to-face component. An inverted classroom provides innovative instructional strategies to address the needs of diverse learning preferences and enhance learning outcomes. Minimal research on students’ perceptions of the instructional strategies implemented in an inverted classroom broadens the potential to understand the impact this approach will have on future academics.Procedures/Research Design/Methodology/TimeframeThe time frame of this study ranges from the time of pending IRB approval through May 9, 2014. It is anticipated that the research will begin and the survey will be issued via Canvas no later than April 2014, so as to ensure timely student participation as they document their perceptions of the inverted course.The participants in this study will be undergraduate students from the Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485) inverted class in the Human Resource Development (HRD) minor program at James Madison University during the spring 2014 semester. LTLE485 is designed to provide students with the basic skills necessary to design and develop performance-based training programs and courses. LTLE485 is facilitated by Dr. Noorie Brantmeier and a teaching assistant for each section. The researcher has received permission from the facilitators to gain access to the announcements in Canvas for students enrolled in LTLE485 at James Madison University. LTLE485 is the only inverted classroom in the HRD minor and has been taught as an inverted classroom for the past three years under the same facilitators. Although the course is offered during the fall and spring semesters of the academic year, the researcher is only collecting data during the spring 2014 semester. The course has two sections for the spring 2014 semester. This research will be conducted at the completion of the spring 2014 semester through the implementation of an anonymous, web-based Qualtrics survey distributed to students enrolled in LTLE485 via an announcement in Canvas. It is anticipated that the survey should take ten to fifteen minutes to complete. The email will include a consent form with a cover letter requesting voluntary consent to participate in the survey, as well as a direct link to the Qualtrics survey. This survey will contain two methodologies to collect data, yielding both quantitative and qualitative responses (consisting of Likert scaled and open ended questions). FORMTEXT Will data be collected from any of the following populations? Minors (under 18 years of age); Specify Age: Prisoners Pregnant Women Fetuses Cognitively impaired persons Other protected or potentially vulnerable populationX Not Applicable FORMTEXT Where will research be conducted? (Be specific; if research is being conducted off of JMU’s campus a site letter of permission will be needed) James Madison University Human Resource Development MinorMemorial Hall 3310, MSC 6913Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807 FORMTEXT Will deception be used? If yes, provide the rationale for the deception: NoData Analysis FORMTEXT What methodology will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of the data (i.e., how and where data will be stored/secured, how data will be analyzed, who will have access to data, and what will happen to data after the study is completed?)Data will be stored and analyzed within Qualtrics, the online survey instrument being utilized for this research project. The survey being issued will be anonymous, in that there will be no identifying information attached to any of the research questions being asked. The researcher will not be present while the survey is being completed. Furthermore, any statistical information being analyzed for reporting purposes will be stored on a personal laptop computer that is password protected, with any statistical documents being password protected as well. A back-up copy of these documents may be kept on a portable hard drive, which will also be password protected. The researcher will be the only individual who will have any access to this data, which will remain within a password-protected electronic file once the research has been completed. At the end of the study, all records will be destroyed.Reporting Procedures FORMTEXT Who is the audience to be reached in the report of the study?The audience to be reached in the report of this study is the researcher’s committee members, which consists of three graduate faculty members within the AHRD/LTLE graduate school. These members are as follows:Dr. Noorjehan Kelsey Brantmeier – Committee ChairDr. Jane Thall – Committee Member / Program DirectorDr. Diane Wilcox – Committee Member / Program Coordinator FORMTEXT How will you present the results of the research? (If submitting as exempt, research cannot be published or publicly presented outside of the classroom)The results of this research will be presented to a Research Review Committee in a formalized classroom to the committee members listed above through a “defense” of the research and the resulting findings. FORMTEXT How will feedback be provided to subjects? Within the consent form contained in the email being sent to the survey participants, the researcher’s email address will be printed, so as to allow the participants to contact the researcher with feedback, questions or concerns regarding the study, as well as to give them the opportunity to learn about the results of the study, if they choose to inquire.Experience of the Researcher (and advisor, if student):Meganne Nicole Downey has an undergraduate degree in Communication Studies with a concentration in Public Relations from James Madison University. I am currently pursuing my master’s degree in Adult Education and Human Resource Development at James Madison University. I have completed coursework in Research Methods (Quantitative and Qualitative), Performance Analysis, Adult Learning, Educational Technology, and Foundations of Human Resource Development.Dr. Noorie Kelsey Brantmeier has a Ph.D. in Adult Education and Human Resource Studies with a specialization in research methods from Colorado State University. She has a master’s degree in social work from Washington University in St. Louis where she conducted research on social and economic development in Native American communities. Dr. Brantmeier has been a principal investigator, co-principal investigator, and/or research coordinator on studies related to the measurement of student attitudes regarding diversity in higher education; youth civic engagement; and adolescent attitudes toward violence. She holds the rank of Graduate Faculty at JMU and teaches research methods courses at both the master’s and doctoral levels.Past and current research methods courses taught include: PSY 840: Qualitative and Mixed Research MethodsAHRD/EDUC 630: Research Methods & InquiryAHRD 680/700: Reading & Research/ThesisCover Letter (Used in Anonymous Research)Identification of Investigators & Purpose of Study You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by Meganne Nicole Downey from James Madison University. The purpose of this study is to The primary concern of this survey is to develop a greater understanding of the instructional strategies of an inverted classroom’s impact on active learning goals in order to design an effective blended learning environment.? Active learning goals include: affective learning (attitudes, feelings, and perceptions), behavioral learning (procedures, operations, methods, and techniques), and cognitive learning (content). This study will contribute to the researcher’s completion of her master’s research in the Adult Education/Human Resource Development program.Research ProceduresThis study consists of an online survey that will be administered to individual participants using Qualtrics. You will be asked to provide answers to a series of questions related to your attitudes, feelings and perceptions, procedures, operations, methods and techniques, and content of in the Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE 485) course at James Madison University.Time RequiredParticipation in this study will require 10-15 minutes of your time.Risks The investigator does not perceive more than minimal risks from your involvement in this study (that is, no risks beyond the risks associated with everyday life).BenefitsPotential benefits from participation in this study include the focus on the impact of the instructional strategies utilized in an inverted classroom on the three major types of learning will provide educators and trainers an effective way to incorporate a successful inverted classroom. Confidentiality The results of this research will be presented to a Research Review Committee comprised of faculty members from the College of Education. While individual responses are obtained and recorded anonymously and kept in the strictest confidence, aggregate data will be presented representing averages or generalizations about the responses as a whole. No identifiable information will be collected from the participant and no identifiable responses will be presented in the final form of this study. All data will be stored in a secure location accessible only to the researcher. The researcher retains the right to use and publish non-identifiable data. At the end of the study, all records will be destroyed.Participation & Withdrawal Your participation is entirely voluntary. You are free to choose not to participate. Should you choose to participate, you can withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind; choosing not to participate will not affect your grade or your standing with the professor. However, once your responses have been submitted and anonymously recorded you will not be able to withdraw from the study.Questions about the StudyIf you have questions or concerns during the time of your participation in this study, or after its completion or you would like to receive a copy of the final aggregate results of this study, please contact:Meganne Nicole DowneyDr. Noorjehan BrantmeierAdult Education/Human Resource DevelopmentAdult Education/Human Resource DevelopmentJames Madison UniversityJames Madison Universitydowneymn@dukes.jmu.edu Telephone: (540) 568-4530Brantmnk@jmu.edu Questions about Your Rights as a Research SubjectDr. David Cockley Chair, Institutional Review BoardJames Madison University(540) 568-2834cocklede@jmu.eduGiving of ConsentI have read this cover letter and I understand what is being requested of me as a participant in this study. I freely consent to participate. I have been given satisfactory answers to my questions. I certify that I am at least 18 years of age. Meganne Nicole Downey Name of Researcher (Printed) Meganne Nicole Downey 09/25/2013Name of Researcher (Signed) DateAppendix BSurvey InstrumentThe following survey intends to gather data about students' perceptions of an inverted classroom model of instruction.? The information you provide will be completely anonymous because you will not supply any personal information, and you will not directly identify your answer to any question.? You will be asked a series of 11 questions pertaining to your experience in the inverted classroom Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485).Thank you for participating in this study.Q1 What is your current student level at James Madison University?FreshmanSophomoreJuniorSeniorOther ____________________Q2 What is your current major at James Madison University? (Please fill in your response)Q3 What is your gender?MaleFemalePrefer not to respondQ4 What best describes how you access the Internet for educational purposes? (Check all that apply)Personal Desktop or LaptopUniversity Desktop or LaptopSmart phoneTabletOther ____________________Q5 Have you ever been involved in an inverted classroom prior to the Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485) course?YesNoI don't knowQ6 For the following statements please indicate whether you agree or disagree based on your attitudes, feelings, and preferences of an inverted classroom model of instruction.Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeI enjoy learning course content outside of the classroom.I enjoy the online discussion boards.I enjoy engaging in hands-on activities inside of the classroom with the help of an instructor.Overall, I enjoy the inverted classroom model of instruction.Q7 For the following statements please indicate whether you agree or disagree based on the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of an inverted classroom model of instruction.Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeTechnology is an effective way to deliver course content outside of the classroom.Online discussion boards enhance learning.Hands on activities in class are an effective way to enhance learning and engagement.Overall, the inverted classroom model of instruction enhances learning.Q8 For the following statements please indicate whether you agree or disagree based on the content presented in an inverted classroom model of instruction.Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly AgreeI effectively learn the course content outside of the classroom.I effectively learn the content through online discussion boards.I effectively learn the course content through in-class activities with the help of an instructor.Overall, I effectively learn the content in the inverted classroom model of instruction.Q9 On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being very satisfied and 1 being very unsatisfied, what is your overall?satisfaction?level of the inverted classroom model of instruction?______ Overall, satisfaction of the inverted classroom model of instructionQ10 Overall, what are the major strengths of the inverted classroom model of instruction? (Please fill in your responses)Q11 Overall, what are the major weaknesses of the inverted classroom model of instruction? (Please fill in your responses)References Abdulwahed, M., & Nagy. Z. K. (2009). Applying Kolb’s experiential learning cycle for laboratory education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 283-294. Retrieved from of Human Resource Development Standing Committee on Ethics and Integrity (1999). Academy of Human Resource Development Standards on Ethics and Integrity. Retrieved from: , F., López, G., & Manrique, D. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 217-235. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00454.x Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Bellefeuille, G. L. (2006). Rethinking reflective practice education in social work education: A blended constructivist and objectivist instructional design strategy for a web-based child welfare practice course. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(1), 85-103. Retrieved from Cole, J. E., & Kritzer, J. B. (2009). Strategies for success: Teaching an online course. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28(4), 36-40. Retrieved from Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York , NY: McGraw-Hill.Fraser, B. J., Treagust, D. F., & Dennis, N. C. (1986). Development of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial environment at universities and colleges. Studies in Higher Education, 11(1), 43-54. Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Gedik, N., Kiraz, E., & Ya?ar ?zden, M. (2012). The optimum blend: Affordances and challenges of blended learning for students. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 102-117. Retrieved from Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19(0), 18-26. doi: Heinze, A., & Procter, C. (2006). Online communication and information technology education. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 235-249. Retrieved from , F. F., & Abulibdeh, E. S. (2012). The impact of asynchronous e-learning tools on interaction and learning in a blended course. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(2), 141-159. Retrieved from Jackson, A., Gaudet, L., McDaniel, L., & Brammer, D. (2009). Curriculum integration: The use of technology to support learning. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 6(7), 71-78. Retrieved from ; Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30-43. Retrieved from Levykh, M. G. (2008). The affective establishment and maintenance of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Educational Theory, 58(1), 83-101. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2007.00277.x Lui, A. (2012). Teaching in the Zone: An introduction to working within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) to drive effective early childhood instruction. Chilren’s Progress. Northwest Evaluation Association.Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Moisseeva, M., Steinbeck, R. & Seufert, S. (2007). Online learning communities and collaborative learning.Muniandy, B., Mohammad, R., & Fong, S. F. (2007). Synergizing pedagogy, learning theory and technology in instruction: How can it be done? Online Submission, Retrieved from , N. P., Dekhane, S., & Smith, S. (2011). Transitioning to blended learning: Understanding student and faculty perceptions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(1), 20-32. Retrieved from ; Puzziferro, M., & Shelton, K. (2008). A model for developing high-quality online courses: Integrating a systems approach with learning theory. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3-4), 119-136. Retrieved from ; Rourke, A. J., & Coleman, K. S. (2010). A learner support system: Scaffolding to enhance digital learning. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society, 6(1), 55-70. Retrieved from Silberman, M. (2006). Active Training (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Strayer, J. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193. doi: 10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4 Wang, M. (2010). Online collaboration and offline interaction between students using asynchronous tools in blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 830-846. Retrieved from ; Werner, J. M., & DeSimone, R. L. (2012). Human Resource Development (6th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western, Gengage Learning.Wood,?D.?J.,?Bruner,?J.,?&?Ross,?S.?(1976).?The?role?of?tutoring?in?problem-solving.?Journal?of?Child?Psychology?and?Psychiatry,?17,?89‐100.Zheng, R., McAlack, M., Wilmes, B., Kohler-Evans, P., & Williamson, J. (2009). Effects of multimedia on cognitive load, self-efficacy, and multiple rule-based problem solving. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 790-803. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00859.x ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download