دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی اثر طبقه معکوس در دوره اصول اقتصاد خرد: یک شبه آزمایش با طرح های معکوس دو طبقه ای - الزویر 2018

ABSTRACT

This study uses a quasi-experimental, non-equivalent group design to analyze the outcomes in terms of students’ learning and satisfaction of the redesign of a first-year, principles of microeconomics course from a lecture-based course using active learning techniques in 2013 to a partial flipped classroom in 2014 and a full flipped classroom in 2015. Students perceived a higher degree of achievement of the learning goals in both flipped courses compared to the non-flipped active learning course. Moreover, participating in the partial or full flipped classroom decreased the odds of a D or F grade or of withdraw. However, only the partial flip was associated with overall better learning outcomes in the final exam, while there was no statistically significant difference between the non-flipped active learning course and the full flip. Age was negatively associated with learning outcomes and increased the odds of a D or F grade or of withdraw. Gender had no statistically significant impact on learning outcomes. Students were least satisfied with the full flip and equally satisfied with the non-flipped active learning course and the partial flip. Lower satisfaction appears to be due to increased workload, which students evaluated to be highest in the full flip, as well as to elements of group work design. In the flipped classroom design, the pre-class multiple choice tests on Moodle emerged as a clear favorite in students’ teaching evaluations.

4. Discussion and conclusions

4.1. Learning outcomes

Students perceived a higher degree of achievement of the learning goals in both flipped courses compared to the active, nonflipped course as reported in the students’ teaching evaluations. However, the linear regression analysis of model 1 suggests that only the partial flip was associated with better learning outcomes as measured by the final exam, while there was no statistically significant difference between the active, non-flipped course and the full flip. The lack of improvement in learning outcomes for the full flip is in line with Jensen et al. (2015) who did not find better outcomes from fully flipping the classroom when the control was a nonflipped, active learning classroom. Unfortunately, in our case it is not clear what drove the weaker learning outcomes of the full flip compared to the partial flip: was it the different degree to which the courses were flipped or an increase in workload? Although the instructor tried to design both flipped courses so that the workload would be the same as in the non-flipped, active learning course, according to student evaluations the workload was higher in the full flip compared to the other two courses. It has previously been suggested that flipping the classroom may unintentionally increase workload. Khanova et al. (2015) examined the student experiences when multiple flipped courses were offered within a single curriculum; they found that students were concerned about the increased workload associated with the flips. Excessive workload can induce students to adopt surface-learning strategies (e.g. Lizzio et al., 2002; Baeten et al., 2010). Thus it is possible that the increased workload might be one factor explaining the weaker learning outcomes of the full flip.