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.
