Flipped Classroom Method Combined with Project Based

Group Work

Ilona Béres ✉ and Márta Kis

( )

Methodological Department, Budapest Metropolitan University, Budapest, Hungary

{iberes,mkis}@metropolitan.hu

Abstract. The purpose of this paper is to present in practice how the flipped
learning approach works in the instruction of high number of higher education
students. This article presents the developed flipped classroom method combined
with project based group work in seminars. The participants were students
majoring in field of Communication, Business and Tourism. In order to examine
the efficiency of the implemented method and to confirm the positive or negative
learning experiences, students were asked to complete a feedback questionnaire.
In this paper we present the analysis of the opinions of 544 higher education
students.

Keywords: Active learning · Project work · Flipped classroom

1 Introduction

Our past experience in higher education is that students are difficult to achieve in class
student activity during practical courses. The expectation of higher education institutions
and employers, on the other hand, is to improve students’ collaborative, problem solving
and communication skills. Higher education institutions widely use blended learning
method to enhance traditional lecture-homework learning effects, where face-to-face
instruction is combined with technological supported learning activities outside the
classroom.
The latest research indicates that an active learning method can be an effective
approach for present age higher education students [6, 10, 13]. The literature suggests
that students’ engagement is essential in effective teaching/learning process. Students
who are more involved will be more active and challenged learners [1, 12]. Innovative
approaches in higher education are shifting away from teacher centered instruction to
student centered learning. One of the recently used technology enhanced learning
models is known as a flipped classroom or an inverted classroom method. This model
provides an opportunity for teachers to use a range of innovative teaching/learning
approaches. These approaches are described in the next section.

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

M. E. Auer et al. (eds.), Teaching and Learning in a Digital World,
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 715,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73210-7_65
554 I. Béres and M. Kis

2 Theoretical Framework

The active learning techniques integrate the student centered learning methods such as
cooperative learning, problem-based learning, project based learning and peer assisted
learning. These learning approaches mean that students work in groups in order to
develop and reach their learning goals. The active learning process increases effective‐
ness of students [6, 10, 13]. In problem or project based learning environment, acquiring
knowledge and the learning process are based on problem solving. Students themselves
decide the type of knowledge that is necessary to solve the given real life problem and
task [3]. This method develops (1) flexible knowledge, (2) problem solving skills, (3)
self-directed learning skills, (4) collaboration skills [4]. In cooperative and collaborative
learning environment, students communicate more about the issued presented by educa‐
tors than they do when teachers present learning content [2].
In a flipped classroom, traditional lectures are moved outside the classroom. Knowl‐
edge construction is disseminated through online learning content. This content is
processed by students individually before in class activities. Classroom time is then used
to apply acquired knowledge in complex problems. In the last years numerous educa‐
tional researches focused on this flipped classroom method. In this respect, there are
several definitions describing flipped learning. “In the Flipped Learning model, teachers
shift direct learning out of the large group learning space and move it into the individual
learning space, with the help of one of several technologies” [7]. The pre-recorded
lectures can be made available to students as homework, leaving class time open for
interactive learning activities — activities that cannot be automated [11]. Figure 1 shows
the difference between the traditional non-flipped classroom approach and flipped class‐
room method.

Fig. 1. Traditional classroom vs. Flipped classroom (based on [8])

 Flipped Classroom Method Combined with Project Based Group Work 555

We define the flipped classroom as an active teaching/learning method, which is

comprised of two parts: (a) computer-based individual, self-directed learning outside
the classroom; (b) open ended problem based collaborative work and activities inside
the classroom.
Based on literature there are many studies focused around the efficiency of flipped
classroom method. Studies have been developed in different courses such as engineering,
information systems, statistics [4, 5, 9, 14].
Our study presents a flipped classroom model that attempts to achieve learning goals
through the involvement and positive learning experience of students.

3 Research Goals

Our aim was to increase students’ activity and problem solving skills during the course
with an output of an active, flexible learning model that can be well adapted within
higher education. Our main goals were:
1. to increase students responsibility and motivation in their own learning process
2. to increase students activity during the course
3. to support effective collaboration between students
4. to develop project tasks which increase individuality, responsibility
5. to analyze students attitudes and behavior in a project work situation and opinions
about the applied method
In our experimental course, we had implemented flipped classroom method
combined with project based group work in seminars. This research focuses on student
behavior, involvement and activity during the course.

4 Course Design

This method was developed for Information Technology I (IT I) course in the 2016/17
fall semester. The participants were 700 first year students majoring in business admin‐
istration and management, commerce and marketing, communication and media
science, finance and accounting, human resources, international business economics,
tourism and catering.
To achieve our goals a course model was developed that combines the flipped method
with project-based learning and a collaborative evaluation. Figure 2 presents the weekly
tasks in our applied model.
556 I. Béres and M. Kis

Fig. 2. Weekly tasks in developed course model

Before class objectives: Development of effective e-learning content. The online

learning material, examples were uploaded on university Learning Management System
(LMS) weekly. Students were required to process the learning material independently.
A lot of work was invested in generating open ended project tasks all geared toward
motivating students. The assessment method is important part of our model. The form
of evaluation was developed for every project task.
In class objectives: All students had to take part weekly in interactive seminars.
During these seminars, students in groups of three were asked to develop a complex task
based on gathered knowledge. During these in-class activities, they worked as a project
team and implemented project work. Their task was to understand the problem, divide
it into sub-tasks, and apply the mastered tools, theoretical and practical knowledge to
arrive to a solution.
As part of project work teams collected data, selected an appropriate technology and
examination method independently. Different teams arrived at different project solu‐
tions; finally, they presented their own work and results.
The student teams’ project work was evaluated weekly based on evaluation form.
Projects were then awarded a total number of points, which were then divided amongst
themselves by students. Students were asked to take into account the individual value
added by each team member in the collective team work when allocating points.
Performance of students was measured by the weekly project works (50%) and an
individual final examination (50%).
The quality and effectiveness of the used method was ensured by the students’ feed‐
back. Students submitted an online questionnaire about their opinion, they evaluated
their own activities products and how the aims of the course were fulfilled.
 Flipped Classroom Method Combined with Project Based Group Work 557

5 Analyses and Results

In order to examine the efficiency of the implemented method and to gather students’
experiences, we carried out a questionnaire analysis in the second semester of the
2016/2017 school year, during the first practice course of IT II classes. As this subject
is only available to those students who have already successfully completed IT I., there‐
fore this survey shows the opinions of students who have already been efficient in the
IT I course. 544 students have filled in the questionnaire. Out of them, 80 have already
completed the prerequisite course (IT I), and 464 students have learned via the new
method. These 80 students can be considered as a control group when analysing our
questionnaire.
This IT subject is learnt by students of the CBT area (Communication, Business and
Tourism). The diagram below (Fig. 3) shows the different majors of the students who
filled in the questionnaire.

Fig. 3. Distribution of students by major (N = 544)

A very important element of the new method is to provide a possibility for those
with limited basic knowledge to prepare by using online materials. Therefore we were
curious to find out the extent to which this opportunity was used. The result is quite
mixed: it is clear that half of the students using the new method have prepared for at
least 50% of the tasks (Fig. 4). In comparison with the results of previous years, there
is a significant increase among those who have prepared separately for each class (for
70–100% of the classes). The number of students in this category has tripled (has
increased from 6% to 20%).
558 I. Béres and M. Kis

Fig. 4. Percentage of classes students prepared for (N = 464)

Out of the 464 interviewed students, 426 claimed to have prepared for a certain
percentage of the classes. We have examined the periods of average preparation of those
who studied the supporting materials previously. This time spent for preparation was
mostly between half an hour and one hour. We can see from the diagram (Fig. 5), those
students, who spent little time with preparation, have only prepared for a maximum of
20% of the classes (i.e. 1–2 classes), while there is quite a high number of those, who
have spent less than half an hour with preparation. On the other hand, when considering
he most diligent students, who have prepared for more than 70% of the classes (i.e. at
least 9 classes out of 12), there is a significant increase of those who spent more time
with preparation at home.

Fig. 5. How many classes have you prepared for and how much time have you spent with
preparation? (N = 426)

When we examine the relation between the number of classes students prepared for,
the amount of time spent with preparation and the effectiveness of the student, the result
is the following.
There is a medium positive relationship (R = 0.43) between the number of occasions
the student has prepared for classes and the amount of time spent on preparation. There
is a weak positive relationship (R = 0.15) between the number of occasions spent with
preparation and the achieved result. Surprisingly enough, though, the amount of time
spent on preparation and the achieved result do not show (R = 0.01) a stochastic
 Flipped Classroom Method Combined with Project Based Group Work 559

connection in the case of interviewed students. The main reason for this can be that in
the case of this subject, the final result is greatly influenced by previous knowledge.
Therefore someone with a solid basic knowledge did not need home preparation for
good results, but those with weaker previous knowledge spent more time on preparation,
which may have resulted in a medium grade result only.
The new method was launched in 38 groups of 20 students, with the participation of
nine teachers, so continuous and coordinated work was very important. We paid atten‐
tion to the feedback and effectiveness of the students during the semester, as well as the
extent to which we could put our previous plans into practice. We shared our experiences
and refined the method to make it more effective.
We have received more feedbacks from students and it was hard for us to decide
whether those are general and refer to everyone or not. Someone would have needed a
short presentation of the day’s curriculum at the beginning of the class, others have asked
for a more detailed task description, or more active teacher’s participation in solving
task during the classes. However, more have given feedback that everything is fine as
it is and they were happy to work.
One of the goals of having a questionnaire filled out at the end of the year is to
examine the individual feedbacks from students and see to what extent these are general
or not, and what was the most difficult for them when studying using the new method.
They had to grade several statements on a scale from 1 to 5, showing how true those
statements are in relation to themselves. The following chart (Table 1) shows these
statements and the average results:

Table 1. Some statements of questionnaire and an average score of answers

To what extent are the following statements true? (1-not at all, 5-very much so)
We had to solve tasks on our own: it was more difficult, but I understood the material 3,1
better
In case I did not deal with the material at home, it was very difficult to do the tasks 2,8
during class
It was good to work in teams, because we could help each other and could work quicker 4,2
I enjoyed having more creative tasks where we could find out what to examine 3,6
It was difficult to understand what the task was 2,3
It would have been good to see a sample of what to do in a given class 3,5
I think the evaluation system is fair 3,9
I received a grade that I deserved 4,0
This form of education requires a lot of energy from the students 2,5
This method is more effective to learn with than the usual frontal education 3,6
I find the things I studied during IT I. useful 3,8
I am satisfied with the available supporting materials 3,8

We can see from the values, students basically like the new way of learning. What
they enjoyed most was teamwork (Fig. 6), which was not characteristic at all of this
subject before.
560 I. Béres and M. Kis

Fig. 6. Opinion about teamwork (N = 464)

A major element of the flipped classroom method is home preparation, so it is

important to measure the extent to which they can use the available supporting materials
for individual learning. We can see from the feedbacks (Fig. 7) that basically students
are satisfied with them, but this element of the method can surely be developed. The
analysis and perfection of this is a task for the future.

Fig. 7. Satisfaction with available supporting materials (N = 464)

It is useful to examine how effective the new education method was considered in
relation to the achieved grade (Fig. 8). So whether in the future they would rather learn
by the traditional method used earlier, or whether they would choose the flipped class‐
room method combined with project based group work, which demands a higher level
of independence?
As you can see from the diagram (Fig. 8), every group (regardless of the achieved
grade) was happier to learn with the new method. Obviously, the greatest difference was
among students with the highest grade (5), in favour of the new method.
The questionnaire analysis has reinforced what we have already experienced in the
classrooms: it was worth to change and we are on the right track, in spite of the high
level of investment. Naturally, refinement is still necessary, but the education model we
set up is effective, and gives more joy for both the teachers and the students.
 Flipped Classroom Method Combined with Project Based Group Work 561

Fig. 8. Is it more effective to learn with this method than with the traditional education? (N = 464)

6 Conclusions

Developing a flipped classroom required a lot of effort on the part of teachers and new
learning behavior on the part of students. Instructors have to develop weekly (a) web
based learning content which support individual learning, (b) quality project tasks which
are motivating and involve students, (c) evaluation of the students’ projects required
more effort on the part of the instructors.
One important advantage of this flipped classroom model is the enhancement of
students’ responsibility in their own learning process. They were required to learn the
material before classroom activities, thus students had to take an active part in their own
learning. This approach is new and was sometimes uncommon for our students. The
prior knowledge of our students is quite diverse. As a result of this approach, students
who were lacking in prior knowledge or are slower learners had an opportunity to spend
more time with material; they could acquire the learning content at their own pace.
Flopped classroom technique increases the ‘a priori’ involvement of students. Students
were actively involved in their own knowledge building process; they could make sure
that they had understood things correctly on a weekly basis by solving complex project
tasks based on gathered knowledge. During the in-class activities it was a real workshop
atmosphere. When instructors were asked of their opinion, they noted that the activity
of students during the course had increased significantly. Students felt their projects
tasks and their results as their own property. An interesting case that demonstrates
students’ engagement: a student who is a sport competitor (who did not attend all of the
classes), whenever he could attend the lecture, he actively took part in the group work.
During one lesson he was abroad in a training camp, when his teammates had contacted
him on Facebook in order to help the team in problem solving, when they couldn’t.
Everyone enjoyed the situation, and teacher supported their ingenuity.
Implemented evaluation method provides an opportunity to evaluate students own
and peers value added in project work. This is an effective tool for developing critical
thinking skills. The marks were shared by the students taking into account their indi‐
vidual value added. We can conclude that most students were satisfied with their own
grades. No student was protesting against the grade given to him by his team.
562 I. Béres and M. Kis

The final examination results shows that performance of students in flipped class‐
room approach is not significantly better than previous years traditional lectures-home‐
work learners’ results. However based on the students opinion and instructors observa‐
tion inverting the classroom and integrating project work brought positive change in
students’ in-class behavior, their activity was undoubtedly better. Based on student
feedbacks we can state that they enjoyed this experience and think it supported their
learning process effectively.

References

1. Barkely, E.: Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. Josses-Bass,
Hoboken (2009)
2. Boud, D., Cohen, R., Sampson, J.: Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning from and
with Each Rutledge (2014). https://books.google.hu/
3. Béres, I., Kis, M., Licskó, L., Magyar, T.: Technological support of web based project work
in higher education. In: 2011 14th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative
Learning (ICL), pp. 209–213. IEEE (2011)
4. Bishop, J.L., Verleger, M.A.: The flipped classroom: a survey of the research. In: ASEE
National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, vol. 30, no. 9 (2013)
5. Davies, R.S., Dean, D.L., Ball, N.: Flipping the classroom and instructional technology
integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educ. Technol. Res.
Dev. 61(4), 563–580 (2013)
6. Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., Wenderoth,
M.P.: Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and
mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111(23), 8410–8415 (2014)
7. Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., Arfstrom, K.M.: A review of flipped learning
(2013). http://flippedlearning.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/LitReview_FlippedLearning.
pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2017
8. Jensen, J.L., Kummer, T.A., Godoy, P.D.D.M.: Improvements from a flipped classroom may
simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE—Life Sci. 14, 1–12 (2015). http://
www.lifescied.org/content/14/1/ar5.full.pdf+html/. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. Spring
9. Mason, G.S., Shuman, T.R., Cook, K.E.: Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted
classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Trans.
Educ. 56(4), 430–435 (2013)
10. Michael, J.: Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Adv. Physiol. Educ. 30(4),
159–167 (2006)
11. Mok, H.N.: Teaching tip: the flipped classroom. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 25(1), 7–11 (2014). http://
ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3363&context=sis_research. Accessed
29 Sept 2016
12. O’Flaherty, J., Phillips, C.: The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: a scoping
review. Internet Higher Educ. 25, 85–95 (2015)
13. Prince, M.: Does active learning work? A review of the research. J. Eng. Educ. 93(3), 223–
231 (2004)
14. Strayer, J.F.: How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and
task orientation. Learn. Environ. Res. 15(2), 171–193 (2012)