British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 00 No 00 2017 00–00

doi:10.1111/bjet.12553

The effects of a flipped classroom approach on class

engagement and skill performance in a blackboard course

Mohamed Ali Nagy Elmaadaway

Mohamed Ali Nagy Elmaadaway is an Assistant professor in Deanship of scientific research at King Saud
University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and a lecturer in the Department of Educational Technology, Faculty of Specific
Education at Kafr El-Sheikh University, Egypt. His primary research interests include e-learning, distance learning,
flipped classrooms, e-books, clickers and learning management systems. He has several published research papers in
national and international journals, as well as presenting at a range of conferences. Dr Elmaadaway earned his
Master’s and PhD degrees in Educational Technology at Tanta University, Egypt Address for correspondence: Dr
Mohamed Ali Nagy, Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2454, Riyadh 11451, Saudi
Arabia. Email: prof_nagy@yahoo.com; melmaadaway@ksu.edu.sa

Abstract
This paper reports on a study that investigated whether a flipped classroom approach
enhanced perceptions of levels of engagement and skill performance among students
enrolled in a Blackboard course at a Saudi university. Fifty-eight participants were
divided into control and experimental groups, which were taught using a traditional
and a flipped approach respectively. To determine the effect of the approach on
participants’ perceived levels of engagement and skill performance, questionnaires were
administered and student performance was examined in terms of quantitative
descriptive analysis. The results revealed that participants in the experimental group
were more active and engaged compared with those in the control group. In terms of
classroom engagement specifically, participants in the experimental group exhibited
greater behavioral and emotional engagement. Through the flipped approach,
participants were able to study course content at home first, thereby preparing
themselves to participate in relevant class activities, pose questions and engage in
problem solving with peers. In addition, unlike in a traditional lecture, the instructor
was able to move freely through the classroom, providing direct assistance to
participants on a case-by-case basis.

Introduction
With technological advancements and the Internet, barriers to obtaining information have grad-
ually lessened or been removed, from both physical and cost perspectives. Simultaneously, the
ability to hide information or control its dissemination has become difficult. The open source soft-
ware movement and community-maintained sites, such as Wikipedia, promote information
exchange and the creation of tools in a decentralized manner (Stallman & Lessig, 2010), without
interference from media or corporate gatekeepers. In an educational context, the inherent adapta-
bility of technology enables instructors to use devices and software for a wide range of purposes,
such as in a flipped classroom, which entails a form of blended learning (Alvarez, 2011; Khan,
2012; Talbert, 2012).
Flipped learning, with its immense potential for imparting knowledge, has attracted attention
among researchers and educators. In flipped learning, multiple active classroom learning strat-
egies are used to engage students, such as presentations, small-group problem solving, self- and
C 2017 British Educational Research Association
V
2 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 00 No 00 2017

Practitioner Notes
What is already known about this topic?
• The flipped classrooms approach leads a new trend in educational technology.
• The flipped learning approach has captured the attention of researchers and edu-
cators in the education community, given its immense potentiality in imparting
knowledge. In this innovative approach, students’ learning environments require
application of more active learning strategies in the classroom.
• Scholarly research is limited regarding its impact on class engagement and skill
performance.
What this paper adds
• It facilitates a better understanding of what a flipped classroom is as well as its
benefits and challenges.
• It also provides detailed information about how to design a flipped classroom.
• It indicates that the students in flipped classrooms can be more engaged com-
pared with those in traditional classrooms.
• It provides insight into how the integration between technology and flipped class-
room can help students acquire different skills.
Implications for practice and/or policy
• This study implies that the flipped classroom approach can be a feasible solution
to issues related with undergraduate students’ engagement and skill performance.
• There are more learning activities, such as problem solving, quizzes, feedback and
other active learning tasks, all of which compel students to retrieve, apply and
extend material learned outside class.
• The flipped classroom altered the roles of both instructors and students. Instruc-
tors give up their front-of-the-class position to be more active and collaborative,
whereas students take more responsibility for their own learning.

peer-evaluation and group discussions (Kim, Kim, Khera, & Getman, 2014). This innovative
approach has gained acceptance owing to the widespread public adoption of advanced technolo-
gies, particularly evident among those born after 1980, exposed to and comfortable with
sophisticated technologies since childhood. Colleges and universities have consequently
attempted to integrate computers and other devices into their curricula to bridge traditional
teaching techniques with the continuous evolution of digital tools (Ferreri & O’connor, 2013).
Indeed, given that students’ attention during traditional lectures has been found to wane after
only 10 minutes, with retention of only 20% of the material presented, instructors must continu-
ously search for new and innovative approaches to instilling knowledge (Gilboy, Heinerichs, &
Pazzaglia, 2015). Flipped learning provides an appropriate alternative to conventional, unidirec-
tional forms of knowledge acquisition, as it can be used in conjunction with digital devices and
methods of content delivery with which students are highly familiar. This work discusses the
implementation of flipped learning in the context of an undergraduate Blackboard course at King
Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Literature review
A flipped classroom entails a novel instructional approach that employs lectures, videos, exercises
and activities, combining unique yet nonconflicting education theories based on active learning
C 2017 British Educational Research Association
V
 Effects of the flipped classroom approach 3

and consistent with behavioral theory (Clark, 2013). Content in a flipped classroom may be deliv-
ered to students via prerecorded or live video lectures, audio recordings, screencasts, annotated
notes, automated tutoring systems or computer simulation programs (O’Flaherty & Craig, 2015;
Tune, Sturek, & Basile, 2013). In flipped teaching, events ordinarily conducted in a physical class-
room are transformed through the pedagogical application of technology, thereby providing
students with learning opportunities previously unavailable (Lage, Platt, & Treglia, 2000). The
notion of flipping a classroom is not new, and can be likened to an instructor requesting students
to read a given text prior to class, enabling the instructor to discuss related concepts in a more
thorough manner (Pardo, Perez-Sanagustin, Hugo, Parada, & Leony, 2012; Strayer, 2012).
Rather than merely emphasizing the memorization of concepts and facts (ie, surface learning),
flipped learning promotes deep learning through active and constructive processes (Ritchhart,
Church, & Morrison, 2011), requiring instructors to embrace learner-centric rather than
learning-centric strategies (Roehl, Reddy, & Shanon, 2013).
The flipped approach affords students opportunities to learn individually and flexibly using elec-
tronic resources, with time ordinarily devoted to lecturing dedicated to discussion, activities and
problem solving. Discussions may be initiated by students who have grasped certain content inde-
pendently to assist peers. Flipped learning also allows those people, who lack the time to attend
traditional lectures, to pursue an education (O’Flaherty & Craig, 2015).
Bergmann, Overmyer, and Willie (2011) identified three key advantages to the flipped approach.
First, students familiarize themselves with course content prior to class (Moravec, Williams,
Aguilar-Roca, & O’dowd, 2010), becoming accustomed to using electronic devices for knowledge
acquisition in the long term. Second, course material is demystified and participation increased as
class time is devoted to practice exercises and active learning skill development related to stu-
dents’ daily lives. Third, without instructors as focal points in flipped classrooms, more time is
allotted to direct interaction among students. For example, Jamaludin and Osman (2014) showed
that flipped learning increased student participation and classroom interaction, also highlighting
the importance of emotional involvement in promoting active learning.
Mclaughilm et al. (2014) placed a series of video lectures for a pharmacy course online, devoting
class time to active learning strategies (eg, participatory activities, presentations and questions).
Participants reported that flipped learning assisted them in comprehending content during class.
Similarly, Gilboy et al. (2015) investigated video-based flipped learning among 142 pharmacy
students with a series of 10- to 15-minute video tutorials. Participants preferred this method to
traditional lectures, reporting that it assisted them in achieving the principles of active learning.
In terms of time, the flipped approach allows time to be devoted to specific topics that require clar-
ification or elaboration (Bergmann & Sams, 2012), which is crucial in higher education, in
which lecture time should be specified (Pluta, Richards, & Mutnick, 2013). In a flipped environ-
ment, students need only attend class if they require assistance that cannot be obtained through
other channels, thereby providing learners who require additional assistance appropriate support
(Davies, Dean, & Ball, 2013). Furthermore, Internet access to course content enables individuals
to review learning materials at any time and location at their own pace (Herreid & Schiller,
2013).
While instructors may have difficulty achieving a balance between traditional lecturing and the
implementation of active learning strategies (Strayer, 2012), the blended approach of flipped
teaching, with its use of technology to convey information ordinarily conveyed through face-to-
face lectures, frees class time for other activities. As shown by Mclaughilm et al. (2014) and Gil-
boy et al. (2015), lectures made available to students in video form prior to class prepare them to
participate in active learning tasks (Pierce & Fox, 2012). This freed time can be devoted to
C 2017 British Educational Research Association
V
4 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 00 No 00 2017

advanced concepts and cooperative learning (Tucker, 2012), and allows instructors to interact
with students and listen to their concerns (Stone, 2012), as well as to monitor performance and
provide feedback (Fulton, 2012; Herreid & Schiller, 2013).
In terms of learning, students who actively participate in class activities and discussions are more
likely to form connections between ideas and concepts compared with those involved in surface
learning alone (Hockings, Cooke, Yamashita, McGinty, & Bowl, 2008). Zayapragassarazan and
Kumar (2012) categorized active learning activities involving individuals, pairs, small informal
groups and cooperative projects, such as creating concept maps, brainstorming, collaborative
writing, cooperative learning, role playing, simulation, project-based learning, peer teaching and
situated learning. A number of such activities can be conducted using appropriate applications
on smart devices. Similarly, classroom response systems can provide instructors with immediate
feedback regarding student comprehension.
In terms of active learning, Jamaludin and Osman (2014) suggested that the classroom activities
of flipped learning create a positive environment that supports the learning process, increasing
students’ level of behavioral engagement. Moreover, engaging students in problem solving
enhances their relationships and sense of responsibility for their own learning, thereby increasing
their emotional engagement (Jamaludin & Osman, 2014). Simultaneously, the opportunity for
students to question the instructor increases their cognitive engagement. Thus, the principles of
active learning are applied in such a context.
With regard to behavioral engagement, Furrer and Skinner (2003) and Zimmerman (2000)
pointed out that this entails participation in various learning activities, attention, communication
and regular attendance. According to Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) and Greenwood,
Horton, and Utley (2002), behavioral engagement, including attention, participation and effort
in academic activities, is a strong and consistent predictor of a student’s educational outcomes. In
this regard, Fredricks et al. (2004) proposed that classroom engagement is a multidimensional
construct composed of behavioral, emotional and cognitive components. The flipped learning
approach appears to focus on each of these components. Hence, it may be effective in improving
educational outcomes.

Research questions
This study aimed to determine the effect of flipped teaching on (1) students’ perceived levels of
classroom engagement, and (2) students’ acquisition of electronic course design skills. The study
was conducted among educational technology students enrolled in a Blackboard course. Flipped
teaching was expected to yield better results compared with traditional teaching.

Method
Participants and design
The participants were 58 male fourth-year undergraduate students enrolled in a class on elec-
tronic course design at King Saud University during the first term of school year 2015. These
students are majoring in educational technology, which includes the mandatory course on creat-
ing electronic courses through Blackboard system, in preparation for their future career as
teachers. In this mandatory course, the students are required to attend class in a classroom and
to have access to the Blackboard system. The students have two access accounts. The first is for
student users, for students to use to follow the lessons, assignments and tasks. The second is the
instructor’s account, which the instructor creates and gives to the students to allow them the
chance to practice creating demo e-courses and applying what they have learned. The partici-
pants were randomly divided into control and experimental groups, each comprising 29
students. Participants’ average GPA scores over the past 3 years indicated homogeneity between
the two groups in terms of academic level. Females were excluded owing to the prohibition on
C 2017 British Educational Research Association
V
 Effects of the flipped classroom approach 5

gender mixing in Saudi classrooms. Participants attended class twice weekly for 2 hours over
8 weeks in a computer lab. Both groups were taught the same materials and completed identical
homework assignments. The same instructor taught both groups. Descriptive and inferential sta-
tistics were used to identify differences within and between groups. The control group received
traditional lectures concerning Blackboard practices and applied their knowledge in lab activities;
the instructor answered questions regarding difficult content and provided feedback; assignments
were completed at home. In contrast, the experimental (flipped) group watched videos of five to
20 minutes covering Blackboard topics at home, then asked the instructor questions they had
prepared prior to class, in which they completed lab assignments and other activities, such as dis-
cussions, problem solving and feedback giving.

Class activities and assignment

Students for both groups are welcome to use a lab that is equipped with computers, each with a
dedicated Internet connection. The computers are arranged in an oval to facilitate student inter-
action and allow the instructor to follow up on all the students.

Before the class

For the traditional class: The students do not know any information about the part they will learn
on the Blackboard system. If they have homework or assignments, they should finish their work
alone at home by logging in to their accounts.
For the flipped class: Video clips are previously prepared and then uploaded on the Blackboard
system. The students can access their account and watch the clips at home. The instructor asks
the students to write down their comments, observations and inquiries before attending class.
They are encouraged to mention the problems and difficulties faced while watching videos at
home as well as prepare the resources to be used during the class, which will be employed in cre-
ating e-course content. They may collect images, videos and other content, saved in a flash drive
or CD.

During the class

For the traditional class: The students attend class at the lab and the instructor explains the vari-
ous Blackboard skills needed to create online courses. He opens the site of Blackboard and the
students listen to his explanation on Blackboard skills and practice tasks. When the lecturer fin-
ishes a part, the students login to their accounts and apply what they learned. The lecturer
answers their questions, inquires and feedback regarding difficulties in the content.
For the flipped class: The instructor compliments the students and tells them that he followed
their activity through the Blackboard system, through the follow-up tool available to the instruc-
tor in the Blackboard system (this function gives a report on each student activity). Depending on
what students have learned from the video clips, he then assigns general tasks, on which students
work independently. An example is the creation of a new course through the Blackboard: give it
a name, add content, add goals and create tests. After the students complete the tasks, they are
asked to present their work to the class.
At the end of every class, the instructor asks students the difficulties they faced while watching
videos at home or working in class, as well as their opinion on the method of instruction in class.
They are asked whether they would recommend it as ideal for application in other subjects and
for their peers in other classes. In general, students are observed to be satisfied with this teaching
method.
For both groups, the instructor offers personalized support to each student. In certain cases, the
instructor may personally assist a student; otherwise, another student may be asked to help his
classmate. Indeed, students may be asked to play the role of instructor in class.
C 2017 British Educational Research Association
V
6 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 00 No 00 2017

Collective activities are assigned in class. The students may be required to form small groups, and
the group leader presents his group’s answer. Alternatively, a task may be assigned to the entire
class as a collective problem for public discussion. After each task, the instructor provides the
answers to questions and feedback.
After the class
For the traditional class: The instructor gives students homework and assignments to complete
by themselves at home. In addition, the instructor addresses the students’ comments on the
Blackboard course site and tracks the assignments for each student individually.
For the flipped class: Through in-class follow up, the instructor can identify the difficulties and
improve the learning management during class hours as well as ensure that students overcome
the same difficulties in future work assignments or activities.

Data collection and analysis

To measure perceptions of class engagement, participants completed a structured questionnaire
after the 8 weeks of class comprising 25-Likert scale items (5 5 strongly agree, 4 5 agree,
3 5 neutral, 2 5 disagree, 1 5 strongly disagree). The questionnaire, developed by the author based
on Jamaludin and Osman (2014), was divided into three sections pertaining to behavioral (10
items), cognitive (7 items) and emotional engagement (8 items). The validity of the engagement
questionnaire was examined by three experts in the field of educational technology and higher
education, who reviewed and edited the items for relevance, accuracy and clarity. The reliability
of the questionnaire was then evaluated by means of a pilot study, in which it was completed on
two occasions, 3 weeks apart, by a group of eight students. The Cronbach’s alpha values (Pallant,
2007) for all items exceeded 0.7, indicating their reliability.
To measure the Blackboard skills of every participant in both groups, the instructor completed a
skill performance card during an evaluation exercise at the end of the 8-week course. Participants
were requested to perform each of the 45 tasks in the order in which they appeared on the skill
card, and the instructor indicated whether or not the participant had demonstrated the relevant
skill (3 5 can perform, 2 5 do not know, 1 5 cannot perform). The 45 skills were categorized
according to the topics covered in the course, such as “Choose the structure of a course” in the
“Course building” section, and “Determine the receipt of assignments” in the “Dealing with
assignments” section. The validity of the skill card items was also examined by the three above-
mentioned experts, who suggested and approved changes. Reliability was established by means of
a pilot test with three observers rating the performance of eight students. The coefficient of agree-
ment among the three observers using Cooper’s formula was 90%, indicating reliability.
Descriptive quantitative analysis by comparison of the means and standard deviations of both
groups was performed using SPSS 22.

Results
Classroom engagement
As shown in Tables 1 and 2, flipped learning had significant effects (f 5 9.52, p > .05), with
flipped participants achieving higher scores than their traditional counterparts (with means of
107.75 and 75.03 respectively). These results suggest that the flipped approach contributed to
perceptions of increased classroom engagement.
Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations for each questionnaire item. Responses from
the flipped group were generally the most positive, and the highest mean score was achieved by
the flipped group for Item 3 (4.79), indicating that flipped group participants interacted with their
classmates more frequently. For other items, however, mean scores of the two groups were close
(such as 3.82 and 3.44 respectively, for Item 22).
C 2017 British Educational Research Association
V
 Effects of the flipped classroom approach 7

Table 1: Between-group t-test results: classroom engagement

Method N M SD SEM

Traditional 29 75.03 15.57 2.89

Flipped 29 107.75 10.68 1.98

Table 2: Independent samples t-test: classroom engagement

95% confidence
interval of the
difference
Equal Sig. Std. error
variances f Sig. t df (2-tailed) MD difference Lower Upper

Assumed 9.52 .003 29.33 56 .00 232.72 3.50 239.75 225.69

Not assumed 29.33 49.56 .00 232.72 3.50 239.77 225.67

The total of the means for engagement items shows that the flipped and traditional groups scored
12.87 and 9.05 respectively. The flipped group achieved consistently higher scores for individual
items (behavioral, 4.47; emotional, 4.23; cognitive, 4.15) (see Table 4 and Figure 1). Further-
more, flipped participants indicated generally high behavioral and emotional engagement,

Table 3: Means and standard deviations for all questionnaire items

No. SD M Group Statement

Behavioral engagement
1 I listen carefully to everything that is said in class. Trad. 2.82 1.28
Flip. 4.68 0.47
2 I ask questions about what I do not know. Trad. 2.41 1.26
Flip. 4.62 0.67
3 I interact with my peers during class. Trad. 2.48 1.42
Flip. 4.79 0.41
4 I strive to understand lessons during class. Trad. 3.06 1.43
Flip. 4.55 0.73
5 I am alert during class. Trad. 3.20 1.44
Flip. 4.55 0.57
6 I always participate in discussions with my teacher. Trad. 2.86 1.43
Flip. 4.51 0.68
7 I am always eager to attend class. Trad. 2.89 1.26
Flip. 4.41 0.77
8 I always complete my assignments. Trad. 2.41 1.37
Flip. 4.17 0.75
9 I prefer to complete activities and assignments during class Trad. 3.31 1.36
with my instructor and peers.
Flip. 4.24 0.87
10 Enough time is provided during class for practice activities Trad. 2.48 1.29
and discussions.
Flip. 4.20 0.94

C 2017 British Educational Research Association

V
8 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 00 No 00 2017

Table 3: Continued

No. SD M Group Statement

Cognitive engagement
11 I always ask the instructor about difficult content. Trad. 2.72 1.36
Flip. 3.96 0.94
12 I attempt to apply things that I learned during class. Trad. 2.75 1.37
Flip. 4.13 0.91
13 I relate to my peers and discuss with them what I learned at Trad. 2.79 1.44
home.
Flip. 4.51 0.57
14 I strive to acquire new knowledge about the course. Trad. 2.86 1.52
Flip. 3.86 0.99
15 Being familiar with the content prior to attending class Trad. 3.24 1.52
motivates me and increases my engagement.
Flip. 4.24 1.02
16 Preparing for lessons enables me to communicate better with Trad. 3.27 1.36
my peers and the instructor.
Flip. 4.17 1.16
17 Familiarizing myself with content prior to attending a lecture Trad. 3.13 1.24
enables me to share what I learned with others during
class.
Flip. 4.20 1.01
Emotional engagement
18 I enjoy the class. Trad. 3.44 1.15
Flip. 4.17 1.10
19 The teaching method practiced by the instructor is enjoyable. Trad. 3.20 1.26
Flip. 4.27 1.03
20 I enjoy the practice activities conducted during class. Trad. 3.27 1.33
Flip. 4.27 1.03
21 I enjoy studying content at home. Trad. 3.10 1.42
Flip. 4.17 1.19
22 I like it when the instructor asks me questions. Trad. 3.44 1.27
Flip. 3.82 1.19
23 I am optimistic when I go to class with an understanding of Trad. 3.48 1.29
the content.
Flip. 4.20 0.94
24 Participating in class discussions boosts my confidence. Trad. 3.10 1.51
Flip. 4.48 0.98
25 Solving and sharing problems during class is enjoyable. Trad. 3.20 1.63
Flip. 4.48 1.05

Note. Trad. 5 traditional; Flip. 5 flipped.

Table 4: Cumulative means and standard deviations for classroom engagement

M (SD)

Group Emotional Cognitive Behavioral

3.28 (1.36) 2.97 (1.40) 2.79 (1.36) Traditional

4.23 (1.06) 4.15 (0.94) 4.47 (0.69) Flipped

C 2017 British Educational Research Association

V
 Effects of the flipped classroom approach 9

Figure 1: Means and standard deviations for all questionnaire items

responding with either “agree” or “strongly agree,” while traditional participants did not,
responding with either “neutral” or “disagree.”
Effect size was calculated using Cohen’s (1988) formula. The results indicated no statistically sig-
nificant differences for the control group. Statistically significant differences were found for the
experimental group overall. Moreover, the overall differences between the control and experimen-
tal groups were statistically significant, with the effect size (2.45) exceeding Cohen’s (1988)
convention for a large effect (d 5 0.80). These results indicate that the flipped classroom approach
in this study had larger effects on classroom engagement compared with the traditional
approach.

Skill performance
As shown in Tables 5 and 6, a t-test showed that the difference between the traditional and
flipped groups was significant (f 5 8.80, p > .05). Flipped participants achieved a higher mean
score (131.62) than their traditional counterparts (115.89), indicating that the flipped approach
facilitated skill development with respect to the use of Blackboard tools.
Cohen’s (1988) formula for effect size showed no statistically significant differences for the
control group, and statistically significant differences for the experimental group overall.
Moreover, overall differences between the control and experimental groups were statistically
significant, with the effect size (2.13) exceeding Cohen’s (1988) convention for large effect
(d 5 0.80). This suggests that the flipped classroom approach had a large effect on the partic-
ipants’ acquisition of skills in creating e-courses through the Blackboard system, compared
with the traditional approach.
Table 5: Between-group t-test results for skill performance

Method N M SD SEM

Traditional 29 115.89 8.54 1.58

Flipped 29 131.62 6.05 1.12

C 2017 British Educational Research Association

V
10 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 00 No 00 2017

Table 6: Independent samples test for skill performance

95% confidence
interval of the
difference
Equal Sig. Std. error
variances f Sig. t df (2-tailed) MD difference Lower Upper

Assumed 8.80 .004 28.08 56 .00 215.72 1.94 219.61 211.82

Not assumed 28.08 50.47 .00 215.72 1.94 219.62 211.81

Student feedback
Based on the instructor’s follow up, the students can be grouped into two: those that preferred
the flipped approach and those that preferred the traditional approach. The first group expressed
their enthusiasm with the flipped classroom approach and confirmed that they preferred it to the
traditional way. Indeed, they asked the instructor to teach the rest of the material in this
approach. Students in this group showed behavioral changes: increased proactivity in class,
improved attendance during the experiment, total compliance with the assignment of preparing
questions on the content prior to attending class and enhanced participating in interactions with
peers and the instructor. Meanwhile, the other group of students, or those who preferred the tra-
ditional approach, showed no change in their classroom behavior, particularly in their tendency
to be absent during the experiment. There is no clear reason for this tendency; students may
have individual reasons for missing classes, such as extenuating conditions that prevent attend-
ance or boredom with traditional lectures. In general, the absenteeism ratio in the traditional
class is not remarkably large; it is in the normal range. Meanwhile, the flipped classroom moti-
vated the students to attend classes, and its absenteeism ratio was lower compared with the
traditional class, which can be attributed to the novelty of the flipped approach as a pedagogy,
with which the students reportedly felt happy.

Discussion
This study examined the effect of flipped teaching on students’ self-perceived classroom engage-
ment and Blackboard skill acquisition. The results revealed significantly higher perceived
classroom engagement in the flipped group, and participants reported a preference for the flipped
approach over other teaching methods, corroborating earlier findings (eg, Davies et al., 2013;
Jamaludin & Osman, 2014). It appears that the opportunity for participants to prepare course
content at home, and to participate in class activities with the instructor promoting active learn-
ing, allowed them to feel more engaged than in a traditional classroom.
In terms of skills, the flipped participants also reported superior results compared with the tradi-
tional participants. Watching the video material at home offered the opportunity for review and
mastery, as well as allowing participants to generate relevant questions for their instructor or
peers during class time. In contrast, participants in the traditional group may have been preoccu-
pied with note taking during lectures.
The present results suggest that a flipped approach may lead to greater classroom engagement
and better skill development. However, such an approach is dependent upon an effective design.
Furthermore, classroom activities need to be focused on discussion, problem solving, cooperation
and effective communication among instructors and peers.
A flipped classroom may create a climate that supports positive learning outcomes, but a number
of studies, such as that of Strayer (2012), report poorer student satisfaction with flipped than
with traditional classrooms in terms of structure and learning function.
C 2017 British Educational Research Association
V
 Effects of the flipped classroom approach 11

Indeed, during the present experiment, several challenges affected the implementation of a flipped
approach within the context of this electronic skill acquisition course, as students initially strug-
gled with the new and unfamiliar technology, taking time to adapt to and accept it. Instructors
need to be aware of the possibility that students will not be equally receptive to new ways of
teaching. Students may also feel forced to spend more time studying by watching video clips and
applying what they have learned, but this may not necessarily reduce their level of interest. As
the flipped approach requires students to take responsibility for their own learning, following up
on content by asking questions and making inquiries, they may need time to adapt to making
greater independent effort. The instructor may use the following strategies: encourage students to
make decisions on their learning; integrate technology to encourage active learning; ask students
to write what they learned, what difficulties they faced during learning, how these can be solved
through brainstorming, and what might help them next time and in other courses; introduce
direct feedback on students’ behavior or inquiries; use formative evaluation during the course;
and encourage students to learn according to their preferences.
The present study also revealed a further complication related to the use of technology in a flipped
approach, namely, that of technical problems students may encounter while watching video
material online or applying skills in a lesson. Such problems may be individual to a particular stu-
dent, and may relate to Internet connectivity limitations or device malfunction. In an ideal
scenario, all students would have free and equal access to all the necessary services and technical
devices.
Finally, the present study suggests that a flipped approach may make greater demands on an
instructor than traditional teaching. For example, the instructor in this study had to record and
edit the video footage and upload clips repeatedly, and design specific learning activities appropri-
ate for each piece of content. An instructor may also require more preparation time, as material
must be prepared for application in class, as must appropriate follow-up classroom activities.
Advance preparation is particularly crucial, as the instructor must be available for questions and
feedback during class.

Conclusions and implications

This study highlights the effectiveness of flipped teaching as an active learning approach in the
context of a Blackboard course. The theoretical framework was applied in designing an environ-
ment to enhance student engagement and skill development through student-centered active
learning, and the participants’ self-perceptions in this regard indicated the efficacy of the
approach. While these findings are encouraging, the above-mentioned demand on instructors
must be borne in mind, and they must be regarded as key partners in the design, implementation
and evaluation of such learning.
The present findings emphasize that the benefit of a flipped approach in education is contingent
on the appropriate design and implementation of activities. Furthermore, instructors need a
diverse range of skills to coordinate class activities, ensuring active participation, communication
and learning among all students in the class.
The flipped classroom approach showed that undergraduate students have the ability to control
their own learning at home if given the opportunity. At-home preparation for class encourages
better performance, as well as the appropriate content is appropriate and use of technology they
use daily, particularly computers and tablets. Meanwhile, the instructor in the flipped class must
take into consideration the other materials studied by students and, therefore, their total home-
work load. They should not lose sight of this when designating the expected time, it would take a
student to watch video clips and apply what they have learned at home; assignments should be
given in such volume as to avoid affecting students’ learning in other subjects. The instructor
C 2017 British Educational Research Association
V
12 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 00 No 00 2017

must also ensure in the flipped class that all students interact with one another and with the
instructor, which would enhance their communication skills and increase their desire to learn.
In terms of limitations and future directions, note that the present findings cannot be generalized,
owing to the small sample size and its limitation to undergraduate Saudi males. Future research
should include a larger number of participants of both genders from a wider range of contexts.
Studying the effects of a flipped approach among elementary and secondary school students may
be of particular interest. Generalization is also hindered by the relatively brief duration of the
experiment and its limitation to a Backboard management course. Future research should span a
greater length of time over a variety of courses. Furthermore, it must be noted that the present
data reflect only the participants’ perceptions of their level of class engagement and on the
instructor’s perceptions of their skill performance. Ideally, future research should aim to measure
both these aspects in an objective manner to reveal the benefits of a flipped learning approach.

Acknowledgement
The author extends his sincere appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud
University for funding this research under grant number RG-1435-061.

Statements on open data, ethics and conflict of interest

For inquiries or admission to the data sets collected during this research, please contact the
author via the contact information given at the correspondence section.
The study was approved by King Saud University. It complies with the ethical rules applicable for
this journal.
The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References
Alvarez, B. (2011). Flipping the classroom: homework in class, lessons at home. Learning First Alliance,
Retrieved from http://www.learningfirst.org/flipping-classroom-homework-class-lessons-home
Bergmann, J., Overmyer, J., & Willie, B. (2011). The flipped class: what it is and what it is not. The Daily
Riff, Retrieved from http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/the-flipped-class-conversation-689.php
Bergmann, J. & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom. Reach every student in every class every day. Washing-
ton, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
Clark, K. R. (2013). Examining the effects of the flipped model of instruction on student engagement and perform-
ance in the secondary mathematics classroom: An action research study. Ann Arbor, Capella University. Pro-
Quest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 384AQ5 3592584).
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integra-
tion in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Education Technology Research Develop-
ment, 61, 563–580.
Ferreri, S., & O’connor, S. K. (2013). Instructional design and assessment. Redesign of a large lecture
course into a small-group learning course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77, 1–9.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept,
state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: flip your classroom to improve student learning. Learning
& Leading with Technology, 39, 12–17.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–161.
Gilboy, M. B., Heinerichs, S., & Pazzaglia, G. (2015). Enhancing student engagement using the flipped
classroom. Journal of Nutrition and Behaviour, 47, 109–114.
Greenwood, C. R., Horton, B. T., & Utley, C. A. (2002). Academic engagement: current perspectives in
research and practice. School Psychology Review, 31, 328–349.
C 2017 British Educational Research Association
V
 Effects of the flipped classroom approach 13

Herreid, C., & Schiller, N. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching,
42, 62–66.
Hockings, C., Cooke, S., Yamashita, H., McGinty, S., & Bowl, M. (2008). Switched off? A study of disen-
gagement among computing students at two universities. Research Papers in Education, 23, 191–201.
Jamaludin, R., & Osman, S. Z. (2014). The use of a flipped classroom to enhance engagement and promote
active learning. Journal of Education and Practice, 5, 124–131.
Khan, S. (2012). The one world schoolhouse: Education reimagined. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an
urban university: an exploration of design principles. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37–50.
Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: a gateway to creating an inclusive
learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31, 30–43.
Mclaughilm, J. E., Roth, M. T., Glatt, D. M., Gharkholonarehe, N., Davidson, C. A., Griffin, L. M., et al.
(2014). The flipped classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health profes-
sions school. Academic Medicine, 89, 236–243.
Moravec, M., Williams, A., Aguilar-Roca, N., & O’dowd, D. K. (2010). Learn before lecture: a strategy that
improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9, 473–
481.
O’Flaherty, J., & Craig, P. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: a scoping review. The
Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95.
Pallant, J. F. (2007). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (3rd ed.). Crow’s
Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Pardo, A., Perez-Sanagustin, M., Hugo, A., Parada, H. A., & Leony, D. (2012). Flip with care. Proceedings
of SoLAR Southern Flare Conference. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/
232906379_Flip_with_care.
Pierce, R., & Fox, J. (2012). Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom” model of a
renal pharmacotherapy module. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76, 196.
Pluta, W., Richards, B., & Mutnick, A. (2013). PBL and beyond: trends in collaborative learning. Teaching
and Learning in Medicine, 25, S9–S16.
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: how to promote engagement,
understanding, and independence for all learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Roehl, A., Reddy, S., & Shanon, G. (2013). The flipped classroom: an opportunity to engage millennial stu-
dents through active learning strategies. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 105, 44–49.
Stallman, R. M., & Lessig, L. (2010). Free software, free society: selected essays of Richard M. Stallman.
Free Software Foundation, Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id5Rv9HewAACAAJ
Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task
orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15, 171–193. doi:10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4.
Stone, B. (2012). Flip your classroom to increase active learning and student Engagement. 28th Annual
Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning, Madison, WI. Retrieved from http://www.uwex.edu/
disted/conference/resource_library/proceedings/56511_2012.pdf.
Talbert, R. (2012). Inverted classroom. Colleagues, 9, 17–20.
Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12, 82–83.
Tune, J., Sturek, M., & Basile, D. P. (2013). Flipped classroom model improves graduate student perform-
ance in cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 37,
316–320.
Zayapragassarazan, Z., & Kumar, S. (2012). Active learning methods. NTTC Bulletin, 19, 3–5.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R.
Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic Press.

C 2017 British Educational Research Association

V