Information and Communication Technologies for Education Considering the Flipped Learning Model
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Related Works
3. Problem Formulation and Methodology
4. Analysis of Results
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sandia, B.E.L.M. Apropiación de las Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación como Generadoras de Innovaciones Educativas. Cienc. Docencia Tecnol. 2019, 30, 267–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inga, E.; Inga, J.; Cárdenas, J. Planning and Strategic Management of Higher Education Considering the Vision of Latin America. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Memon, T.D.; Jurin, M.; Kwan, P.; Jan, T.; Sidnal, N.; Nafi, N. Studying learner’s perception of attaining graduate attributes in capstone project units using online flipped classroom. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, X.L.; Kim, H.S.; Lai, W.H.; Hwang, G.J. Cognitive regulations in ICT-supported flipped classroom interactions: An activity theory perspective. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 51, 103–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNally, B.; Chipperfield, J.; Dorsett, P.; Del Fabbro, L.; Frommolt, V.; Goetz, S.; Lewohl, J.; Molineux, M.; Pearson, A.; Reddan, G.; et al. Flipped classroom experiences: Student preferences and flip strategy in a higher education context. Higher Educ. 2017, 73, 281–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inga, E.; Inga, J. Innovación Educativa para Gestión y Planeación de la Educación Superior Basado en Responsabilidad Social. In Estrategias Didácticas para la Innovación en la Sociedad del Conocimiento; CIMTED: Antioquia, Colombia, 2019; pp. 13–35. [Google Scholar]
- Blasco, A.C.; Lorenzo, J.; Sarsa, J. The flipped classroom and the use of educational software videos in initial teaching education. Qualitative study. Tic. Rev. D’Innovació Educ. 2016, 17, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cárdenas, J.; Inga, E. Methodological experience in the teaching-learning of the English language for students with visual impairment. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergmann, J.; Sams, A. Nuestra historia: ¿Cómo crear una “clase al revés?”. In Dale la Vuelta a tu Clase; Ediciones MS: Madrid, Spain, 2014; pp. 13–23. [Google Scholar]
- Chou, C.M.; Shen, C.H.; Hsiao, H.C.; Shen, T.C. Factors influencing teachers’ innovative teaching behaviour with information and communication technology (ICT): The mediator role of organisational innovation climate. Educ. Psychol. 2019, 39, 65–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunawardena, L.; Pitigala Liyanage, M.P. Flipped Classrooms Using Social Networks: An Investigation on Learning Styles. In Proceedings of the 2018 7th International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics, IIAI-AAI 2018, Yonago, Japan, 8–13 July 2018; pp. 956–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hung, C.Y.; Sun, J.C.Y.; Liu, J.Y. Effects of flipped classrooms integrated with MOOCs and game-based learning on the learning motivation and outcomes of students from different backgrounds. Interac. Learn. Environ. 2019, 27, 1028–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Artal-Sevil, J.S.; Castel, A.F.G.; Gracia, M.S.V. Flipped teaching and interactive tools. A multidisciplinary innovation experience in higher education. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Higher Education Advances 2020, Valencia, Spain, 2–5 June 2020; pp. 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stöhr, C.; Demazière, C.; Adawi, T. The polarizing effect of the online flipped classroom. Comput. Educ. 2020, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yangari, M.; Inga, E. Article educational innovation in the evaluation processes within the flipped and blended learning models. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koh, J.H.L. Three approaches for supporting faculty technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) creation through instructional consultation. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 51, 2529–2543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leiva Núñez, J.P.; Ugalde Meza, L.; Llorente-Cejudo, C. The TPACK model in initial teacher training: Model University of Playaancha (Upla), Chile. Pixel-Bit Rev. Medios Educ. 2018, 2, 165–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, Y.; Harp, C. Examining preservice teachers’ TPACK, attitudes, self-efficacy, and perceptions of teamwork in a stand-alone educational technology course using flipped classroom or flipped team-based learning pedagogies. J. Dig. Learn. Teacher Educ. 2020, 36, 166–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veytia Bucheli, M.G.; Flores, L.G.; Moreno Tapia, J. Clase invertida para el desarrollo de la competencia: Uso de la tecnología en estudiantes de preparatoria. Rev. Educ. 2019, 44, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mohamed, H.; Lamia, M. Implementing flipped classroom that used an intelligent tutoring system into learning process. Comput. Educ. 2018, 124, 62–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLaughlin, J.E.; White, P.J.; Khanova, J.; Yuriev, E. Flipped Classroom Implementation: A Case Report of Two Higher Education Institutions in the United States and Australia. Comput. Schools 2016, 33, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramos, M.N. RELATEC Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa The personalization of digital educational environments based on learning styles and cognitive styles. A systematic review of its efficacy and perception. Información del artículo Resumen. Rev. Latinoam. Tecnol. Educ. 2016, 15, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inga, E.; Hincapié, R. Creación de artículos académicos basados en minería de datos y Web 2.0 para incrementar la producción científica en ingeniería. Rev. Educ. Ing. 2015, 10, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srivastava, P. Educational informatics: An era in education. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Conference on Technology Enhanced Education, ICTEE 2012, Amritapuri, India, 3–5 January 2012; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Samarraie, H.; Shamsuddin, A.; Alzahrani, A.I. A Flipped Classroom Model in Higher Education: A Review of the Evidence Across Disciplines; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2020; Volume 58, pp. 1017–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bond, M. Facilitating student engagement through the flipped learning approach in K-12: A systematic review. Comput. Educ. 2020, 151, 103819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, A.S.; Zaid, N.M.; Harun, J. Enhancing students ICT problem solving skills using flipped classroom model. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 8th International Conference on Engineering Education: Enhancing Engineering Education Through Academia-Industry Collaboration, ICEED 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 7–8 December 2016; pp. 187–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fita, I.C.; Molto, G.; Fita, A.; Monserrat, J.F.; Mestre, E. On the introduction of Flipped teaching across multi-disciplinary fields. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training, ITHET 2015, Lisbon, Portugal, 11–13 June 2015; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mital’, D.; Dupláková, D.; Duplák, J.; Mital’ová, Z.; Radchenko, S. Implementation of Industry 4.0 Using E-learning and M-learning Approaches in Technically-Oriented Education. TEM J. 2021, 10, 368–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serrano Pastor, R.; Casanova López, O. Recursos tecnológicos y educativos destinados al enfoque pedagógico Flipped Learning. Rev. Docencia Univ. 2018, 16, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeh, Y.C. Student Satisfaction with Audio-Visual Flipped Classroom Learning: A Mixed-Methods Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masoumi, D. Situating ICT in early childhood teacher education. Educ. Inform. Technol. 2020, 33, 3009–3026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sosa Díaz, M.J.; Palau Martín, R.F. Flipped classroom para adquirir la competencia digital docente: Una experiencia didáctica en la Educación Superior. Pixel-Bit Rev. Medios Educ. 2018, 169, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salazar, N.E. Teaching mentoring program for the application of active methodologies and ICT tools. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, 2017, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 18–21 October 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Oliveira Fassbinder, A.G.; Moreira, D.; Cruz, G.; Barbosa, E.F. Tools for the flipped classroom model: An experiment in teacher education. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, Madrid, Spain, 22–25 October 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chu, H.C.; Yang, C. Learning Achievements and Attitudes in a Computer Science Course: Activating Students Flipped Learning via ICT Technologies. In Proceedings of the 2017 6th IIAI International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics, IIAI-AAI 2017, Hamamatsu, Japan, 9–13 July 2017; pp. 619–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bond, M.; Marín, V.I.; Dolch, C.; Bedenlier, S.; Zawacki-Richter, O. Digital transformation in German higher education: Student and teacher perceptions and usage of digital media. Int. J. Educ. Technol. Higher Educ. 2018, 15, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palazón-Herrera, J. Audiovisuals for instrumental practice in a flipped classroom setting. Rev. Electron. LEEME 2018, 42, 54–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sargent, J.; Casey, A. Flipped learning, pedagogy and digital technology: Establishing consistent practice to optimise lesson time. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2020, 26, 70–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lucke, T.; Dunn, P.K.; Christie, M. Activating learning in engineering education using ICT and the concept of ‘Flipping the classroom’. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2017, 42, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Husár, J.; Dupláková, D. Evaluation of Foreign Languages Teaching in LMS Conditions by Facility and Discrimination index. TEM J. 2016, 5, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Country | Articles | Citations |
---|---|---|
USA | 633 | 8681 |
China | 208 | 1356 |
England | 73 | 288 |
Australia | 109 | 2315 |
Taiwan | 144 | 2133 |
Canada | 57 | 1086 |
Malaysia | 39 | 217 |
Spain | 264 | 967 |
Singapore | 12 | 117 |
South Korea | 49 | 234 |
University | Articles | Citations |
Univ. Granada | 57 | 213 |
Natl Taiwan Univ. Sci./Technol. | 34 | 554 |
Univ. Hong Kong | 31 | 402 |
Univ. Extremadura | 21 | 172 |
Educ. Univ. Hong Kong | 20 | 101 |
Natl. Taiwan Normal Univ. | 20 | 303 |
Univ. N Carolina | 19 | 801 |
Monash Univ. | 17 | 531 |
Univ. Zaragoza | 16 | 35 |
Univ. Murcia | 15 | 18 |
Survey | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Do students have a positive perception of a Flipped Learning methodology when it is applied in class? | 14 | 43 | 7 | 1 | 1 |
2. Is there a positive influence on students’ emotions when using a Flipped Learning methodology? | 15 | 42 | 7 | 2 | 0 |
3. Do students in a Flipped Learning scenario perform better academically than students in a traditional (lecture) setting? | 11 | 37 | 12 | 6 | 0 |
4. Does the Flipped Learning annexed with ICT (videos, infographics, and videos.) favor a more practical than theoretical class? | 27 | 31 | 5 | 2 | 1 |
5. Does the Flipped Learning Model linked to ICT favor the effectiveness of the teaching–learning process compared to the Traditional Model? | 18 | 38 | 4 | 5 | 1 |
6. Does watching short educational videos from YouTube benefit and allow you to gain pre-classroom knowledge? | 13 | 42 | 9 | 1 | 1 |
7. Do real-time response systems (Socrative and Kahoot) allow measuring the level of knowledge at the very moment of the class before viewing videos or explaining the teacher’s support? | 11 | 36 | 16 | 3 | 0 |
8. Do video editors (Screencast-O-Matic, Windows Movie Maker, Imovie, PlayPosit, and EdPuzzle) facilitate the process of creating videos to be shared before the class? | 10 | 32 | 21 | 3 | 0 |
9. Do Moodle, Canvas, and Google Classroom, as a pillar of flipped learning, facilitate students’ learning pace by hosting unit sequences, tutorials, and learning resources? | 19 | 36 | 9 | 2 | 0 |
10. Does the use of forms (Microsoft Forms, Google Forms) facilitate collecting data from an assessment moments before or at the end of the class? | 24 | 34 | 6 | 2 | 0 |
11. Do you use Learning Management Systems (LMS): Moodle, Canvas, Google Classroom, Blackboard? | 17 | 27 | 16 | 4 | 2 |
12. Do you apply videoconferencing tools (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, GoToMeeting, Hangouts, and Skype) at work? | 45 | 14 | 6 | 1 | 0 |
13. Does WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger give an informal image or little institutional in the learning processes? | 11 | 18 | 15 | 18 | 4 |
14. Do you use Pen Tablet (graphic tablet-digital display) to solve doubts about the contents exposed during the teaching process? | 11 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 17 |
15. Do content creation tools (Genially, Office Mix, Prezi, and PowerPoint) facilitate content presentation before and during class? | 27 | 30 | 7 | 1 | 1 |
16. Does Flipped Learning, together with the ICTs mentioned above, facilitate content comprehension? | 28 | 31 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
17. Is it meaningful for students to publish the results of their educational projects using appropriate ICT? | 22 | 33 | 8 | 2 | 1 |
18. Does ICT facilitate a good evaluation process with a Flipped Learning approach? | 20 | 34 | 9 | 3 | 0 |
19. Do ICTs implement in Flipped Learning provide the execution of new learning activities with high didactic potential? | 24 | 30 | 9 | 3 | 0 |
20. Do the ICTs you use for Flipped Learning favor the processing of information to construct new knowledge learning? | 24 | 34 | 6 | 2 | 0 |
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Questions | Strongly Agree Survey % | Agree % | Undecided % | In Disagreement % | Strongly Disagree % |
Q1 | 21 % | 65 % | 11 % | 2 % | 1 % |
Q2 | 23 % | 64 % | 10 % | 3 % | 0 % |
Q3 | 17 % | 56 % | 18 % | 9 % | 0 % |
Q4 | 41 % | 47 % | 8 % | 3 % | 1 % |
Q5 | 27 % | 58 % | 6 % | 8 % | 1 % |
Q6 | 20 % | 64 % | 14 % | 1 % | 1 % |
Q7 | 17 % | 55 % | 24 % | 4 % | 0 % |
Q8 | 15 % | 48 % | 32 % | 5 % | 0 % |
Q9 | 29 % | 54 % | 14 % | 3 % | 0 % |
Q10 | 36 % | 52 % | 9 % | 3 % | 0 % |
Q11 | 26 % | 41 % | 24 % | 6 % | 3 % |
Q12 | 68 % | 21 % | 9 % | 2 % | 0 % |
Q13 | 17 % | 27 % | 23 % | 27 % | 6 % |
Q14 | 16 % | 18 % | 20 % | 20 % | 26 % |
Q15 | 41 % | 45 % | 11 % | 2 % | 1 % |
Q16 | 42 % | 47 % | 11 % | 0 % | 0 % |
Q17 | 33 % | 50 % | 12 % | 3 % | 2 % |
Q18 | 30 % | 51 % | 14 % | 5 % | 0 % |
Q19 | 36 % | 45 % | 14 % | 5 % | 0 % |
Q20 | 36 % | 52 % | 9 % | 3 % | 0 % |
Survey | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Do the Digital Technologies apply in the teaching–learning process motivate you to participate more during class? | 117 | 285 | 188 | 48 | 24 |
2. Does ICT make classes more practical than theoretical? | 92 | 301 | 156 | 87 | 26 |
3. Is FL integrating ICT better adapted to different learning paces? | 88 | 309 | 175 | 63 | 27 |
4. Does Flipped Learning coupled with ICT provide opportunities to interact with classmates and teachers? | 102 | 302 | 144 | 85 | 29 |
5. Does Flipped Learning provide sufficient time and space to carry out its interactive activities before, during, and after the socialization of knowledge in class? | 106 | 314 | 159 | 54 | 29 |
6. Have you used tools such as Kahoot, and has it allowed you to secure interest by boosting skills and abilities? | 46 | 133 | 228 | 112 | 143 |
7. Do the educational videos made in PlayPosit and EdPuzzle facilitate the content comprehension process? | 78 | 184 | 191 | 128 | 81 |
8. Do Moodle, Canvas, and Google Classroom complement face-to-face education, thanks to the collection of didactic resources? | 168 | 248 | 155 | 59 | 32 |
9. Has the viewing of short educational videos on YouTube benefited the pre-classroom knowledge acquisition process? | 171 | 234 | 169 | 70 | 18 |
10. Have you used reliable information search tools (Google Scholar, Google, and Virtual Libraries), and have they facilitated obtaining reliable documents before the class? | 247 | 238 | 114 | 44 | 19 |
11. Do content creation tools (Genially, Prezi, Office Mix, and PowerPoint) make it easy to present projects at the end of the class? | 245 | 269 | 104 | 32 | 12 |
12. Do Learning Management Systems (LMS): Moodle, Canvas, Google Classroom, and Blackboard, benefit the explanation of content during interaction with the teacher? | 143 | 275 | 155 | 67 | 22 |
13. Does video conferencing (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, GoToMeeting, Hangouts, and Skype) allow incorporating multiple resources into the classroom, facilitating the exchange of information and communication between teachers and students? | 240 | 251 | 117 | 38 | 16 |
14. Do you think that using WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger help to share information with others faster and gives an appropriate image of learning processes? | 316 | 215 | 88 | 29 | 14 |
15. Does the teacher use Pen Tablet (graphic tablet-digital display) and encourage feedback of relevant content in class? | 100 | 223 | 171 | 96 | 72 |
16. Do the pre-class videos provide an understanding of the content to be covered in the class? | 151 | 336 | 143 | 0 | 32 |
17. Does Flipped Learning, together with the ICTs mentioned above, facilitate content comprehension? | 137 | 337 | 159 | 0 | 29 |
18. Do ICTs named for Flipped Learning favor the processing of information to construct new knowledge (learning)? | 132 | 353 | 150 | 0 | 27 |
19. Do chat tools (WhatsApp and Telegram) facilitate the exchange of information and the creation of educational workgroups? | 352 | 209 | 81 | 0 | 20 |
20. Do tools such as Padlet, Storm-board, ED Modo, and Office 365 facilitate and encourage collaborative work? | 186 | 275 | 143 | 0 | 58 |
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Questions | Strongly Agree Survey % | Agree % | Undecided % | In Disagreement % | Strongly Disagree % |
Q1 | 18 % | 43 % | 28 % | 7 % | 4 % |
Q2 | 14 % | 45 % | 24 % | 13 % | 4 % |
Q3 | 13 % | 47 % | 26 % | 10 % | 4 % |
Q4 | 15 % | 46 % | 22 % | 13 % | 4 % |
Q5 | 16 % | 48 % | 24 % | 8 % | 4 % |
Q6 | 7 % | 20 % | 34 % | 17 % | 22 % |
Q7 | 12 % | 28 % | 29 % | 19 % | 12 % |
Q8 | 25 % | 38 % | 23 % | 9 % | 5 % |
Q9 | 26 % | 35 % | 25 % | 11 % | 3 % |
Q10 | 37 % | 36 % | 17 % | 7 % | 3 % |
Q11 | 37 % | 40 % | 16 % | 5 % | 2 % |
Q12 | 22 % | 42 % | 23 % | 10 % | 3 % |
Q13 | 36 % | 38 % | 18 % | 6 % | 2 % |
Q14 | 48 % | 33 % | 13 % | 4 % | 2 % |
Q15 | 15 % | 34 % | 26 % | 14 % | 11 % |
Q16 | 23 % | 51 % | 21 % | 0 % | 5 % |
Q17 | 21 % | 51 % | 24 % | 0 % | 4 % |
Q18 | 20 % | 53 % | 23 % | 0 % | 4 % |
Q19 | 53 % | 32 % | 12 % | 0 % | 3 % |
Q20 | 28 % | 41 % | 22 % | 0 % | 9 % |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cueva, A.; Inga, E. Information and Communication Technologies for Education Considering the Flipped Learning Model. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030207
Cueva A, Inga E. Information and Communication Technologies for Education Considering the Flipped Learning Model. Education Sciences. 2022; 12(3):207. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030207
Chicago/Turabian StyleCueva, Andrea, and Esteban Inga. 2022. "Information and Communication Technologies for Education Considering the Flipped Learning Model" Education Sciences 12, no. 3: 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030207
APA StyleCueva, A., & Inga, E. (2022). Information and Communication Technologies for Education Considering the Flipped Learning Model. Education Sciences, 12(3), 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030207