Flipped classroom versus traditional teaching and learning from

students’ perspective at interdisciplinary level,

Case: Middlesex University Mauritius
Denisha Seedoyal-Seereekissoon,
Middlesex University Mauritius
d.seereekissoon@mdx.ac.mu

ABSTRACT

This study analyses students’ perspective on flipped versus face-to-face classroom, at

interdisciplinary level in Middlesex University Mauritius. A sample of students from Advertising,
Public Relations and Media (APRM) and Business Management (BM) programme were targeted.
Students, from both programmes, attended a flipped lecture. After watching the inverted online
lectures, volunteered students were invited to participate in an online survey. There was a comparison
on students’ preferences between traditional face-to-face lectures in both programmes. The main
findings concluded that respondents agreed that the ability to access flipped lectures anywhere and at
their convenient time was beneficial. However, most of them preferred traditional method because of
the direct interaction with the lecturer (66.7% from APRM; 50% from BM students). As flipped
classroom is a new pedagogical method, there were flip resisters. This research contributes to existing
literature in flipped pedagogical model. Future research may address how to encourage the latter to
adopt flipped classroom in regions where it is newly introduced.

Key Words: Flipped classroom; Traditional lectures; Student Feedback; Pedagogical models;
Higher Education

INTRODUCTION
In the Middlesex University Strategy 2017-2022, one of the key aims is to “undertake
high quality research, practice and knowledge exchange that benefit our students.”
(Middlesex University, 2017, pp.9). The researcher undertook a research of testing modern
pedagogical models that would correspond to the needs of millennials. An initial study
(Seereekissoon, 2018) was conducted to test whether Flipped Classroom (FC) teaching model
can be implemented in the BA (Hons) Advertising, Public Relations and Media (APRM)
programme at Middlesex University Mauritius (MUM). Although the research concluded that
this pedagogical model can be used, there were areas of future research. Among these
recommendations, it was proposed to conduct similar studies across different disciplines and
reflect on whether students would still prefer flipped classroom over traditional teaching
models or not. In addition, there was room for more research on how to encourage students to
attend the online lectures prior to class.

Literature review
Bishop and Verleger (2013) defined the flipped classroom as “an educational technique
that consists of two parts: interactive group learning activities inside the classroom, and direct
computer-based individual instruction outside the classroom.” Millennials are observed to be
always connected to virtual worlds and FC should correspond to them. Another definition of
this type of teaching is that it is “a pedagogical approach in which direct instruction moves
from the group learning space to the individual learning space, and the group space is
transformed into a dynamic, interactive learning environment where the educator guides
students as they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter” (Flipped
Learning Network, 2014. Basically, FC is like an inverted classroom compared to a face-to-

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3398178

face lecture. Students attend individually an online lecture prior to coming to class (pre-
class). The actual classroom session can be in the form of a group exercises and involves
more learning-centered instructional strategies. (Persky and McLaghlin, 2017)
Some of the learning theories that can be referred to the designing, implementing of
flipped classroom model are Constructivism (Piaget, 1973) and Connectivism (Siemens,
2005). While preparing the course materials and activities, constructive alignment is used.
The use of new learning tools and environmental change align with the connectivism. Recent
research demonstrated that the introduction of flipped classroom can impact both on students
(McNally et al, 2017; Roehl et al., 2013) and lecturers (Jensen et al, 2015; Konjin et al.,
2018) at Higher Education. In the study of McNally et al (2017), students were categorised
into two; Flip endorsers and Flip resisters. The endorsers reacted positively to this inverted
pedagogical model by participating actively and cooperated more. The resisters were more
struggling to adapt to the change in teaching and learning environment.

Traditionally, students are used to being taught face to face. The lecturer would come in
class, deliver the lecture and provide exercises to test the assimilation of knowledge.
However, it has been observed that students’ attention can be easily distracted nowadays
Often, students are caught staring at their smartphones or tablets while the lecturer is
delivering the lecture. Studies (Elmore, 2015; Gibson et al., 2014) have proven that the
Generation Z and Millennials cannot disconnect and have the ability of multitasking. The
flipped classroom was considered as a quite successful pedagogical tool to correspond to the
needs of the millennials (Roehl et al, 2013). It is important to understand how a flipped
session is created and what happens to the lecturer.

In a study to compare effectiveness of flipped versus traditional lecture (Foldness, 2016), it

was noted that in the FC model, lectures were carried outside the classroom using online videos.
The classroom time is converted into a place where educators can challenge students to do more
individual or group exercises. The actual role of the lecturer changes to be more as a facilitator in
the FC model. Foldness (2016) concluded that flipped classroom had the potential to make
students acquire more knowledge than in traditional lecture as there was more time to include
active learning elements, such as collaborating with other students in group works. Foldness
(2016) proposed that more experimental research is required in flipped classroom
implementations. This would enable better understanding of the pedagogical method and in
establishing best practices.

Additional research on testing the effectiveness of flipped classroom has proven to be

fruitful. In their research on the implementation of FC in their renal pharmacotherapy course,
Pierce and Fox (2012), found that students scored higher in this model and 62% of them
expressed a desire for more lecturers to use this approach. This is interesting to note. However,
there needs to be further research on how to encourage flip resisters (both students and lecturers)
in adopting this new teaching method. In another study, at the West Chester University of
Pennsylvania, Gilboy et al., (2015, pp.112) concluded that almost two-thirds out of 142 students
thought that they “learned the material more effectively by viewing the online recorded lecture
rather than Face to Face lecture.” Similarly, recent studies (Dehghanzadeh and Jafaraghaee, 2018;
Konjin et al., 2018) concluded that participants agreed that they benefited from FC by better
learning and retention as well as student-centered learning. These studies have proven that flipped
classroom is effective in many ways. However, there is lack of research on the implementation of
FC at interdisciplinary level (Konjin et al., 2018). Moreover, FC does has some drawbacks.

Studies (Milman, 2012; Seereekissoon, 2018) have demonstrated that during cases
where flipped lectures are used as teaching tool, there is the risk that students would not

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3398178

watch the video lectures. Strategies such as proper briefing (Zimmerman, 2002) or usage of
interactive technologies (Arnold-Garza, 2014) were recommended for future research in
motivating students to view video lectures. Furthermore, as there needs to be a computer-
based preparation and digitalising lecture, Phillips et al., (2014) highlighted that the
implementation of “flipped classroom approach can be time consuming.” Creating online lectures
in the form of videos or podcasts can be tedious work, especially when the lecturers do not have
the technical know-how of how to produce these types of content.

Research objectives
This research aims to investigate some gaps left in the initial study (Seereekissoon,
2018) to improve on the implementation of flipped classroom. In addition, literature shows
that there is not much research at interdisciplinary level. Therefore, main research objectives
are as follows:
• Compare students’ perception of flipped classroom at interdisciplinary level
• Understand students’ preference between flipped and traditional teaching
• Identify potential strategies in improving students’ engagement with flipped classroom

METHOD
One of the key values of Middlesex University Mauritius (MUM) is to put students
first. Therefore, it is important to gather feedback from students on their preferred mode of
teaching before/during the implementation of flipped classroom. Compared to the initial
study (Seereekissoon, 2018), a sample of first year undergraduate (UG) students from two
programmes were targeted; BA (Hons) Advertising, Public Relations and Media (APRM) and
BA (Hons) Business Management (BM). Both modules run over a period of 24 weeks with
face to face contact. A practical production class was tested in the APRM programme while a
theoretical class was tested in the BM programme. This enabled the researcher to compare
the impact of using FC on two different learning content. The practical production class of
APRM was on how to use a specialist software whereas the theoretical class of BM was
concepts in marketing.

Research design
A survey research design was adopted for this study. According to Cohen et al., (2011)
one of the uses of surveys is to collect data on attitudes and preferences. An online survey
was used to collect feedback on the perception of students. This method would be convenient
to reach respondents and they could complete it anywhere and anytime.

A lecture was created on PowerPoint presentation for both modules. In the initial study
(Seereekissoon, 2018), students highlighted that the video and sound quality were not of good
quality. Therefore, it was important to find an alternative way of recording voice. The
texttospeech.com platform was used to create a voice over, which was inserted as audio in the
PowerPoint presentation. Then, it was saved as a macro-enabled show and uploaded on the
Moodle platform of MUM (MyUnihub.com). Students were briefed on the research and FC
model one week before. They were asked to watch the online lecture. In addition, the latter
had to complete an exercise before coming to class, to test whether they actually watched the
online lecture. Following the flipped classroom, students were asked to fill in the online
survey to provide comments on this teaching method.

Sampling
The Advertising, Public Relations and Media programme (Year 1 cohort) consists of 27
students and Business Management programme (Year 1 cohort) consists of 50. All the

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3398178

students attended the flipped lecture. However, those who provided consent only participated
in the survey. This was important for informed consent purpose.

Ethical considerations
The following research ethics were taken into consideration:
• Informed consent: A voluntary sampling was carried out whereby those who consented
only participated in the survey.
• Anonymity: The respondents were asked to answer the questions anonymously. Data such
as name and demographics were not collected.

RESULTS
Students’ perception on Flipped Classroom
27 out of the 50 students participated in the Business Management programme and 15
out of the 27 students participated in the Advertising, Public Relations and Media programme
surveys. For both programmes, it was the first time that they were taught using flipped
classroom (FC) model. It is interesting to note the difference in the attitude towards FC
(Table 1) from students of both programmes. 100% of the respondents enjoyed this
pedagogical model in the APRM programme although it was a bit the opposite in the BM
(33.3% enjoyed but 66.7% did not enjoyed).
Table 1: Students’ attitude on the Flipped lecture
Student’s enjoyed FC APRM BM
Yes 15 9

No - 18

One possible reason that can explain the difference of attitude (Table 1) could be
related to the content being taught. While attending a lecture on how to use a specialist
software, there is likelihood that some students might not assimilate everything at the first
time. Flipped lectures can be watched several times (Abeysekera and Dawson, 2015),
compared to traditional face to face lecture (unless it is video recorded). The following
finding can help in understanding why students liked FC.

Students were asked to rate how far they believed the flipped lecture was useful in
helping them watching the lecture several times; accessing everywhere; accessing at
convenient time; viewing lectures of good quality and; not having to move physically to the
Campus to attend the session. Most of the students from APRM completely agreed that the
ability to access the lecture at their convenient time and several times was helpful (Figure 1).
Some of them also agreed that the capability of accessing the flipped lecture anywhere was
useful for them (Figure 1). This finding relates to a recent study on the testing of FC in a
multimedia production class (Choi and Lee, 2018) found that students mentioned that the
self-paced and repeated access, review in class and flexible time and place were the benefit
of this teaching model. For some reason, some of them disagreed that the quality of the
flipped was good.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3398178

Figure 1: APRM students rating of flipped lecture
Students from BM agreed that the ability to access the flipped lecture at their convenient time
and the access everywhere were useful to them (Figure 2), as well. However, findings
contrasted from the APRM students again.

Figure 2: BM students rating of flipped lecture

The BM students agreed, also, that good quality of the flipped lecture (Figure 2). On
the other hand, they were neutral (Figure 2) about the ability of watching the lectures several
times compared to the APRM students (Figure 1). In addition, they had mixed feelings on not
having to move physically to the MUM Campus to attend the face to face lecture.

Flipped Classroom or Traditional Face-to-face lectures

Students from both programmes were asked to share their preference between both
pedagogical methods (Table 2). Five of the APRM students did not attended this question.

Table 2: Students’ preference between Flipped Classroom and Face-to-face Lectures

Teaching method APRM BM
Flipped Classroom 0 6

Face-to-Face Classroom 10 21

For both programmes, there is a preference for the traditional pedagogical method. This
is quite surprising. Even if, millennials have a preference for technological devices (Gibson et
al, 2014), they preferred the face-to-face classroom. The flipped classroom teaching method
is quite new in Mauritius. All the students attended this pedagogical method for the first time.
Although some students preferred the flipped classroom in the BM programme, it seems that
most of the students are flip resisters (McNally et al, 2017). The next finding can provide
answers as to why there is a preference of one method to the other.

Students were asked what they did not liked about flipped classroom (Table 3). This
question was formulated to identify any areas that can be considered for the improvement of
this pedagogical method.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3398178

Table 3: Weaknesses of Flipped classroom
Teaching method APRM BM
Flipped online lecture was not of good quality 0 3
Flipped lectures lacked the direct interaction with lecturer in a 10 12
traditional lecture
Easier to understand the taught topic during face-to-face lecture 5 9
Difficult to follow the flipped lecture 0 0
Other reasons - -

For both programmes, it was found that students preferred traditional teaching method
because of the direct interaction they had with the lecturer. Some of them thought that it was
easier to understand the taught topic during a face-to-face lecture (Table 3). The flipped
online session eliminated the lecturer being infront of the class delivering the lecture and
explaining about both topics (the use of a specialist software for APRM students and
marketing concepts for BM students). In both the practical production and theoretical content,
there was a preference for the face-to-face lecture.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary of main findings
In the light of the above, the main finding from this study is that there was a difference
of attitude towards flipped classroom between APRM and BM students (Table 1). 100% of
the respondents enjoyed this pedagogical model in the APRM programme but it was slightly
the opposite in the BM (33.3% enjoyed and 66.7% did not enjoyed). One possible reason for
this contrast could be related to the lecture type. In the flipped APRM lecture, a practical
production session was created whereby students would learn about a specialist software
(Adobe Photoshop). From the lecturer’s observation, during traditional sessions, there are
various levels of learners who can or cannot assimilate each step of using the software.
Students can pause and re-watch online lectures and it eased the comprehension of how to
use the software. In contrast, the BM session was a theoretical one and students did not
enjoyed flipped lecture for some reasons, as mentioned below.

Moreover, majority students, from both the BA (Hons) Advertising, Public Relations
and Media and the BA (Hons) Business Management programme, preferred the traditional
face-to-face lectures (Table 2). The respondents preferred the traditional pedagogical method
because of the direct interaction with the lecturer (66.7% from APRM and 50% from BM
students) and better understanding of topic (33.3% from APRM and 37.5% from BM
students). These findings relate to the flip resisters category from the study conducted by
McNally et al. (2017) on flipped classroom. Moreover, Dehghanzadeh and Jafaraghee (2018),
in their study comparing traditional and FC, also found that one of the limitations of FC was
the limited amount of time for the instructor’s lecture in classroom. Another study (Yilmaz,
2017) has shown that e-learning readiness was a major predictor on how students were
satisfied and motivated to engage with flipped classroom models.

On the other hand, students from both programmes agreed that the ability to access
flipped lectures anywhere and at their convenient time was useful for them (Figure 1 and
Figure 2). In addition, this pedagogical method can be implemented when unforeseen
circumstances (such as natural calamities like cyclone or torrential rain in Mauritius or
elsewhere, etc) prevent the lecturer from conducting face-to-face lectures. As it is important

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3398178

to put students first, this method prevents them from being penalised whenever traditional
lectures cannot be conducted.

Research limitations and Future Research

As any research, this study has limitations. Although the respondents were asked to
voluntarily attend to the online survey, not all of them did. As mentioned out of the 27
students of APRM, only 15 answered and out of 50 students of BM, only 27 responded. If a
larger sample was reached, there could have been more reliability of the results. This is a
limitation of surveys and voluntary sampling as highlighted by several authors (Cohen et al.,
2011; Rea and Parker, 2014) Therefore, it is proposed that a mixed method approach is
adopted in future research. Besides surveys, focus groups or experimental research can be
considered. Experimental research has proven to be insightful in past studies (Dehghanzadeh
and Jafaraghaee, 2018; Gilboy et al., 2015; Pierce and Fox, 2012) and can be considered in
the future.

Future research may, also, address how to encourage flip resisters (McNally et al.,
2017) or those who have low e-learning readiness (Yilmaz, 2017) to adopt this inverted
learning approach in regions/countries where flipped classroom is newly introduced. As
proposed by some researchers (Akçayur and Akçayur, 2018; McLaughlin et al., 2016),
students need to be given clear instructions on how they should use their pre-class time and
receive suitable feedback as they study off-campus and they need to be encouraged to take
notes of unclear aspect of the lectures to be discussed with the lecturer afterwards. Other
strategies could, also, be taken into consideration besides providing proper briefing. This
study was conducted in two programmes. A similar research can be considered across
different disciplinary level (Konjin et al., 2018). For instance, during one or more sessions,
Universities can consider flipping all their classes in different programmes. The fact that this
pedagogical method would be tested in all programmes, flip resisters can be motivated to
engage more. As proposed by Yilmaz (2017), besides providing briefing, technological
acceptance model could be considered. The media and tools can have simple and user-
friendly interface to create motivation and acceptance of technology use.

Moreover, to make up for the lack of interaction from the lecturer (Table 3) during the
flipped lectures, more group exercises can be carried out under the supervision of the lecturer.
In addition, these exercises would enable the lecturer to know if the topic taught during the
flipped online lectures were understood or not by the students. In addition, rather than
creating online lectures with voice over (from texttospeech.com or similar platforms), good
quality of voice recording of the instructor along with other tools such as webinars (where the
facial expression of the lecturer would be seen) can be tried. Additional studies can be carried
out on assessing potential strategies to complement for the lack of direct interaction with the
instructor.

Furthermore, some academics could have difficulties in digitalising lectures (Phillips et

al, 2014) and the creation of flipped lectures can be time-consuming and tedious. These
lecturers should seek help from other departments such as IT or instructional designers or
learning & teaching centers, available from their Campuses (Gilboy et al, 2014) to assist
them. For instance, Middlesex University has a Learning Enhancement Team that can assist
with the creation of flipped lectures. Moreover, as recommended by several researchers
(Mashbour and Saleh, 2010; McLaughlin et al, 2016) more training should be given to
lecturers who are not familiar with computer-based learning or on how to use e-learning
effectively. This can be in the form of Staff development programme short courses.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3398178

Conclusion
Finally, it has been concluded that there can be differences in terms of how students
perceive flipped classroom at interdisciplinary level. For the practical production session,
there was a preference for flipped rather than face-to-face classes whereas for the theoretical
session, it was the reverse. However, for both programmes, traditional lectures were
preferred. This research can contribute to existing studies of flipped classroom and digital
pedagogical methods. Middlesex University Mauritius and other educational institutions can
conduct pedagogical workshops, seminars or conferences whereby students and staffs are
invited to research about digitalising lectures and inverted teaching methods such as flipped
classroom in the local and regional contexts. It is important to consider strategies to
encourage resisters to engage with new learning approaches.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research would not have been possible without the participation of the first-year
students from the BA (Hons) Advertising, Public Relations and Media and the BA (Hons)
Business Management programmes of the Middlesex University Mauritius. The researcher is
thankful for the active participation of these students both in the study and responding to the
online survey. A second vote of thank would go to SSRN for enabling the researcher to
consider further research from the initial study (Seereekissoon, 2018). Finally, the researcher
is grateful for the Post Graduate Certificate in Higher Education offered by Middlesex
University Hendon. The postgraduate programme has enabled the researcher to reflect on
pedagogical methods that can improve own teaching practice.

REFERENCES

Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015), Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped
classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research &
Development, 34(1), 1-14, Retrieved from Doi:10.1080/07294360.2014.934336

Akçayur, G., Akçayur, M., (2018), The Flipped Classroom: A review of its advantages and
challenges, Computers and Education, Vol. 126, pp. 334-345, Retrieved from DOI:
10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021

Arnold-Garza, S. (2014), The Flipped Classroom Teaching Model and its use for Information
Literacy Instruction, 8 (1). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1089137.pdf

Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research.
Paper presented at the ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, 30(9) 1-18.

Choi, J., Lee, Y., (2018), To what extent does ‘flipping’ make lessons effective in a
multimedia production class?, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 55
(1), pp. 3-12, Retrieved from DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2015.1123105

Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K., (2011), Research Methods in Education, 7th Edition,
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group

Dehghanzadeh, S., Jafaraghaee, F., (2018), Comparing the effects of traditional lecture and
flipped classroom on nursing students’ critical thinking disposition: A quasi-experimental
study, Nurse Education today, pp. 151-156
8

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3398178

Elmore, T. (2015), Six Defining Characteristics of Generation Z, Retrieved from
http://growingleaders.com/blog/six-defining-characteristics-of-generation-z/

Foldness, N. (2016), The flipped classroom and cooperative learning: Evidence from a
randomised experiment, Active learning in Higher Education, Vol. 17(1), pp. 39-49,
Retrieved from DOI: 10.1177/1469787415616726

Flipped Learning Network (2014), The Four Pillars of F-L-I-P™, Retrieved from
https://flippedlearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FLIP_handout_FNL_Web.pdf

Gibson, L.A. and Sodeman, W.A., 2014. Millennials and technology: Addressing the
communication gap in education and practice. Organization Development Journal, 32(4),
pp.66
Gilboy, M. B., Heinrichs, S., Pazzaglia, G., (2015), Enhancing Student Engagement Using
the Flipped Classroom, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour, Vol. 47 (1), pp. 109-
114

Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., Godoy, P. D. d. M., (2015), Improvements from a Flipped
Classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning, Life Sciences Education, Vol. 14,
pp.1-12.

Konjin, W. S., Essink, W. S., Essink, D. R., Cock Buning, E. De., Zweekhorst, M. B. M.,
(2018), Flipping the classroom: an effective approach to deal with the diversity at higher
education, Educational Media International, Vol. 55 (1), pp. 64-78, Retrieved from: DOI:
10.1080/09523987.2018.1439711

Mashbour, A., Saleh, Z., (2010), Evaluating E-Learning in Jordanian Institutions: Why is it
Lagging? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Vol. 11 (4), pp. 269-279,290,
http://search.proquest.com/docview/873032188/

McLaughlin, J. E., White, P. J., Khanova, J., Yuriev, E., (2016), Flipped Classroom
Implementation: A Case Report of Two Higher Education Institutions in the United States
and Australia, Computer in the Schools, Vol. 33 (1), pp. 24-37, Retrieved from DOI:
10.1080/07380569.2016.1137734

McNally, B., Chipperfield, J., Dorsett, P., Del Fabbro, L., Frommolt, V., Goetz, S., Lewohl,
J., Molineux, M., Pearson, A., Reddan, G., Roiko, A., Rung, A., (2017), Flipped classroom
experiences: student preferences and flip strategy in a higher education context, Higher
Education, Vol. 73, pp. 281-298, Retrieved from DOI: 10.1007/s10734-016-0014-z

Middlesex University (2017), Transforming potential into success: Middlesex University

Strategy 2017-2022, pp.9, Retrieved from
https://www.mdx.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/432404/MDX_StrategyDoc_2017.pdf

Milman, N. B., (2012), The Flipped Classroom Strategy, What is it and how can it best be
used, 9(3) Retrieved from
https://8461cuttingedgetechteam.wikispaces.com/file/view/The+flipped+classroom+strategy.
pdf

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3398178

Persky, A. M., McLaughlin, J. E., (2017), The Flipped Classroom- From Theory to Practice
in Health Professional Education, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Vol.
81(6), pp.118, Retrieved from DOI: 10.5688/ajpe816118

Piaget, J., (1973), Main Trends in Psychology, London, UK: Allen and Unwin

Pierce, R., Fox, J., (2012), Vodcasts and Active-Learning Exercises in a “Flipped Classroom”
model of a Renal Pharmacotherapy Module, Retrieved from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3530058

Phillips, C. R., Trainor, J. E., (2014), Millenial students and the Flipped classroom, Journal
of Business and Educational Leadership, Vol. 5(1), pp. 102-112
Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., Shannon, G. J., (2013), The Flipped Classroom: An Opportunity to
engage Millenial Students through Active Learning Strategies, Journal of Family &
Consumer Sciences, Vol. 105 (2), pp.44-19

Rea, L. M., Parker, R. A., (2014), Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A
comprehensive guide, Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Brand, pp. 12

Seereekissoon, D. S. (2018), Flipped Classroom Teaching in Higher Education: An

Assumption or an Inevitable Tool. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 4 (1),
494-506, Retrieved from DOI: 10.20319/pijss.2018.41.494506

Siemens, G., (2005), Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, Retrieved from
http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm

Yilmaz, R., (2017), Exploring the role of e-learning readiness on student satisfaction and
motivation in flipped classroom, Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol. 70, pp. 251-260,
Retrieved from DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.085

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002), Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview, Theory into

Practice, Vol 41, Num 2, College of Education, The Ohio State University

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3398178