International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 11, Issue 9 (September 2024), Pages: 112-120

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Examining the impact of the flipped classroom model on student engagement and academic performance in college dance theory courses

 Author(s): 

 Ran Shang 1, 2, *, Sri Azra Attan 1

 Affiliation(s):

 1Faculty of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts, UCSI University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 2Music College, Zhaoqing University, Zhaoqing, China

 Full text

  Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5959-346X

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2024.09.012

 Abstract

This study examines the role of the flipped classroom model in college dance theory courses based on constructivist learning theory. The research used structural equation modeling to explore the connections between the flipped classroom model (FC), student engagement (SE), and academic performance (AP) among 365 students. The results showed that the FC positively influenced SE but had a slightly negative direct effect on AP. These findings suggest that while the flipped classroom can enhance student engagement, its direct impact on academic performance is more complex and requires further investigation. This study adds to the understanding of teaching strategies in higher education and highlights the complexities of applying constructivist principles in course design and delivery.

 © 2024 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Flipped classroom, Student engagement, Academic performance, Constructivist learning, Higher education

 Article history

 Received 6 May 2024, Received in revised form 3 September 2024, Accepted 5 September 2024

 Acknowledgment

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

Informed consent was obtained from all participants, ensuring their rights and privacy. Data were anonymized and stored securely to maintain confidentiality. Approval was granted by the UCSI University Institutional Review Board.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Shang R and Attan SA (2024). Examining the impact of the flipped classroom model on student engagement and academic performance in college dance theory courses. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 11(9): 112-120

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 

----------------------------------------------   

 References (41)

  1. Abeysekera L and Dawson P (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research and Development, 34(1): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336   [Google Scholar]
  2. Akçayır G and Akçayır M (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers and Education, 126: 334-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021   [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Samarraie H, Shamsuddin A, and Alzahrani AI (2020). A flipped classroom model in higher education: A review of the evidence across disciplines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3): 1017-1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09718-8   [Google Scholar]
  4. Babbie ER (2020). The practice of social research. Cengage AU, Victoria, Australia.   [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergmann J and Sams A (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education, Washington D.C., USA.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Bishop JL and Verleger MA (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--22585   [Google Scholar]
  7. Borowski TG (2023). How dance promotes the development of social and emotional competence. Arts Education Policy Review, 124(3): 157-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2021.1961109   [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowden JLH, Tickle L, and Naumann K (2021). The four pillars of tertiary student engagement and success: A holistic measurement approach. Studies in Higher Education, 46(6): 1207-1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1672647   [Google Scholar]
  9. Budhai SS (2021). Best practices in engaging online learners through active and experiential learning strategies. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003140405   [Google Scholar]
  10. Camper Moore C (2023). ‘Culture of basic goodness’–Examining factors that contribute to student success and sense of place in undergraduate dance major programs. Research in Dance Education, 24(4): 410-431. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647893.2021.2005558   [Google Scholar]
  11. Cochran WG (1977). Sampling techniques. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  12. Creswell JW and Poth CN (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Crow S (2020). The ballet class: Educating creative dance artists? Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Roehampton, London, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  14. Demirel CMG (2016). Exploring the flipped classroom: Possibilities and limitations. Ph.D. Dissertation, Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.   [Google Scholar]
  15. Doğan Y, Batdı V, and Yaşar MD (2023). Effectiveness of flipped classroom practices in teaching of science: A mixed research synthesis. Research in Science and Technological Education, 41(1): 393-421. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1909553   [Google Scholar]
  16. Duker P, Gawboy A, Hughes B, and Shaffer KP (2015). Hacking the music theory classroom: Standards-based grading, just-in-time teaching, and the inverted class. Music Theory Online, 21(1): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.30535/mto.21.1.2   [Google Scholar]
  17. Fisher R, Perényi A, and Birdthistle N (2021). The positive relationship between flipped and blended learning and student engagement, performance and satisfaction. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(2): 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418801702   [Google Scholar]
  18. French S and Kennedy G (2017). Reassessing the value of university lectures. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(6): 639-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1273213   [Google Scholar]
  19. Goode J, Margolis J, and Chapman G (2014). Curriculum is not enough: The educational theory and research foundation of the exploring computer science professional development model. In the Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM, Atlanta, USA: 493-498. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538948   [Google Scholar]
  20. Green J (2001). Socially constructed bodies in American dance classrooms. Research in Dance Education, 2(2): 155-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647890120100782   [Google Scholar]
  21. Guckian J, Utukuri M, Asif A, Burton O, Adeyoju J, Oumeziane A, Chu T, and Rees EL (2021). Social media in undergraduate medical education: A systematic review. Medical Education, 55(11): 1227-1241. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14567   [Google Scholar] PMid:33988867
  22. Han E and Klein KC (2019). Pre-class learning methods for flipped classrooms. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83(1): 6922. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe6922   [Google Scholar] PMid:30894772 PMCid:PMC6418854
  23. Hannafin MJ, Hannafin KM, Land SM, and Oliver K (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45: 101-117. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299733   [Google Scholar]
  24. Hargreaves A (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8): 835-854. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00025-0   [Google Scholar]
  25. Hwang GJ, Lai CL, and Wang SY (2015). Seamless flipped learning: A mobile technology-enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies. Journal of Computers in Education, 2: 449-473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0043-0   [Google Scholar]
  26. Johnson GB (2013). Student perceptions of the flipped classroom. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.   [Google Scholar]
  27. Kassing G (2007). History of dance: An interactive arts approach. Human Kinetics, Champaign, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  28. Kay R, MacDonald T, and DiGiuseppe M (2019). A comparison of lecture-based, active, and flipped classroom teaching approaches in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31: 449-471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9197-x   [Google Scholar]
  29. Krejcie RV and Morgan DW (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3): 607-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308   [Google Scholar]
  30. Lawson A, Davis C, and Son J (2019). Not all flipped classes are the same: Using learning science to design flipped classrooms. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(5): 77-104. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v19i5.25856   [Google Scholar]
  31. Martin R (1998). Critical moves: Dance studies in theory and politics. Duke University Press, Durham, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  32. Martínez-Jiménez R, and Ruiz-Jiménez MC (2020). Improving students’ satisfaction and learning performance using flipped classroom. The International Journal of Management Education, 18(3): 100422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100422   [Google Scholar]
  33. McCarthy-Brown N (2017). Dance pedagogy for a diverse world: Culturally relevant teaching in theory, research and practice. McFarland, Jefferson, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  34. Merriam SB and Tisdell EJ (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  35. Piaget J (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press, Madison, USA. https://doi.org/10.1037/11494-000   [Google Scholar]
  36. Prince M (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3): 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x   [Google Scholar]
  37. Steen-Utheim AT and Foldnes N (2018). A qualitative investigation of student engagement in a flipped classroom. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(3): 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1379481   [Google Scholar]
  38. Tawfik AA and Lilly C (2015). Using a flipped classroom approach to support problem-based learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20: 299-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-015-9262-8   [Google Scholar]
  39. Velegol SB, Zappe SE, and Mahoney EMILY (2015). The evolution of a flipped classroom: Evidence-based recommendations. Advances in Engineering Education, 4(3): 1-37.   [Google Scholar]
  40. Vygotsky LS (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  41. Yoo SC, Truong TA, and Jung K (2023). Entrepreneurship education for women through project-based flipped learning: The impact of innovativeness and risk-taking on course satisfaction. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 19(3): 229-260. https://doi.org/10.7341/20231937   [Google Scholar]