Quinney et al. (2008 Quinney, A., Hutchings, M. and Scammell, J. 2008. Student and staff experiences of using a virtual community, Wessex Bay, to support interprofessional learning: messages for collaborative practice. Social Work Education, 27(6): 658–664. [Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]), writing about the development of a virtual town called Wessex Bay, describe how a blended learning approach allowed collaboration to take place between dispersed communities of practitioners, cross-disciplinary student groups, and tutors using bulletin boards, discussion forums and face-to-face interactions. Using evolving case studies they were able to collaboratively develop the skills of problem-solving and case analysis within an authentic community of practice. West (2008 West, J. 2008. Authentic voices: utilising audio and video within an online virtual community. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 27(6): 665–670. [Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar])

A course design that optimises student engagement and moves away from a purely didactic approach should also encourage learning that has enquiry at its heart. Examples include encouraging interdisciplinary student groups to seek solutions to problem-based case studies. Savin-Baden (2000 Savin-Baden, M. 2000. Problem-based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories, Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.  [Google Scholar]) argues the processes of ‘learning by doing’ in these situations can provide learners with opportunities to gain experiences of collaborative working.

Garrison and Vaughan (2008 Garrison, D. R. and Vaughan, N. D. 2008. Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines, 1st edn, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  [Google Scholar]) state that effective blended learning requires educators to incorporate the following three key elements into the learning design process:•thoughtfully integrating face-to-face and online learning;•fundamentally rethinking the course design to optimise student engagement;•restructuring and replacing traditional class contact hours. (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008 Garrison, D. R. and Vaughan, N. D. 2008. Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines, 1st edn, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  [Google Scholar], p. 5)

Work at CEIMH suggests that web-based technologies can help to overcome some of these practical difficulties and bring learners from different disciplines together (Skorga, 2002 Skorga, P. 2002. Interdisciplinary and distance education in the Delta: the Delta Health Education Partnership. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 16(2): 149–157. [Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]; Juntunen and Heikkinen, 2004 Juntunen, A. and Heikkinen, E. 2004. Lessons from interprofessional e-learning: piloting a care of the elderly module. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18(3): 269–278. [Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]). Using the asynchronous collaborative properties these technologies present within a blended learning design has enabled us to help educators create new virtual spaces for meaningful interdisciplinary learning to take place (Miers et al., 2007 Miers, M., Clarke, B., Pollard, C., Rickaby, C., Thomas, J. and Turtle, A. 2007. Online interprofessional learning: the student experience. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 21(5): 529–542. [Crossref], [PubMed], , [Google Scholar]; Reynolds, 2007 Reynolds, J. 2007. Discourses of inter-professionalism. British Journal of Social Work, 37(3): 441–457.  [Google Scholar]; Quinney et al., 2008 Quinney, A., Hutchings, M. and Scammell, J. 2008. Student and staff experiences of using a virtual community, Wessex Bay, to support interprofessional learning: messages for collaborative practice. Social Work Education, 27(6): 658–664. [Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]).

This paper seeks to address this dearth in the literature by outlining how the Centre of Excellence in Interdisciplinary Mental Health (CEIMH) created a set of resources to guide educators through the processes of creating interdisciplinary enquiry-based blended learning designs (EBBL). The context and rationale for the development of a Blended Learning Design Planner and associated Resource Pack, and Design Icons are outlined.

In social work education, blended learning, a mixture of face-to-face and online interactions enabling collaborative and interactive learning, has been increasingly used as a curriculum strategy and provides the basic ingredients required to facilitate interdisciplinary teaching and learning opportunities (Cooner and Hickman, 2008 Cooner, T. S. and Hickman, G. 2008. Child protection teaching: students' experiences of a blended learning design. Social Work Education, 27(6): 647–657. [Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]; Quinney et al., 2008 Quinney, A., Hutchings, M. and Scammell, J. 2008. Student and staff experiences of using a virtual community, Wessex Bay, to support interprofessional learning: messages for collaborative practice. Social Work Education, 27(6): 658–664. [Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]; West, 2008 West, J. 2008. Authentic voices: utilising audio and video within an online virtual community. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 27(6): 665–670. [Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]; Pack, 2010 Pack, M. 2010. Allies in learning: critical-reflective practice on-line with allied mental health practitioners. Social Work Education, 29(1): 67–79. [Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]; Cooner, 2010 Cooner, T. S. (2010) ‘Creating opportunities for students in large cohorts to reflect in and on practice: lessons learnt from a formative evaluation of students’ experiences of a technology-enhanced blended learning design’, British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 271–286 [Google Scholar]).

First, since the quality of videos (found to be a top technical challenge) directly/indirectly impacts flipped learning, instructors should pay more attention to the quality of instructional videos (e.g., not too long and keep them interesting) while designing the flipped classroom. There is a need for studies that explore strategies and technologies to produce high quality videos when one has less technical ability and time. Second, it would be better if instructors could provide more interaction/communication tools (these are apparently not commonly used at present) to help students to obtain feedback/help when they are doing tasks/homework outside the class.

Similar to the students, some teachers reported that this model might require more time (14%) and workload (7%). Pre-recording video lectures and preparing other flipped model materials is time consuming for teachers. Designing appropriate accompanying quiz questions and other out-of-class activities requires further time commitment (Howitt & Pegrum, 2015). The actual time needed to prepare flipped course materials can be nearly six times more than traditional course preparation (Wanner & Palmer, 2015).

From the students' perspective, the flipped model requires more time (11%) and work (10%) compared to a traditionally structured course (see Table 2). One possible reason for this is the nature of this model, which prompts students to preview the learning materials for better in-class participation (Hung, 2015). On this point, a study by Smith (2013) found that students generally considered studying lectures outside the classroom to be an extra time burden. According to (Chen et al., 2014), another possible reason is that some of the students acquired passive learning habits from the traditional classroom, where learning requires less time and work.

The most commonly reported problem is students' limited preparation before class time (13%). If a student does not take time to study at home, s/he may not perform well in the classroom activities, and this may diminish the advantages of the flipped classroom (Sayeski, Hamilton-Jones, & Oh, 2015). Hwang, Lai, and Wang (2015) also stated that engaging students in self-learning at home is one of the key factors of seamless flipped learning. Moreover, since students may not be accustomed to this model, they might lose their bearings (i.e., they won't know what to do) in the flipped model. In order to avoid this situation, they need clear guidelines (10%) regarding how they should use their pre-class time and course materials.

We found a number of reported challenges and divided them into five inductive categories (pedagogical, students' and teachers' perspectives, technical & technological, and other). The majority of flipped classroom challenges are related to out-of-class activities, such as inadequate student preparation prior to class and the students' need for guidance at home.

Collaborative learning broadly “is a situation in which learners interact in a collaborative way” (Dillenbourg, 1999, p. 8). Collaborative learning leads to deeper learning and shared understanding (Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2003), and it provides opportunities for students to develop social skills (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Flipped classrooms incorporate collaborative learning. Students are responsible for their own learning; they participate in small-group activities; they learn in an active mode; and the teacher maintains a facilitator role.

According to Nederveld and Berge (2015), several opportunities for peer-assisted learning exist in flipped classrooms, in both class activities (e.g., collaboratively solving problems, cooperating to complete projects) and out-of-class activities by means of technology (e.g., discussion boards, social network sites).

Active learning can be simply defined as “any instructional method that engages students in the learning process” (Prince, 2004, p. 223). Active learning requires that students engage in meaningful learning activities (Sohrabi & Iraj, 2016) and that they be accountable for their own learning (Blaschke, 2012). In flipped classrooms, students experience active learning (Lai & Hwang, 2016) and have opportunities to perform higher order thinking activities (Roehl, Reddy, & Shannon, 2013). As Davies, Dean, and Ball (2013) stated, in flipped classrooms students are transformed from passive listeners into active learners.

For example, in the flipped model student learning achievement and satisfaction may be enhanced (Missildine, Fountain, Summers, & Gosselin, 2013); students may be more satisfied with the flipped method; and it can be more economical than traditional instruction (O'Flaherty & Phillips, 2015). However, challenges can include more required time to redesign the course as a flipped classroom (Schlairet, Green, & Benton, 2014), low self-regulated behaviors by some students (Sun, Wu, & Lee, 2017), and the resulting failure of some students to properly schedule their time to comprehend the out-of-class learning content (Lai & Hwang, 2016).

A key finding from our data is that successful students interact with the online components of a flipped class in a timely manner as compared with students in a standard-format class. That is, the students in the flipped course prepare for class work and avoid the “cramming” style of study for summative assessments, complete the online work more accurately, and perform better on the summative assessments. An important question surrounding this improvement is the role of the flipped-course environment in these improvements. We think that two aspects of the flipped class lead to this improvement: the increase in active student exercises in the classroom coupled to online course content. There is no doubt that active-learning classrooms improve student outcomes, and it has been argued that, for a flipped course, it is active learning that drives improved student outcomes (Jensen et al., 2015; Stockwell et al., 2015). In our case, we believe that the active flipped classroom leads to a student’s expectation that attending class will require preparation. Additionally, the active classroom, with point-generating activities included in the class sessions, intrinsically encourages students to attend and participate in the activities. Because the flipped classroom offers a clear and reinforcing online experience in the form of recorded “lectures” aligned with online homework, students are encouraged to prepare before class and well before an exam deadline.

Our findings demonstrate that there are substantial, positive differences in how students approach a flipped course as compared with a standard-format course. The flipped course encourages students to become more engaged with course material, persist in their learning through more timely and accurate preparation, and, ultimately, perform better. Specifically, this enhanced interaction induces better student preparation for class meetings in the flipped learning environment. More cycles of timely preparation in a flipped class likely improve in-class interactions, which position students to be more accurate in answering online homework problems. This increased accuracy extends to exams, for which grades improve substantially, particularly for lower-GPA students and female students.

Overall, students did not feel that they learned more in the flipped-course version compared with the standard course (despite having better exam scores); however, flipped-format students did rank their course version better overall than did students in the standard-course version (Supplemental Figure S1A).

The flipped-course format relied heavily on online material presented outside of class, including prerecorded lecture videos. Although there was a broad variation in students’ access of these videos, there was a significant correlation between average exam score and video access, r(235) = 0.22, p < 0.001 (Figure 5A). Students in the flipped-format course with higher exam scores viewed online lecture material more consistently than students with lower exam scores.

First, use of the same online material differed substantially between the standard course and the flipped course. Students in the flipped class attempted online homework questions more often, F(1, 445) = 38.41, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.08 (Figure 2A). This difference was not evident for homework completed by the end of the semester (Supplemental Material Table S2). Second, although all students were most likely to attempt homework problems during the week of an exam (p values < 0.001) regardless of class mode, students in the flipped class worked through the online homework more steadily, that is, across the span of weeks, than did students in the standard class.

Similar to results from other interventions involving a more active and engaged classroom experience (Freeman et al., 2014), when compared with the standard-course format for student cohorts in the flipped-course format we found significant improvements in exam scores for each of the three exams (p < 0.01).

In this paper, we examine what college science students do differently or more intensely in preparing for the more active, flipped-course environment that can be directly linked to better exam performance. The flipped structure prompts students to review material earlier and more often than in the standard note-taking, lecture-based course. For example, the structure of the flipped environment may provide students impetus for less crammed, more uniform interaction with the course material throughout the semester. Long-standing cognitive psychology research highlights the benefits of spacing out learning activities over time in contrast to blocked learning, for example, short-term cramming in the lead-up to an exam (Bahrick et al., 1993; Son, 2004). In addition, the weekly preclass assignment, which is necessary to participate in a flipped environment, may provide needed structure to engage with course content more deliberately (Baepler et al., 2014). If so, this increased student persistence in a more timely and accurate manner could account for performance gains in the flipped environment (Preszler et al., 2007; Estrada et al., 2011; Graham et al., 2013).

The flipped college science course provides the majority of standard lecture material online as assigned preclass homework, and thus allows for in-class instruction that is more active and engaging for students (Day and Foley, 2006). An active-learning environment provides benefits that are well-known in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012; Graham et al., 2013; Freeman et al., 2014), including improved test performance for all students (Haak et al., 2011). For example, a recent meta-analysis of the effect of online instruction blended with in-class instruction suggests that the flipped-class format improves student outcomes by ∼13% in STEM classes (Bernard et al., 2014)

king. It can be hypothesized, for instance, that the student condition curiosity and the learning environment condition team teaching have a positive relationship with the development of interdisciplinary thinking. In addition, phased with gradual advancement appears to be a desirable condition of the learning process that is positively related with the learning outcome interdisciplinary thinking and so on. Importantly, a proper balance between knowledge and skills development, repeated exposure, and scaffolding appears to be required to enable interdisciplinary thinking (Ivanitskaya et al. 2002; Manathunga et al. 2006; Woods

Graybill et al. 2006; Newell 1992). The third category, pedagogy, includes three conditions: pedagogy aimed at achieving interdisciplinarity, pedagogy aimed at achieving active learning, and pedagogy aimed at achieving collaboration. These conditions seem to point to the necessity of learning tasks that actively engage students in applying knowledge rather than memorizing facts, in collaboration with peers in other disciplines to encourage an appreciation of ambiguity (Manathunga et al. 2006). In addition, such learning tasks need to provide students with the opportunity to gain experience of inquiry activities typical of interdisciplinarity, for instance, the negotiation of common gro

e inside or outside courses on interdisciplinary. In particular, an overarching framework that links and sequences curricular content seems to be essential to provide both context and a roadmap for learning (Newell 1992). The second category, teacher, contains five conditions: intellectual community focused on interdiscipli nary, expertise of teachers on interdisciplinarity, consensus on interdisciplinarity, team development, and team teaching. These conditions refer to the importance of teacher teams and their professional development in interdisciplinarity as a means of facilitating the necessary understanding and integration of each others' disciplines and of realizing a safe environment in which to mentor students on their journey towards interdisciplinarity (Gilkey and Earp 2006;

y, and interdisciplinarity. Acquisition of these types of knowledge appears to be required for enabling students to step beyond the disciplinary theories and methods in order to make connections between disciplines, to identify disciplinary contradictions, and to consider opportunities for integration at a meta-level (Boix Mansilla and Duraising 2007). In particular, explicit attention to the students' exposure to disciplines and meta coordination seems to be important to avoid their feeling overwhelmed and losing the curricular thread (Eisen e

The evaluation based on the principles of Biggs' theory (2003) showed that all publications reviewed were explorative. The research field is still in the phase of attempting to deepen the understanding of the nature of interdisciplinary higher education. This formative stage of development can be attributed to the perceived lack of specific educational models and empirical research in this field (e.g., Woods 2007). Accordingly, strong empirical studies addressing the research questions of this review study were lacki

inking among its students. Realizing desired learning outcomes demands consistent and well-designed learning environments within a coherent and learner-centered curriculum (Ten Dam et al. 2004). For this reason, curriculum and course developers need a comprehensive understanding of the typical conditions that underpin the development of interdisciplinary thinking (Stefani 2009). This necessitates, for example, gaining insight into the extent to which students need to be equipped with knowledge of different disciplines as well as didactic

Students have problems of working across disciplines, working in different disciplines, and synthesizing different disciplines. This poses difficulties for the development of interdisciplinary thinking in interdisciplinary higher education. These student problems may be caused by disciplinary differences in epistemologies, discourses, and ways of teaching (Bradbeer 1999). In addition, curricula that aim to develop interdisciplinary thinking on a broad scale are likely to experience more difficulties than curricula that aim to develop interdisciplinary thinking on a narrow scale. This is by virtue of the fact that, in contrast to narrow interdisciplinary thinking, broad interdisciplinary thinking requires the integration of disciplines acro

Unlike multidisciplinarity, which is additive, interdisciplinarity is integrative: Knowledge of different disciplines is contrasted and changed by integration (Klein 1990). This integration or synthesis of knowledge is seen as the defining characteristic of interdisciplinarity. As a consequence, the ability to synthesize or integrate is considered as a beneficial learning outcome of interdisciplinary higher education. In that case, the learning outcome is called interdisciplinary understanding or interdisciplinary thinking. Boix Mansilla et al. (2000, p. 219) proposed the following definition of interdisciplinary understanding, "The capacity to integrate knowledge and modes of thinking in two or more disciplines or established areas of expertise to produce a cognitive advancement—such as explaining a phenomenon, solving a problem, or creating a product—in ways that would have been impossible or unlikely through single disciplinary means." This definition builds on a performance view of understanding, meaning that individuals understand a concept when they are able to apply it—or think with it—accurately and flexibly in

Interdisciplinary can help to address today's complex issues since it is believed that a cross disciplinaiy approach facilitates a comprehensive understanding (Newell 2007). This belief has led to an increased interest in interdisciplinary higher education over the years (Newell 2009). In comparison with traditional higher education, which focuses on domain-specific knowledge and general skills development, this kind of higher education also aims to develop boundary crossing skills. Boundary-crossing skills are, for instance, the ability to change perspectives, to synthesize knowledge of diffe

Importantly, a proper balance between knowledge and skills development, repeated exposure, and scaffolding appears to be required to enable interdisciplinary thinking (Ivanitskaya et al. 2002; Manathunga et al. 2006; Woods

The academic benefit, evidence, and competitive advantages are clear; only the will and commitment remains. Blended learning can begin the necessary process of redefining higher education institutions as being learning centered and facilitating a higher learning experience.

There are a variety of possible explanations for these outcomes. In essence, though, we assert that it begins by questioning the dominance of the lecture in favor of more active and meaningful learning activities and tasks.

There is evidence that blended learning has the potential to be more effective and efficient when compared to a traditional classroom model Heterick & Twigg, 2003, Twigg, 2003. The evidence is that students achieve as well, or better, on exams and are satisfied with the approach.

The emphasis must shift from assimilating information to constructing meaning and confirming understanding in a community of inquiry. This process is about discourse that challenges accepted beliefs, which is rarely accomplished by students in isolation. At the same time, to be a critical thinker is to take control of one's thought processes and gain a metacognitive understanding of these processes (i.e., learn to learn). A blended learning context can provide the independence and increased control essential to developing critical thinking. Along with the increased control that a blended learning context encourages is a scaffolded acceptance of responsibility for constructing meaning and understanding.

The real test of blended learning is the effective integration of the two main components (face-to-face and Internet technology) such that we are not just adding on to the existing dominant approach or method. This holds true whether it be a face-to-face or a fully Internet-based learning experience. A blended learning design represents a significant departure from either of these approaches. It represents a fundamental reconceptualization and reorganization of the teaching and learning dynamic, starting with various specific contextual needs and contingencies (e.g., discipline, developmental level, and resources).

Blended learning is both simple and complex. At its simplest, blended learning is the thoughtful integration of classroom face-to-face learning experiences with online learning experiences. There is considerable intuitive appeal to the concept of integrating the strengths of synchronous (face-to-face) and asynchronous (text-based Internet) learning activities. At the same time, there is considerable complexity in its implementation with the challenge of virtually limitless design possibilities and applicability to so many contexts.

Team Teaching an Interdisciplinary First-Year Seminar on Magic, Religion, and the Origins of Science: A ‘Pieces-to-Picture’ Approach

Achieving the intellectual integration and coherence that interdisciplinarity demands is difficult, as a balance on the scale of interdependence between the instructorsand their fields must be attained(Shapiro &Dempsey,2008)

here are major limitations to interdisciplinary approaches. One is thatinterdisciplinary work, by its very definition, touches only the surface of any given discipline. Previous scholars have also documented this consequence, emphasizing the tradeoff between breadth and depth of mastery of knowledge in interdisciplinary classes (Caviglia &Hatley,2004).

Thirdly, interdisciplinary work must yield more knowledge than that produced by any constituent discipline. For example, the tension between economics and sociology (i.e. the tension between individual choice and social determinism) adds a richer resonance to the study of the individual within a larger social matrix

Firstly, interdisciplinary work consists of two or more distinct disciplines brought to bear upon a single subject matter. Therefore, studying magic from sociological, economic, and anthropological frameworks fits the first criterion. Secondly, interdisciplinary work encourages a synthesis of the various approaches involved; it produces a coherent, integrated body of knowledge. Even though our coursebegan as a multidisciplinary endeavor—that is, three separate disciplines remaining unintegrated—it evolved into a more coherent approach

previous authors have advocated presenting the courseas an entirely new interdisciplinary field which contains elements from each of the distinct theoretical lenses used (Krometis, Clark, Gonzalez,& Leslie, 2011)

Interdisciplinary flipped learning for engineering classrooms in higher education: Students’ motivational regulation and design achievement

Bishop and Verleger 3 suggested the following two key learning theories to design a flipped engineering classroom that supports student‐centered classroom activities: peer‐assisted collaborative learning and problem‐based learning. First, in‐class activities must be designed to support students’ engagement through a peer‐assisted learning approach. While being involved in peer‐assisted collaborative learning with matched companions, each peer takes responsibility for conveying knowledge and skills to the other peer. As Biswas et al. 4 noted, the resulting sense of responsibility motivates participating peers to consider effective strategies to communicate the given classroom activities to others, set aside time to reflect upon their own learning progress, and find alternative ways of collaborating with peers based on different learning styles and individual differences.

Previous studies showed that students participating in flipped classrooms were better prepared when working on subsequent in‐class activities 27. Studies also reported positive outcomes in students’ engagement and satisfaction 7, 25. Tune et al. 37 found that students who participated in a flipped classroom showed higher achievement than students in a traditional classroom.

Consider the find-ings of Lord (1997), who conducted one of the first studies examiningthe impact of student-centered, constructive approaches in the introduc-tory biology classroom. Lord found that students who learned via col-laborative activities exhibited significantly greater gains in their ability tointerpret data and apply scientific concepts to novel situations. This find-ing is echoed by other studies in which students exhibited greater gains intheir ability to solve problems and design experiments when learning withina student-centered biology classroom (Burrowes 2003; Cortright, Collins,and DiCarlo 2005; Giuliodori, Lujan, and DiCarlo 2006; Wilke and Straits2001).

A variety of studies(both in flipped classrooms and traditional classrooms) indicate that lecturewebcasts are a highly effective method for delivering course content, and insome cases, are more effective than face-to-face lectures for enhancing stu-dent learning (McKinney, Dyck, and Luber 2009; Parslow 2009; Shaw andMolnar 2011).

The recognition of learning gains associ-ated with the implementation of more active learning strategies—as wellas the reluctance of many STEM faculty to adopt such strategies—has ledseveral education advisory bodies, including the National Science Foun-dation (NSF 1996), the National Research Council (NRC 2003), and theAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS 2009), to is-sue calls for significant reform in undergraduate science and mathemat-ics education.

studies within the science classroom resound-ingly demonstrate that the most effective strategies for teaching students tothink and act like scientists (to generate hypotheses, to design sound ex-periments, to analyze and interpret data) involve their active engagementin collaborative, inquiry-based learning activities, rather than their passiveengagement in traditional lectures, where the scientific method is merelydiscussed or modeled (Handelsman, Miller, and Pfund 2007)

What does it meanto think and act like a literary critic or a biologist? And how can we cre-ate these situations in class? Teaching the “attitudes, values, and disposi-tions” of a discipline or profession (Shulman 2005, 55) is not somethingthat can be accomplished through traditional “transfer of information” lec-tures alone. Numerous studies from multiple disciplines now indicate thatdeep disciplinary learning takes place when students are challenged withlearning activities that actively engage them in the habits of mind that drivetheir discipline.

During class time academics function more as a learning coach than as a teacher, using F2F class time for both individual inquiry and collaborative activities that clarify concepts and contextualise knowledge through application, analyse, planning and producing solutions (Anderson, Krathwohl, & Airasian, 2001). The results of the scoping review suggest instructors need to redesign their curriculum so that the pre-class activities are integrated better into their F2F classes with active learning pedagogies so students understand the model and are motivated to prepare for class; how these resources are integrated into the overall approach is what matters (Tucker, 2012).

In addition, the flipped classroom fosters student ownership of learning through the completion of preparatory work and being more interactive during actual class time. Proponents of flipped class suggest that this pedagogical approach is advantageous for a number of reasons; it allows students to learn at their own pace and that they may have flexibility of when they engage with electronic resources, it frees up actual class time for robust discussion and associated problem solving activities related to the aforementioned resources, and that these discussions could be initiated by the students, not the staff member.

Fourthly, students understand that they are expected to apply their acquired knowledge in classroom activities so that they are more motivated to learn prior to attending classes (Baepler, Walker, & Driessen, 2014). Students tackle real world problems requiring active participation and collaborative learning in the classroom (Crouch & Mazur, 2001). Collaborative learning means all “team members tackle the problems together in a coordinated effort” (Ng, 2008, p. 726), and it is regarded as a successful strategy for building rapport among team members and maximizing learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 2000). Moreover, peer interaction is positively related to academic achievement and college satisfaction (Astin, 1984, 1993).

Thirdly, the flipped classroom provides multiple opportunities for students to interact with digital materials and with peers in class, so that they learn actively, rather than passively as in a teacher-centered approach. Frequent interactions with faculty members have increased student learning satisfaction (Astin, 1984).

Indeed, pre-recorded lecture videos are particularly useful for slower students because they can watch the online videos multiple times until they have mastered the subject content (Mok, 2014). Students were much better prepared in class (McCallum, Schultz, Sellke, & Spartz, 2015) when they were given video lectures rather than textbook readings (De Grazia, Falconer, Nicodemus, & Medlin, 2012).

Instead of relying on textbook materials, educators select and evaluate learning materials with reference to students' prior knowledge and learning outcomes so that students are able to learn more effectively, in their own space, and at their own pace, than in traditional classes (Chen, Wang, Kinshuk, & Chen, 2014). When designing and facilitating online and class activities, educators embrace the value of assessment for learning, that is to say, assessments are embedded in the learning process to provide formative feedback to students and educators (Biggs, 1996; Black, Harrison, & Lee, 2003; Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2004) rather than being assessments of learning, that is to say, summative assessments.

The rationale of flipped classroom is to facilitate students in becoming self-regulated learners. Self-regulation entails an active monitoring and regulation of various learning processes that involve setting learning goals, aligning learning approaches and resources, and actively responding to feedback to improve final outcomes