Reverse teaching: Exploring student perceptions of “flip teaching”

Reverse (or “flip”) teaching

Reverse teaching is also called flip teaching, backwards classroom, reverse instruction, and the inverted classroom (e.g. Alvarez, 2012). It is a teaching practice that “flips” or reverses the traditional teaching model so that students learn new content at home, and class time is used for “homework,” that is, working on problems (Anderson, 2012). In the classroom, the teacher’s interaction with students is more personalized and guidance-oriented instead of lecturing. As a concept that is receiving greater attention due to the increased technological availability (Thompson, 2012), further investigation is needed as to what students’ perceptions are toward this teaching approach.

The vision of a reverse classroom includes discussion and problem-based activities with a convenient backchannel (Stannard, 2012; Steel and Hudson, 2001). A backchannel is a communications platform for students to post comments and ask questions. Lage et al. (2000) note that the benefit of reverse teaching is that it engages more students due to the availability of the teacher. This means that reverse teaching also changes the allocation of teacher time. Traditionally, the teacher engages with the students who ask questions in class, which are often only a few. But as noted by Rosenberg (2013), those who do not ask tend to need the most attention. These “silent failers” can be targeted more effectively with flipped teaching and teachers are able to attend to those who need the most help rather than the most confident. Flipping thus changes teachers from “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side,” allowing them to work with individuals or groups of students throughout the session (King, 1993; Rosenberg, 2013).

The use of reverse teaching has attracted a growing range of studies, as researchers explore the usefulness of this approach (e.g. Henning, 2009). Specifically, researchers call for a careful consideration in areas such as independent preparation and online use of materials (McCartan, 2000; Issroff and Scanlon, 2002). Reverse teaching is a prevalent theme in different streams of education literature, including high school, universities, and corporate training (e.g. Nail, 2012), and has been researched in the areas of physics (Rundquist, 2012), swimming (Sherman and Rushall, 1993), writing (Kagan and Provenzano, 2007), and coaching (Cantrell, 2008). Today, a university’s focus on reverse teaching is more than just a necessity; it is an increasingly important differentiator between universities (Shimamoto, 2012).

Reverse teaching is considered a prerequisite for improving future education models (Finch et al., 2013; Nail, 2012) and subsequently acts as an important approach for future classrooms (Faig, 2011). Researchers suggest that reverse teaching is a form of blended learning which encompasses any use of Internet technology to leverage the learning in a classroom, so a teacher, instead of lecturing, can spend more time interacting with students (Barseghian, 2011). Blended learning refers to a formal education program in which a student learns through delivery of content and instruction via digital and online media with some element of student control over time, place, path, or pace (e.g. Friesen, 2012). This is achieved, as the teacher creates videos (or uses other media for the same purpose) that students view outside of class time, reversing traditional lecturing classes and enabling more interaction (e.g. Alvarez, 2012).

For example, the traditional pattern of education has been classroom lectures, where the teacher explains a topic, followed by homework that includes student exercises. In flip teaching, the students first study the topic by themselves (Tsai and Tsai, 2003), typically using video lessons created by the instructor or shared by another educator, such as those provided by the Khan Academy (Young, 2010), Coursera, or edX. The watch-at-home content can include recorded lectures, demonstration videos, adaptive quizzes, or anything in between (e.g. Brown, 2012; Faig, 2011). In the classroom, the student then tries to apply the knowledge by solving problems and doing practical work. According to Brown (2012), when reverse teaching is used, the classroom becomes more inter-active and the teacher has ample opportunity to provide individualized guidance when it is most needed. The role of the classroom teacher is then to tutor the student when they become stuck, rather than to impart the initial lesson. This allows time inside the class to be used for additional learning-based activities, including use of differentiated instruction and project-based learning (Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). Flip teaching allows more hands-on time with the instructor guiding the students, allowing them to assist the students when they are assimilating information and creating new ideas. Students learn by asking questions and doing, and they can also help each other, which benefit both the advanced and less advanced learners (Rosenberg, 2013).

In the early 1990s, King (1993) published “From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side,” which laid the foundation for reverse teaching by encouraging the teacher’s role to be less that of transmitting knowledge but more of facilitating learning in less directive ways, promoting active and cooperative learning. Later, Mazur’s (1997) work on peer instruction found that computer-aided instruction allowed him to coach instead of lecture. Researchers then began to present their studies on inverting the classroom (Lage et al., 2000) and using web courses with the classroom flip (Baker, 2000). When Khan began to record teaching videos and made them available for everyone with an Internet connection, reverse teaching gained increased interest and was hailed as the future education model. Today, Khan Academy videos are used as part of some educators’ flipped teaching strategy (Thompson, 2012).

Reverse teaching remains an under-researched area. However, there is evidence that teachers are employing the technique (Finch et al., 2013). For example, McDougall (2013) reveals that classes hold abundant potential for conducting reverse teaching classes. He notes that, on one hand, when the classes have clear objectives, they are very effective. On the other hand, problems are evidenced once the initial “fun” impression is over, and in later weeks, students may perceive the reverse teaching as over-structured. This finding is consistent with other teaching models, suggesting that continuous innovation is needed, such as the experiential learning model (Li et al., 2007) and zero-based model (Borin et al., 2007), both of which aim to foster innovation in teaching. While several solutions are present, scholars suggest that maintaining consistent reverse teaching effectiveness may require the inclusion of appropriate (and different) teachers for each topic that holds real-world applications and projects (Albers-Miller et al., 2001). The reverse teacher’s role is, thus, to act as a “consultant,” who allows the students to teach themselves (McDougall, 2013). Interestingly, using many teachers raises questions of the practicality of the method, if it is to be so heavy in staffing demands. McDougall (2013) acknowledges that while one teacher may be versatile enough to cover several topics on a general basis, for specialized topics, the inclusion of teachers with such specialized knowledge is preferred. This is especially true for certain contexts, such as marketing classes, which have diverse topics such as segmentation, statistics, or data management, to mention a few.

Based on the above review, the study describes reverse teaching as the successful execution of a teaching approach grounded in students’ perceptions of value. This approach is built on engagement and innovation in order to create satisfying learning outcomes by delivering beneficial outcomes for students and teachers alike. Although existing literature presents aspects of reverse teaching and its application, there is little discussion of those approaches grounded in students’ perspectives (Nail, 2012). Little attention has been given to the concept of reverse teaching and the teaching approaches focusing on reverse teaching (e.g. Nail, 2012). The purpose of our article is twofold: (1) to explore marketing students’ perceptions of reverse teaching, in order to (2) identify what constitutes desirable practices for the reverse teaching concept among this group.

Methodology

In all, 28 in-depth interviews were conducted following an open-ended format (with non-directive open-ended questions), in accordance with the exploratory nature of the research (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). Appendix 1 shows the interview protocol in detail. All of the interviews were conducted face-to-face by a member of the research team, and in some cases, follow-up email enquiries were used. The interviews were carried out in March–April 2013 toward the end of the teaching module.

The employed research technique was action research (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998). That is, to ensure that students had appropriate exposure to reverse teaching, two sessions of undergraduate classes were executed as reverse teaching. Topics for these two sessions were “Customer Relationship Management” and “Segmentation,” respectively. Activities included both short test questions and more in-depth discussion–based essay questions, for example: “(1) Does mass marketing have any role in the Interactive Era? If so, what? How might branding be used, and what benefits could it yield for the customer-centric enterprise? (2) List and describe the seven characteristics of genuine business relationships. (3) What strategy would you suggest for a company dealing with high customer churn (and assumedly low customer loyalty), taking into account both attitudinal and behavioral definitions of loyalty? How would you characterize the core problem? How might a loyalty program help?” Table 1 shows the proceedings of the sessions, each lasting 60 minutes. The class consisted of second and final year marketing students.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Reverse teaching proceedings.

Before class	During class
Students were reminded of next week’s reverse teaching session in class, via email, on blackboard, as well as referred to the module guide with clear instructions.	Classes began with a series of brief questions about the content of the online lectures. These questions stimulated vivid participation by the students.
Students were asked to watch selected online videos on youtube.com about “Customer Relationship Management” and “Segmentation.”	Deeper discussion topics were subsequently discussed and key points from the lectures were highlighted.
They were further asked to do the usual readings and conduct further research on the topics.	Students were handed assignments to complete individually. The teachers had the opportunity to visit each student individually to assist with their enquiries.
Once the online lectures were complete, students were reminded to bring their notes to class.	At the end, students were divided into smaller groups to compare their findings, as well as further discuss relevant teaching outcomes.

After each of the two sessions, 14 students were randomly asked to be interviewed. Interested students were selected, and they were asked directly whether they were able to answer questions about the teaching method. They all agreed to participate. The sampling approach was a purposive technique, whereby the sample met a predetermined criterion (Bryman, 2006). The purpose of only exploring the students’ perceptions (and not tutors’) was to obtain a homogeneous group. Homogeneous sampling is used when the goal of the research is to understand and describe a particular group in depth. The interviews were ended after conducting in-depth interviews with 28 respondents (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Out of a class size of 89 students, the decision to interview 28 was to get varied responses and to achieve data saturation. Respondents were marketing students; they were aged between 18 and 20 years, urban, and the majority female (57.1%), residing in the United Kingdom.

After data collection, the interviews were transcribed and the data were coded using NVivo, enabling the generation of key themes and comparison of the data (Clisbee, 2003). Following a grounded theory approach, a systematic coding process took place, analyzed in part by comparing frequencies of responses. The grounded theory approach incorporates a systematic, constant line-by-line comparison, exploring repetitions, similarities, and differences, thus ensuring that all data were observed thoroughly and all the dimensions explored (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The analysis of the content highlighted consistencies and meanings about reverse teaching. Through interpretation, reflections were made about the data in order to enrich the understanding of reverse teaching.

Ethical considerations were discussed with all the interviewees in advance, with information about the study in order to ensure transparency and clarity. The interviewer ensured that the participants were informed about confidentiality, stating that the data collected were for research purposes only and that the research was voluntary, so they could opt out at any time and pass on any question they found inappropriate (Bryman, 2006).

Findings

The data analysis produced three main dimensions representing the construct of reverse teaching, as shown in Figure 1. The data supported the categorization of reverse teaching as a process, consisting of these three phases, as explained next.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Reverse teaching conceptualization.

Discussion

The study reveals features of reverse teaching and how it is driven by cases of preparation, interaction, and outcomes. The data indicate that students perceive dialogue and engagement as good practices (Chickering and Gamson, 1987). Moreover, students perceive well-crafted online videos, exciting in-class activities, flexibility, convenience, and availability of teacher for questioning as effective reverse teaching. These benefits are consistent with studies, emphasizing the use of online materials (Dowell and Small, 2011), thus forming an important part of the blended learning experience (Friesen, 2012).

Unprepared students and lack of motivation to come to class are not desirable for successful reverse teaching. It seems that students staying away from the classes may not be such a serious problem as initially put forward, that is, until students perceive these classes as ineffective (McDougall, 2013); hence, teachers need to consider how their in-class activities can be more engaging. The data highlight some examples where students stay away because they did not find value in attending classes; however, it appears that they had carried their dislike of seminars over to the reverse teaching classes. Thus, in the initial transition when implementing the flipped classroom, some clear guidance will be needed. A major positive relates to students referring to the online context, where they enjoy more ways to learn, multitask, and learn more conveniently and flexibly. Such benefits may be highlighted in the initial reverse teaching classes. With increasing use of social media and online platforms, more interaction can potentially be used between teachers and students (Nail, 2012). Teachers must learn the best available platform where students will find the learning to be more engaging, for example, Facebook or Twitter (Cantrell, 2008). Continuous innovation is needed in order to retain value in reverse teaching. This is a new finding that extends existing literature (Li et al., 2007).

The findings indicate that the level of shared understanding among the interviewed respondents of reverse teaching is high. For instance, “dialogue” and “convenience” outcomes are two traits that can illustrate reverse teaching. This is consistent with studies, which emphasize the need to include interaction and flexibility in reverse teaching (Smeby, 1998). Consequently, findings reveal that reverse teaching may be defined by various key concepts. As the findings reveal, reverse teaching must focus on concepts such as flexibility, relationships, transparent dialogue, and individual help. These key concepts permeate all the three dimensions. In other words, there is a need to focus on factors that underpin a good relationship between teacher and student. This is the first step toward implementing improved approaches to reverse teaching. Suggested outcomes are improved teacher–student relationships, better learning, and increased engagement (Trowler and Trowler, 2010).

While the study makes contributions to existing research in education and teaching innovations, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, it was not possible to deliver the whole module as reverse teaching. Therefore, future studies are recommended to investigate whether the student feedback would be more or less positive if the entire module was delivered as reverse teaching. Second, while the study investigated student perceptions and their sub-conscious motives from a single module, it is not certain that the students fully absorbed the true meaning of reverse teaching. Thus, it is recognized that the findings may be suggestive rather than conclusive, and further research is encouraged to validate our framework. Third, the research was conducted in an advanced marketing class. It cannot be guaranteed that the results can be generalized to other contexts and types of students. However, it would be interesting if the study could be replicated into different educational levels and multiple subjects. Such cross-validation would enhance the generalizability of the model. Finally, it is noted that the study is limited to the students’ perspectives and calls for expansive research to grasp the reverse teaching concept from other groups, including professors and unprepared students, who engaged in the classes without preparation.

This study investigates students’ perceptions of reverse teaching practices in an advanced marketing class. The resulting reverse teaching conceptualization is based upon a discussion of issues on interaction, convenience, flexibility, and innovation. The findings extend theories related to reverse teaching on both the three dimensions and the best practices. Classes, focusing on the activities described, for example, simulations, activities, and group discussions (Eastman and Swift, 2001), are not atypical of any discipline. The findings suggest that students find the reverse teaching methods to complement this. Online video lectures are the first step toward discovering the future of marketing classes (Thompson, 2012). It is suggested that teachers should actively manage students’ perceptions using tools that are considered favorable. This builds and creates interactive and engaging classes (Smart and Cappel, 2006). For instance, a teacher should employ tools such as online videos, social media, in-class activities, support sessions, and other deep learning instruments (Iniesta-Bonillo et al., 2010). Another example is to ask students to follow online courses (decided by the teacher) from Coursera, edX, or other free course platforms, where both videos and learning materials are offered for free (with complemented certificates). Then, class time can be used to discuss and work on problems arising from these courses.

Whichever approach is used in the preparation and interaction phases, the study demonstrates the importance of follow-up on students in order to sustain a rewarding learning relationship. To achieve positive student perceptions, elements such as flexibility, convenience, interaction, and engagement must be managed more systematically. Teachers thus need to (1) recognize the importance of the three reverse teaching dimensions, (2) acknowledge students’ differential perceptions across the dimensions (including the advantages and disadvantages), and (3) incorporate continuous innovation with appropriate tools, namely, online videos and individual interaction (online and offline) into their strategies and tactics.

Based on the findings and discussion, the study proposes a definition of reverse teaching as a teaching strategy execution aimed at stimulating and manifesting students’ perceptions of deep learning. Reverse teaching achieves this through creating mutually satisfying relationships online and offline using innovation and technology and by delivering acceptable outcomes such as flexibility and transparency for students and teachers over the three main dimensions: labeled preparation, interaction, and outcomes. Overall, we hope that our study encourages more awareness toward empirical research into this interesting area. With increasing technological availability and innovative teaching channels, such as social media, the potential of flip teaching is greater than ever.