INNOVA Research Journal 2017, Vol 2, No. 8, pp. 119-129
to be developed at home is changed for a model where the teacher becomes a facilitator of learning
by monitoring classroom activities and by reinforcing and building upon the concepts that the
students have already reviewed at home. The leaders of the Flipped Learning Network (FLN)
highlight the difference between flipped classroom and flipped learning. They state that teachers
can flip their classroom by sending students to read at home or watch educational videos but it
does not necessarily means that the learning is being flipped. FLN states that a flipped learning
should be based in the four pillars of F-L-I-P “flexible environment, learning culture, intentional
content, and professional educator” (Flipped Learning Network, 2014)
The first pillar flexible environment involves differentiated instruction through considering
our students learning styles and multiple intelligences during the instruction and assessment. The
second pillar is the learning culture which considers the student as the center of the instruction.
This pillar is based on the constructivist approach for that reason the classroom time is used for
students to analyze the topic in depth and to work with the teacher and partners to understand and
take ownership of the content in meaningful ways. The third pillar is the intentional content. It
guides the teacher to decide which content should be taught in the classroom and which content
can be managed by students at home. Finally, the fourth pillar is the need of professional
educators. It involves the critical reflection from the teacher of his teaching practice. It is the
sharing of educational strategies with other teachers and the acceptance of criticism in order to
improve instructional practice. It is the searching of teaching tools that best fit their students’
needs. (Hamdan, McKnight, McKnight, & Arfstrom, 2013) . In other words, flipped classroom
and flipped learning are correlated but they are not considered interchangeable terms.
Literature Review
Despite the fact that this teaching model is innovative the research done so far
demonstrates the effectiveness of using flipped classroom in teaching different subjects.
Schwankl (2013) conducted a study to measure the effects on achievement and students
perception of flipped classroom in a rural southwestern Minnesota school. The sample involved
two groups, one control and one treatment group. The students were enrolled in Integrated II
Mathematics classes. The participants were freshman and sophomores students and one junior
student. The researchers applied pre-tests and post-tests to both groups. The treatment group
received classes by applying flipped classroom model; the teachers recorded the lectures by
using Screencast-O-matic and then they uploaded the videos on Youtube, the teachers also gave
the students the option to access to the recorded lectures by using a flash memory. The students
were required to watch the videos at home and develop assignments and learning activities
during the classroom’s time. The control group received classes by using the traditional
instruction. Both groups studied the same content during the research period. The total score in
the post-tests reflected a higher achievement of the treatment group (5.54%) over the control
group (1.81%).
Pearson (2013) reports how the flipped learning model dramatically improves course
approval rates for at-risk students in the Clintondale High School in Clinton Township, Michigan
in United States of America. The participants were 32 teachers and 553 students. In 2010, the
high school implemented Flipped Classroom for teaching Math, Science, Social Studies, and
English Language arts to freshman at-risk students. The teachers created videos of their
Revista de la Universidad Internacional del Ecuador. URL: https://www.uide.edu.ec/
121