Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition, rationale and a call for research

TLDR: The authors provide a catch-all definition for the flipped classroom, and attempt to retrofit it with a pedagogical rationale, which they articulate through six testable propositions, and construct a theoretical argument that flipped approaches might improve student motivation and help manage cognitive load.

Abstract: Flipped classroom approaches remove the traditional transmissive lecture and replace it with active in-class tasks and pre-/post-class work. Despite the popularity of these approaches in the media, Google search, and casual hallway chats, there is very little evidence of effectiveness or consistency in understanding what a flipped classroom actually is. Although the flipped terminology is new, some of the approaches being labelled ‘flipped’ are actually much older. In this paper, we provide a catch-all definition for the flipped classroom, and attempt to retrofit it with a pedagogical rationale, which we articulate through six testable propositions. These propositions provide a potential agenda for research about flipped approaches and form the structure of our investigation. We construct a theoretical argument that flipped approaches might improve student motivation and help manage cognitive load. We conclude with a call for more specific types of research into the effectiveness of the flipped classroom ...

Figures

Figure 1: Theoretical model for the flipped classroom

Full text

Abeysekera, Lakmal and Dawson, Phillip 2015, Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped
classroom : definition, rationale and a call for research, Higher education research & development,
vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 1-14.
This is the postprint version.
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Higher education
research & development in 2015, available at:
34TUhttp://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336U34T
©
2014, HERDSA
Reproduced by Deakin University with the kind permission of Taylor & Francis.
Available from Deakin Research Online:
34Thttp://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30070647 34T

1
This is a post-peer-reviewed version of an article whose final and definitive form, the
Version of Record, has been published in Higher Education Research & Development,
2015 copyright Taylor & Francis, available online at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336#.VQEhCIGUfYk
Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition,
rationale and a call for research
Lakmal Abeysekera
a
; Phillip Dawson
b
a
Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia;
b
Office of the
Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching), Monash University, Melbourne,
Australia
Corresponding Author:
Dr. Lakmal Abeysekera, Department of Management, Monash University.
Address: PO Box 197,
Caulfield East,
Victoria 3145,
Australia.
Phone: (03) 9903 4293
E-Mail: lakmal.abeysekera@monash.edu

2
Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition,
rationale and a call for research
Flipped classroom approaches remove the traditional transmissive lecture and
replace it with active in-class tasks and pre-/post-class work. Despite the
popularity of these approaches in the media, Google Search, and casual hallway
chats, there is very little evidence of effectiveness, or consistency in
understanding what a flipped classroom actually is. Although the flipped
terminology is new, some of the approaches being labelled ‘flipped’ are actually
much older. In this paper we provide a catch-all definition for the flipped
classroom, and attempt to retrofit it with a pedagogical rationale, which we
articulate through six testable propositions. These propositions provide a
potential agenda for research about flipped approaches and form the structure of
our investigation. We construct a theoretical argument that flipped approaches
might improve student motivation, and help manage cognitive load. We conclude
with a call for more specific types of research into the effectiveness of the flipped
classroom approach.
Keywords: flipped classroom; motivation; self-determination theory; cognitive
load theory
Background
Flipped Classroom approaches have been the subject of much popular attention
recently; since the inception of the term around 2011 its popularity as a Google search
term has risen exponentially (Google, 2013). In a flipped classroom, the information-
transmission component of a traditional face-to-face lecture (hereafter referred to as the
‘traditional lecture’) is moved out of class time. In its place are active, collaborative
tasks. Students prepare for class by engaging with resources that cover what would have
been in a traditional lecture. After class they follow up and consolidate their knowledge.
Very little research has been undertaken into flipped classroom approaches; this
is not unusual, as Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami and Schmid’s (2011) second-

3
order meta-analysis found high-level, detailed research evaluating the efficacy of
specific approaches of blended learning to be rare. Flipped approaches could however
be thought of as building upon sound theory and evidence from elsewhere. Removing
the traditional lecture is in many cases an evidence-based move: synthesis of research
on the effectiveness of lectures shows they are not very effective for teaching skills,
values or personal development; unless a lecture has the sole goal of transmitting
information, it is probably not the best approach (Bligh, 2000). From a cognitive load
perspective, self-paced preparatory work might better manage working memory than
traditional lectures (Clark, Nguyen, & Sweller, 2005). More troubling are issues of
student motivation; flipped classroom approaches wager the success of in-class
activities on the likelihood of students completing their pre-class assigned work. This
leads to the perennial problems of student preparation: how do teachers know if students
have prepared; what they know; and if the preparation was useful?
Despite popular enthusiasm and a somewhat reasonable rationale, flipped
classroom approaches could not yet be considered an evidence-based (Pawson, 2006)
approach; there is little research on the flipped classroom approach and none of it relies
on particularly rigorous designs. Contrasting the amazing Google popularity, a search of
the ERIC database finds only eight articles that use the phrase in their title, abstract or
keywords, and only two are peer reviewed (ERIC, 2013). The flipped classroom
approach is under-evaluated, under-theorised, and under-researched in general. In this
article we synthesise a definition of the flipped classroom from the scholarly and
popular literature, and analyse the rationale for this approach against theories of
motivation and cognitive load. We propose six testable propositions about the flipped
classroom, which form the basis of the structure for the later parts of this paper. We

4
conclude with a call for certain types of empirical research into the efficacy of the
flipped classroom around those propositions.
What is a Flipped Classroom?
According to Andrews, Leonard, Colgrove and Kalinowski (2011), many of the
learning difficulties experienced by students in undergraduate courses can be attributed
to the passive role played by them during traditional lectures; they advocate for active
learning as a remedy. Andrews et al. (2011, p. 394) define active learning as when “an
instructor stops lecturing and students work on a question or task designed to help them
understand a concept”. There is much support for active learning in the literature
because of evidence that it leads to improved learning (Andrews, et al., 2011). Meta-
analysis by Richardson, Abraham and Bond (2012) found characteristics we associate
with active learning, such as conscientiousness, concentration and a deep approach to
learning to have a positive impact on student achievement, whereas characteristics we
consider passive, such as procrastination or surface approaches to learning to be
associated with a negative impact on performance. One such learning environment that
enables students to engage in active learning is the flipped classroom approach (Berret,
2012; Milman, 2012; Strayer, 2012). According to Berrett’s (2012) piece in the
Chronicle of Higher Education, ‘flipping’ implies the inversion of expectations in the
traditional lecture. That is, through the use of computer technology and the Internet (e.g.
video recorded lecture available online or on a CD/DVD), the information-transmission
component of a traditional lecture is moved out of class time and replaced by a range of
interactive activities designed to entice active learning.
The first scholarly discussion of the ‘flipped’ classroom we have been able to
locate is Strayer’s (2007) doctoral dissertation on the topic. Strayer cites earlier work by

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the future works in "Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition, rationale and a call for research" ?

Testing these propositions will require measuring cognitive load and motivation, which are useful mechanisms for learning but should not be seen as proxies ; further research will need to investigate impact on student learning performance. The authors need to be wary of publication bias ( Torgerson, 2006 ) and encourage publication of those cases where the flipped classroom approach did not work, and be open to the possibility that flipping the classroom might not actually be the panacea that they are promised. If a sufficiently broad definition, like the one proposed in this article, is popularly adopted for the flipped classroom approach, other more prescriptive models may be subsumed by it. For individual university teachers to be confident in the flipped approach, and university decision makers to support them, the following types of investigations may be necessary: • small-scale localised interventions, including experimental studies: 

Q2. What is the purpose of the flipped classroom approach?

Through the encouragement of active participation and autonomy, the flipped classroom approach is likely to provide learning environments that encourage students to establish small learning groups, increasing the level of peer-to-peer relatedness they experience. 

Q3. What is the first call for research?

Their first call for research is for studies to empirically test the propositions the authors have made in this paper, which are based on evidence from other contexts. 

Q4. How can flipped classrooms be able to better tailor their teaching to the expertise of each?

By moving transmission teaching out of the classroom, using learning analytics, and carefully designing pre-class work, the flipped classroom approach may be able to better tailor online and face-to-face activities to theactual expertise of each individual in the class. 

Q5. What type of studies are needed for the flipped classroom approach to be considered?

For individual university teachers to be confident in the flipped approach, and university decision makers to support them, the following types of investigations may be necessary:• small-scale localised interventions, including experimental studies: 

Q6. What can flipped classroom educators do to improve their teaching?

By moving transmission out of the classroom, flipped classroom educators can provide multiple versions of difficult material, tailored to the diversity of prior knowledge of students - or, if they do not have time to make new materials, they can attempt to rely on learner pacing and repetition. 

Q7. Why is there much support for active learning in the literature?

There is much support for active learning in the literature because of evidence that it leads to improved learning (Andrews, et al., 2011). 

Q8. What is the effect of the flipped classroom approach on student learning behaviours?

That is, student learning behaviours are likely to be extrinsically motivated through integrated regulation rather than the instructor coerced mechanisms of reward or punishment. 

Q9. What are the main reasons why a flipped classroom approach is being adopted?

• larger-scale meta-studies or systematic reviews are necessary, but these willdepend on rigorous primary research into the efficacy of the flipped approach being published first;• qualitative work into student learning, and student experiences of the flippedclassroom approach. 

Q10. What does Cole and Harris define motivation to learn?

Field and Harris (2004, p. 67) define motivation to learn as “the willingness to attend and learn material in a development program”. 

Q11. What are the three very specific models that have been subject of many evaluation studies?

Three very specific models that have been the subject of many evaluation studies are:• Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (Moog & Spencer, 2008); • Peer Led Team Learning (Gosser et al., 2001); and • Peer Instruction (Mazure, 1997).