IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 3 March 2021

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:
1694-2493
e-ISSN:
1694-2116
IJLTER.ORG
Vol.20 No.3

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
(IJLTER)
Vol. 20, No. 3 (March 2021)
Print version: 1694-2493
Online version: 1694-2116
IJLTER
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research (IJLTER)
Vol. 20, No. 3
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations,
broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machines or similar means, and storage in data banks.
Society for Research and Knowledge Management

The International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal which has been
established for the dissemination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
fields of learning, teaching and educational research.
Aims and Objectives
The main objective of this journal is to provide a platform for educators,
teachers, trainers, academicians, scientists and researchers from over the
world to present the results of their research activities in the following
fields: innovative methodologies in learning, teaching and assessment;
multimedia in digital learning; e-learning; m-learning; e-education;
knowledge management; infrastructure support for online learning;
virtual learning environments; open education; ICT and education;
digital classrooms; blended learning; social networks and education; e-
tutoring: learning management systems; educational portals, classroom
management issues, educational case studies, etc.
Indexing and Abstracting
Research is indexed in Scopus since 2018. The Journal is also indexed in
Google Scholar and CNKI. All articles published in IJLTER are assigned
a unique DOI number.

Foreword
We are very happy to publish this issue of the International Journal of
Learning, Teaching and Educational Research.
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal committed to
publishing high-quality articles in the field of education. Submissions
may include full-length articles, case studies and innovative solutions to
problems faced by students, educators and directors of educational
organisations. To learn more about this journal, please visit the website
http://www.ijlter.org.
We are grateful to the editor-in-chief, members of the Editorial Board
and the reviewers for accepting only high quality articles in this issue.
We seize this opportunity to thank them for their great collaboration.
The Editorial Board is composed of renowned people from across the
world. Each paper is reviewed by at least two blind reviewers.
We will endeavour to ensure the reputation and quality of this journal
with this issue.
Editors of the March 2021 Issue

VOLUME 20 NUMBER 3 March 2021
Table of Contents
Effective Social Studies Pedagogy: Effect of Simulation Games and Brainstorming Strategies on Students
Learning Outcome ..................................................................................................................................................................1
Sunday Obro, Clifford Edore Ogheneakoke, Williams P. Akpochafo
Innovative Teaching: A Qualitative Review of Flipped Classrooms ............................................................................. 18
Kevin Fuchs
Elementary Teachers’ Thoughts about Distance Education and Learning 21st-Century Skills during COVID
Pandemic................................................................................................................................................................................ 33
Amani K H. Alghamdi, Naimah Ahmad Al-Ghamdi
English as Foreign Language Teaching in High Schools: A Chilean Case Study......................................................... 51
Andrew Philominraj, Ranjeeva Ranjan, Rodrigo Arrellano Saavedra, Claudio Andrés Cerón Urzúa
The Practicum in Times of Covid-19: Knowledge Developed by Future Physical Education Teachers in Virtual
Modality................................................................................................................................................................................. 68
Alejandro Almonacid-Fierro, Ricardo Souza de Carvalho, Franklin Castillo-Retamal, Manuel Almonacid Fierro
Challenges to Online Engineering Education during the Covid-19 Pandemic in Eastern Visayas, Philippines......84
Perante Wenceslao, Gomba Felisa
Success Indicators of Mathematical Problem-Solving Performance Among Malaysian Matriculation Students....97
Suriati Abu Bakar, Nur Raidah Salim, Ahmad Fauzi Mohd Ayub, Kathiresan Gopal
What do Malaysian ESL Teachers Think About Flipped Classroom? ......................................................................... 117
Ngo Hui Kiang, Melor Md Yunus
Initial Teacher Education of Primary English and CLIL Teachers: An Analysis of the Training Curricula in the
Universities of the Madrid Autonomous Community (Spain)..................................................................................... 132
Alfonso López-Hernández
The Attitudes of Pupils towards using Flipgrid in Learning English Speaking Skills .............................................. 151
Joan Lim Ker Shin, Melor Md Yunus
Effect of Accounting Lecturer Behavior on the Level of Online Learning Outcomes Achievement ....................... 169
Alwan Sri Kustono, Wahyu Agus Winarno, Ardhya Yudistira Adi Nanggala
Challenges of Virtual Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experiences of Mexican University Professors
and Students........................................................................................................................................................................ 188
Claudia Patricia Contreras, David Picazo, Aixchel Cordero-Hidalgo, Paola Margarita Chaparro-Medina
Advancing Preservice Physics Teachers’ Critical Thinking through Active and Passive Microteaching Lesson
Study..................................................................................................................................................................................... 205
Billy A. Danday

Ecuadorian Teachers’ Perceptions of Teaching English: Challenges in the Public Education Sector...................... 229
Agnes Orosz, Mirdelio Monzón, Paola Velasco
Constructivist Learning Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Investigating Students’ Perceptions of Biology Self-
Learning Modules............................................................................................................................................................... 250
Aaron A. Funa, Frederick T. Talaue
The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Challenges of E-Assessment of Calculus Courses in Higher Education: A Case
Study in Saudi Arabia ........................................................................................................................................................ 265
Fatima Azmi, Heba Bakr Khoshaim
The Effects of Physical, Emotional, and Cognitive Demands on Academic Leaders’ Performance in Malaysian
Research Universities ......................................................................................................................................................... 282
Mayadah Graizi, Kenny S. L. Cheah, Kazi Enamul Hoque

1
©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 1-17, March 2021
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.3.1
Effective Social Studies Pedagogy:
Effect of Simulation Games and Brainstorming
Strategies on Students’ Learning Outcome
Sunday Obro, Clifford Edore Ogheneakoke and Williams P. Akpochafo
Delta State University, Nigeria
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7675-9166
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8545-6274
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8632-3323
Abstract. This study explored the effects of game simulation and
brainstorming pedagogy strategies on students’ learning outcomes. In
addition, the study compared the effects of three strategies on students’
learning outcomes. This study tested pedagogical strategies for effects
on learning outcomes. The quasi-experimental research involved 180
students. The results reliably indicate that a simulation-game
pedagogical strategy boosted students’ learning outcomes, while a
brainstorming pedagogical strategy was effective on students’ learning
outcomes. When equated with brainstorming and the lecture strategies
in enhancing students’ learning outcomes, the superiority of the
simulation-game pedagogical strategy was also observed. These
findings indicate that innovative and student-centred pedagogical
strategies such as simulation-game and brainstorming strategies
improve students’ learning outcomes. In-service teachers should be
appropriately trained through seminars and conferences on modern
pedagogical strategies such as brainstorming and simulation games for
better Social Studies pedagogical strategies.
Keywords: brainstorming; pedagogy; Social Studies; simulation game;
students’ learning outcomes
1. Introduction
In the face of challenging experiences of the present time, one needs to advance
and create diverse and innovative solutions for what seems like a problematic
life task. In Nigeria, Social Studies is a mandatory discipline at the Basic
Education level. Irrespective of the ethnic, racial and cultural differences, Social
Studies is seen as a tool for building and creating a robust Nigerian nation. With
recent modifications or changes in the Upper Basic Social Studies curriculum,
what still dominates Social Studies classrooms is the lecture strategy with no
quality or lasting learning outcomes (Essien et al., 2015). Teachers generally rely

2
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
on the lecture strategy for imparting Social Studies knowledge and skills. This
lack of an inventive, creative teaching strategy and critical progression in Social
Studies lessons and classrooms can be linked to teachers’ disinclination to learn
and use novel and creative teaching strategies. Also, the dictate of high-stakes
experimentation and execution involves students’ churning out factoids to grasp
the content. Thus, there is a lack of real motivation for teachers or students to
learn more than a particular fact. Any challenging of the subject matter is
regarded as unnecessary and unimportant. According to Wood (2011), the
typical Social Studies classroom inhibits critical and creative thinking and
strengthens the idea that facts and information are unchangeable and not free for
criticism or interpretation. Students stuck in this type of Social Studies classroom
or environment quickly discover that they are bored and helpless, having been
taught from the standpoint that Social Studies is an assemblage of useless
inconsequential knowledge.
Simulation games challenge students’ understanding to comprehend difficult
tasks by means other than the traditional lecture strategy. In other words, they
have the potential for helping students achieve more than the conventional
teaching method (Nja et al., 2019). On the other hand, a brainstorming strategy
enhances the productivity of ideas and explores solutions. It helps learners to
discover better solutions or answers to problems (Malkawi & Smadi, 2018).
In the expository strategy, learners are passive and collect information that can
be reclaimed when the teacher requires it from them (Tarman & Kuran, 2015).
However, evidence has shown that knowledge gained through an active
discussion strategy is generally retained better than knowledge gained through
a lecture strategy. Furthermore, according to Jack and Kyado (2017), students
more often favour active participation in discussion than being inactive or
passive in a lecture. Through meaningful or fruitful learning, Social Studies
learning need no longer be a matter of memorisation facts and principles that
cannot be applied to novel problem-solving situations (Shear, 2016). Students are
given the means and the opportunity to participate actively in the teaching and
learning situation in activity-based learning, unlike in the conventional
pedagogical strategy.
Study outcomes of other research have shown that brainstorming and
simulation-game pedagogical strategies aided students' learning outcomes.
Customarily, students' inculcation of knowledge using a lecture strategy is
inefficient to grasp curriculum contents. There are various Social Studies
pedagogical strategies. Some of these strategies are thought to be more valuable
and successful than others. The question is which strategy is more productive
and beneficial for Social Studies teaching, specifically at the Upper Basic level.
Hence, this study compares and establishes the effect of the selected strategies
(simulation games and brainstorming strategies) on Social Studies students’
learning outcome. This study is intended to find the answers to the following
propositions: a simulation-games pedagogical strategy will not enhance
students’ learning outcomes; students instructed by means of a brainstorming
pedagogical strategy may not increase their learning outcomes; and differences

3
will not be found among brainstorming, simulation-games, and lecture
pedagogical strategies on Social Studies students’ learning outcomes.
The hypotheses listed below were formulated and tested:
i) Students’ involvement in simulation-game strategies will not improve their
learning outcomes.
ii) Students’ involvement in brainstorming strategies will not improve their
learning outcomes.
iii)There is no statistically significant difference among brainstorming,
simulation-games and lecture pedagogical strategies regarding students’
learning outcomes.
1.1 Practical gaps
The study could provide teachers with the desired information to design and
adopt the right teaching strategies to suit varied learners and enhance students’
learning outcomes in Social Studies. Similarly, the study could provide
researchers in Social Studies areas with future research in instructional
strategies. It could also help authors and publishers in their presentation of
content to readers. Finally, the results obtained may lead to further research in
other subject areas.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Simulation-Game Pedagogical Strategy
As indicated by Mozelius et al. (2017), a simulation game denotes a board game,
or those various teacher-made games for teaching and learning purposes. The
focus of these pedagogical games is usually on the socioeconomic, religious,
political and aspects of society. A variety of games is accessible which cover
substantial areas of the Social Studies programme. The varieties include, among
others, chess, tug of war, Diplomacy, Monopoly, Risk, Die Macher, Scrabble, and
Hacienda, among others (Nja et al., 2019). Ochoyi (2018) opined that simulation-
assisted learning merges distinctive characteristics that make it appropriate to
situations where the emphasis is on interactive or cooperative learning. It
produces excitement, enhances learning and almost mirrors the real-life world.
They refer to simulation games as contrived or artificial activities which match
some facet of reality. A simulation game is a representation of a real social or
physical situation reduced to manageable sizes to serve a particular function or
purpose. It is any environment or game among challengers functioning under
rules towards achieving a goal such as winning, or a victory. It has two
features, namely overt rivalry or competition, and rules.
Simulation games give students the understanding to comprehend difficult
tasks. In other words, they have the potential for helping students achieve more
than they would by means of the conventional teaching method (Nja et al.,
2019). On the other hand, a brainstorming strategy enhances the productivity of
ideas and explores solutions. It helps learners to discover better solutions or
answers to problems (Malkawi & Smadi, 2018).

4
According to Ezeudu and Ezinwanne (2013), a simulation game is often referred
to as an activity that is based, partially or wholly, on the judgment and
decisions of the players. It is an excellent enhancement to the standard
traditional lecture. It is a didactic tool whereby students learn through the
application of decision-making and theories to a simulated real-life scenario
(Folta, 2010). Antunes et al. (2012) contend that simulation games are applied in
the teaching-learning process because they provide fascinating challenges to
learners and add interest, activity and novelty to the lesson. According to
Mozelius et al. (2017), it increases their enthusiasm and leads to learning
outcomes.
However, despite the several positive educational benefits or advantages, it still
has some shortcomings. Guy and Lownes-Jackson (2015) pointed out that
teachers using the simulation game strategy must be aware that it takes much
time, and students are likely to be very noisy, unmanageable and might at times
be uncontrollable. Students should therefore be organised and educated on how
to behave during simulation activities. Simulation games demand adequate
preparation and coordination from both the teacher and the institution.
2.2 Brainstorming as a Pedagogical Strategy
Hashempour et al. (2015) described the brainstorming pedagogical strategy as
a group or individual creative strategy by which members attempt to solve a
particular problem or issue by collecting a list of instinctive ideas contributed by
its member(s). Ashammari (2015) asserted that it is called brainstorming because
it involves a situation where individuals generate as many fresh ideas as
possible around a particular concern or problem using guidelines which
eliminate shyness and produce creative thinking and novel solutions and ideas.
In that way they, they come up with several new ideas and answers. The
participants or contributors shout out ideas as they come to mind and
subsequently build on the ideas suggested by others. All views or opinions are
recorded but not criticised or evaluated. It is only when the brainstorming
session is over that students’ ideas are evaluated. Rowan (2014) defined
brainstorming as a creative individual or a groupactivity in which efforts are
made to ascertain a definite solution or conclusion for a particular problem by
gathering facts in the form of a list of opinions and ideas instinctively
contributed by the members. When used as a Social Studies strategy for
teaching, particularly in introducing and laying out new facts and ideas, a
brainstorming pedagogical strategy is simple, less complicated, and very useful.
Jack and Kyado (2017) opined that a brainstorming strategy is an instructional
strategy that emphasises students’ participation, dialogue, input and two-way
interaction. The fundamental purpose of a brainstorming pedagogical strategy is
to build and boost communication andinteraction skills, enhance thinking and
decision-making or judgement skills, and simultaneously foster different
opinions. It is effective for the reason that it stimulates the students’ background
knowledge and raises their interest. The teacher can ascertain whether the
students have sufficient background experience and knowledge to go ahead

5
with the study during the learning process (Rashtchi & Beiki, 2015).
Brainstorming can be utilised in all relevant facets of learning.
However, in spite of all the usefulness and qualities of a brainstorming strategy,
weaknesses or inadequacies abound: the brainstorming strategy has its
shortcomings. The major shortcoming is that brainstorming groups’
contributions and productivity may be inhibited by fear of critical evaluation.
Students may desire to follow the prevalent practice and pattern of idea
generation. For Owo et al. (2016), brainstorming is generally not appropriate at
the primary school level because of the level of reasoning required to work out
and achieve known objectives. Simultaneously, the teacher must be equipped to
guide and be of assistance as necessary, bearing in mind the class environment
as such considerations often determine the outcomes. As mentioned earlier,
these barriers can lower levels of enthusiasm and effort when individuals work
cooperatively in the classroom. When these barriers are present, the individual
gives up on the group, and interaction and cooperation are reduced. Moreover,
the kind and amount of time dedicated to assigned tasks may also affect
individuals’ decisions to leave the group (Owo et al., (2016).
2.3 Studies Related to Simulation Games and Students’ Learning Outcome
Balasubramanian and Brent (2010) explored the challenges and opportunities
offered by simulation and games to improve learning with students’ ethnicity
and gender as factors. They found that students from all groups exhibited
significant learning outcomes through the employment of simulation and
games. However, Hsu et al. (2011) found no effect of games on students’
learning outcomes. Ezeudu and Ezinwanne (2013) examined the effects of
simulation games on chemistry students’ learning outcomes. They deduced that
simulation games brought about improved performance in mathematics. Ahmad
et al. (2013) examined the computer games’ effects on students’ interest and
achievement in geometry. The study found that students taught using games did
better than those instructed by means of the traditional strategy. The study of
Beuk (2015) looked into the effect of sales’ simulation games on students’
learning. The research established that the academic learning of those students
who were exposed to simulation games improved.. This result means that
students subjected to games teaching methods did better than students in the
control condition. Carenys and Moya (2016) explored students’ learning
outcomes in digital game-based business and accounting education. The study
found that digital game-based pedagogical strategies significantly improved
students’ learning in business and accounting education.
2.4 Studies Related to Brainstorming Strategy and Students’ Learning
Outcome
Owo et al. (2016) examined whether the brainstorming method would improve
students’ knowledge in chemistry. The study established that the brainstorming
method did not improve their performance. In addition, Hashempour et al.
(2015) examined the usefulness of a brainstorming strategy on students’
learning. The study found that a brainstorming strategy failed to enhance
students’ learning outcomes. Also, students did not differ due to gender. Owo

6
et al. (2016) explored the brainstorming strategy efficacy on students’ previous
knowledge and learning outcomes in chemistry. Their finding proved that the
brainstorming strategy did not boost students’ learning outcomes. However,
Jack and Kyado (2017) concluded that a brainstorming pedagogical strategy
resulted in students’ better learning outcomes in electro-chemistry. In addition,
Malkawi and Smadi (2018) examined the effect of the brainstorming method on
students’ learning outcomes in English grammar in Jordan. The study concluded
that the brainstorming pedagogy method improved students’ learning
outcomes.
3. Theoretical Background/Framework
The present study is grounded on Albert Bandura’s (1999) social cognitive
learning. The theory accentuates the importance of observation and modelling in
the actions, attitude, and emotional reactions or responses of others. Therefore, it
centres on learning by modelling and observation. Social cognitive learning
theory explains how both cognitive and environmental factors interact to affect
human learning and conduct. Its emphasis is on learning within a social setting
or framework. As indicated by Bandura (1999), people learn from each other’s
ideas through observational learning, imitation, and modelling. This theory is
pertinent to this study because its propositions are traditionally considered
necessary ingredients required for activity-based teaching.
The theory provided the theoretical foundation for organising simulation-game
environments and developing brainstorming, which can be utilised as practical
teaching strategies. The theory has shown why teachers must promote the most
creative and helpful strategies by moving away from ineffective practices and
moving towards more supportive learning strategies for all students. The theory
is robustly associated with this study because students will boost their learning
outcomes as they actively build their knowledge through imitation, modelling,
observation, and interactions with different simulation games and
brainstorming exercises that Social Studies teachers provide. Furthermore, the
social cognitive theory is vital to this study because it is used to examine this
study's cause and effect. It is additionally suitable and relevant to highlight and
relate it to pedagogical strategies (simulation games and brainstorming) on
learning outcomes.
Figure 1: The conceptual framework
Simulation
Games
Social Studies
Learning Outcome
Test (SSLOT)
Brainstorming
Control
Condition

7
4. Methodology
4.1 Study Design
The research design was quasi-experimental. The design encompassed three
groups, namely two experimental groups (EGs) and one control group (CG). The
pedagogical strategies include simulation games (SGs) and brainstorming as
treatment or intervention, and the traditional lecture strategy was utilised for the
control group. The study design signifies the following:
Table 1: Research blueprint
Groups Pretest Treatment Posttest
Experimental Group 1 O1 X O2
Experimental Group 1 O3 X O4
Control Group O5 O6
The codes are explained as follows:
O1 = Pretest measurement for Experimental Group I
X1 = Treatment for Experimental Group I (Simulation games)
O2 = Posttest extent for Experimental Group I
O3 = Pretest extent for Experimental Group II
X2 = Treatment for Experimental Group II (Brainstorming)
O4 = Posttest measurement for Experimental Group II
O5 = Pretest measurement for Control Group
O6 = Posttest measurement for Control Group (Rogers & Révész, 2020).
As detailed previously, an intervention was introduced to the two experimental
groups, while there was no such intervention or no difference in treatment with
the control group. Accordingly, changes observed in the posttest learning
outcomes were ascribed to the intervention or treatment effect.
4.2 Participants
Participants are all Upper Basic Education 2 students of the public schools in
Delta and Edo States, Nigeria. The study sample consisted of 180 Basic 2 (Upper)
students who constitute 0.22% of the total population as the study was an
experimental study. The multistage sampling method at four levels through the
balloting method was utilised to select the study sample. The first level of
sampling was the senatorial districts which were used as the sampling units. For
the second level of sampling, a local government area was randomly selected. In
the third level of sampling, a school was chosen from the local government areas
by means of a balloting method. The judgemental approach was employed in
selecting all the students from the six (6) schools. Furthermore, a class of Upper
Basic level eight was sampled as the fourth sampling level from each school.
All the students in that class from the six (6) government secondary schools were
the experimental study subjects. In selecting the schools for the study, only
mixed schools were considered as appropriate for the research as gender was a
variable that was investigated. The ballot method was used to assign these
schools to either the experimental or control groups. The schools selected were
sufficiently far off from each other, and no school had double treatment to
prevent interference. Specifically, the topics were not taught at any school before

8
the start of the experiment. The classes used in the research were carefully
chosen using a die.
4.3 Instrument
The instrument employed for the study was a test instrument titled “Social
Studies Learning Outcome Test” (SSLOT) (see Appendix 1). The SSLOT
contained fifty (50) items (multiple choice) which were Social Studies topics
taught in Upper Basic level 2 during the period of experimentation. The test
items were spread to cover the following topics: Drugs abuse, Harmful
substances and Drug trafficking. In constructing the test, a specification table
was worked out. It was a two-dimensional table showing the test objectives and
the content to be tested. In drawing up the SSLOT, the researcher took
cognisance of the taxonomy of objectives in the cognitive domain using three
cognitive reasoning skills: Remembering, Understanding and Thinking (RUT).
The items were shared around the three levels of Remembering (25%),
Understanding (50) and Thinking (25), all totalling 100%.
Table 2: Test blueprint for Social Studies learning outcomes (SSLOT)
SYLLABUS SECTIONS
%
REMEMBERING
25%
UNDERSTANDING
50%
THINKING
25
%
TOTAL
Drug abuse 28% 3 6 3 12
Drug trafficking 32% 4 9 4 17
Harmful substances 40% 6 10 5 21
Total 100% 13 25 12 50
Instrument reliability was confirmed by using 30 students in a test-retest
process. Using the Pearson coefficient (r), a value of 0.74 was obtained. Thus, the
instrument was deemed reliable and therefore suitable for the study.
4.4 Research Procedure
The experiment took six (6) weeks. Students were assigned after selection to
intervention groups and control conditions. The SSLOT was administered as a
pretest. This was followed by the intervention (experimentation) through the
subject matter or content instruction as presented in the curriculum using the
selected instructional conditionstrategies. Two teachers were employed to
conduct the experiment or treatment (that is, two treatment administrators).
The students selected for the experiment (experimental group) were taught
Social Studies content three days per week with each lesson lasting 40 minutes
per period, making a total of 120 minutes a week. Students were pretested with
the SSLOT to establish their learning outcomes level prior to experimentation.

9
After six weeks of experimentation or treatment, a posttest was administered to
determine students' learning outcome levels.
The control groups were instructed using only the lecture strategy and both a
pretest and posttest were administered. The teaching and test administration
were done simultaneously in the six schools.
5. Results
RQ 1
Will a simulation-game pedagogical strategy lead to enhanced students’ learning
outcomes?
Table 3: Students’ pretest and posttest learning outcome scores of simulation-game
pedagogical strategy
Strategy/
Treatment
Pretest Posttest Learning
outcome
Gain
No Mean
Standard
Deviation No Mean
Standard
Deviation
Simulation game 58 53.34 12.50 58 70.78 11.85 17.44
Table 3 shows that students taught using a simulation-game pedagogical
strategy had a mean score of 53.34 in the pretest and a mean score of 70.78 in the
posttest, making a pretest-posttest learning outcome gain to be 17.44. The result
proved that students instructed using a simulation-game pedagogical strategy
had a better learning outcome in the posttest than in the pretest.
Ho1
Students’ involvement in simulation-game strategies will not improve their
learning outcomes.
Table 4: Results of ANCOVA of learning outcome test according to simulation game
strategy
Source
Sum of
Square DF
Mean
Squares F value Sig. of F
Corrected/Adjusted
Model
5476.124 1 5476.124 35.254 .000
Intercept 682325.124 1 682325.124 4320.159 .000
Simulation 5476.124 1 5476.124 35.254 .000
Error 28558.197 178 158.893
Total 755678.001 180
Corrected/Adjusted
Total
33834.121 179
Table 4 shows that students involved in a simulation-game pedagogical strategy
had improved learning outcomes. Data in the table revealed that simulation
games' effect on students' learning outcomes was significant (F (1,178) = 35.254,
p = 0.000). Consequently, the hypothesis that students’ involvement in
simulation-game strategies will not improve their learning outcomes was
rejected.

10
RQ 2
Will students instructed by means of a brainstorming pedagogical strategy
improve their learning outcomes?
Table 5: Students’ retest and posttest learning outcome scores of brainstorming
strategy
Strategy/
Treatment
Pretest Posttest Learning
outcome
Gain
No Mean
Standard
Deviation No Mean
Standard
Deviation
Brainstorming 64 50.77 12.28 64 64.46 13.14 13.69
Table 5 shows that students instructed using brainstorming had a mean score of
50.77 and a standard deviation of 12.28 in the pretest and a mean score of 64.46
and standard deviation of 13.14 in the posttest, making a pretest-posttest
learning outcome gain to be 13.69. The result showed that students instructed
using a brainstorming pedagogical strategy had better learning outcomes in the
posttest than in the pretest.
Ho2
Students’ involvement in brainstorming conditions will not improve their
learning outcomes.
Table 6: Results of ANCOVA of learning outcomes test according to brainstorming
strategy
Source
Sum of
Square DF
Mean
Squares F value
Sig. of
F
Corrected/Adjusted
Model
115.824 1 115.824 .610 .043
Intercept 630084.358 1 630084.358 3316.401 .000
Brainstorming 115.824 1 115.824 .610 .043
Error 33818.287 178 189.990
Total 754668.000 180
Corrected/Adjusted
Total
33935.112 179
As shown in Table 6, students involved in the brainstorming conditions
improved their learning outcomes. This is confirmed by the value (F (1,178)
=.610, p=0.043). This demonstrates that the brainstorming strategy boosted
students’ learning outcomes. The implication is that the effect on students’
learning outcomes due to treatment or teaching strategy was significant. Thus,
the hypothesis was rejected.
RQ 3
Will there be a difference amongst brainstorming, simulation games, and lecture
strategies on students' learning outcomes in Social Studies?

11
Table 7: Pretest/Posttest of students’ learning outcomes by strategies
Strategies Pretest Posttest Learning
outcome
Gain
No Mean
Standard
Deviation No Mean
Standard
Deviation
Simulation game 58 53.34 12.50 58 70.78 11.85 17.44
Brainstorming 64 50.77 12.28 64 64.46 13.14 13.69
Lecture strategy
(control) 58 45.60 12.09 58 55.37 10.91 9.77
Total 180 49.90 12.29 180 63.54 11.97 13.63
Table 7 shows that at pretest, students' mean score when exposed to simulation
games was 53.34, which was better than the pre-test total mean of 49.90.
Brainstorming had a mean score of 50.77, which was also better than the pretest
total mean (49.90), while the lecture method pretest mean score was 45.60 which
was lower than the total mean of 49.90. However, at the posttest, the simulation
games had a mean score of 70.78, which was better than the total mean of 63.54
and a learning outcome gain of 17.44 which was better than the grand mean gain
of 13.63. The brainstorming strategy mean score at the post-test was 64.46, which
was also better than the total mean of 63.54 while the learning outcome gain of
13.69 was slightly better than the learning outcome gain of 13.63.
Simultaneously, the control groups had an overall mean score of 55.37 that was
less than the total mean of 63.54 and a learning outcome gain of 9.77, which was
lower than the total learning outcome gain. Thus, the table's results indicate that
students exposed to brainstorming and simulation strategies attained a better
score than the control group. In effect, simulation games proved to be superior
to both brainstorming and lecture strategies in enhancing students' learning
outcomes. On the other hand, the brainstorming strategy proved to be better
than the lecture strategy in improving students' learning outcomes.
Ho3
There is no statistically significant difference among simulation game,
brainstorming and lecture strategies on students’ learning outcomes.
Table 8: ANCOVA summary of the posttest according to strategies
Source
Sum of
Square DF
Mean
Squares F value Sig. of F
Corrected/Adjusted model 8509.920 2 4254.960 59.245 .000
Intercept 717131.541 1 717131.541 4992.579 .000
Strategies 8509.920 2 4254.960 59.245 .000
Error 25424.191 177 143.639
Total 754669.010 180
Corrected/Adjusted Total 33935.112 179
Table 8 displays a statistically significant difference among simulation-game,
brainstorming and lecture (control) pedagogical methods on learning outcomes
of students’ (F (1, 177) = 59.245, p= .000). This implies that the hypothesis stating
there is no significant statistical difference among simulation-game,
brainstorming and lecture pedagogical methods on students’ learning outcomes

12
was rejected. To prove the difference among the groups, Scheffe’s posthoc was
used. The outcome is presented in Table 9.
Table 9: Scheffe’s posthoc analysis by strategies
STRATEGIES No
Subset
1 2 3
Control 59 54.2667
Brainstorming 64 64.4561
Simulation 57 70.7937
Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000
Table 9 indicates that significant differences existed between the posttest mean
scores among the different groups. According to the results of Scheffe’s posthoc
analysis, there is a significant difference among the groups of simulation (70.79),
brainstorming (64.45) and control (54.27). From the result, the simulation
pedagogical strategy was superior to both the brainstorming pedagogical
strategy and the lecture pedagogical strategy as it obtained the highest mean
score. However, brainstorming also proved to increase learning outcomes more
significantly than the lecture strategy did.
The posthoc scores proved that the experimental groups differ significantly from
the control or lecture group. These pairs contributed to the observed significant
differences among the three strategies on students’ learning outcomes. Thus, the
hypothesis which stated there is no significant statistical difference among the
three pedagogical strategies or methods on students’ learning outcomes was
rejected.
6. Discussion
Simulation games and brainstorming pedagogical strategies have been proved
to increase and boost learning outcomes more significantly than the lecture
strategy. Students instructed using a simulation-game pedagogical strategy
improved more than students tutored by means of the lecture strategy.
Similarly, students taught with a brainstorming pedagogical strategy had
significantly better learning outcomes than those instructed using the lecture
pedagogical strategy. The result supports the views of Balasubramanian and
Brent (2010), Ezeudu and Ezinwanne (2013), Ahmad et al. (2013), Beuk (2015),
Rashtchi and Beiki (2015), Owo et al. (2016) and Dankbaar et al. (2016), who had
earlier testified that students instructed using a simulation-game pedagogical
strategy demonstrated better learning outcomes than those students instructed
by means of the lecture strategy. However, this finding is in contrast with that
of Hsu et al. (2011) who proved that simulation games did not improve students'
learning outcomes. Furthrmore, this study’s results also confirmed the findings
of Mehr et al. (2016) and Jack and Kyado (2017), namely that the use of a
brainstorming pedagogical strategy enhanced students’ learning outcomes more
than the lecture strategy did. However, this finding disagreed with those of
Hashempour et al. (2015) and Owo et al. (2016).
A simulation game pedagogical strategy is significantly superior to
brainstorming in enhancing students’ learning outcomes. This superiority of a

13
simulation-game pedagogical strategy in improving students’ learning outcomes
is consistent with the views of Kikot et al. (2013), Ranchhod et al. (2014), Lu et al.
(2014), and Carenys and Moya (2016). They reported that a simulation-game
pedagogical strategy motivates and enhances students’ learning outcomes.
The limitations of students’ learning outcomes are that they may be given
greater importance than they deserve. They may be treated as sacrosanct,
whereas learning outcomes are merely the end product of a value judgement on
the teachers’ part. It may lead to turning out students who are undoubtedly
well-trained in particular areas but are inadequate in a broad range of skills,
desirable attitudes and abilities associated with a comprehensive education.
7. Study Limitations
The study was conducted using Social Studies teachers; however, their
personalities, experience and attitudes were not considered, which may have
affected the study results. The content used was also limited to what is in the
school syllabus. It is believed that the application of more units of instruction
might make for a better generalisation of the study results.
8. Conclusions
The aims of the study were established. This study proved the effectiveness of
simulation games and brainstorming pedagogical strategies as well as the
superiority of simulation game strategy to brainstorming and the lecture
strategies in enhancing students’ learning outcomes. It was concluded in the
study that if Social Studies teachers embrace simulation games, students will
achieve better Social Studies learning outcomes. Thus, rather than limiting
students at the upper basic education level to conventional pedagogical strategy,
introducing modern pedagogical strategies for teaching such as simulation-
game and pedagogical brainstorming strategies will help students improve their
learning outcomes.
The study could provide teachers with the desired information to design and
adopt the right teaching strategies to suit varied learners and enhance students’
learning outcomes in Social Studies. Similarly, the study could provide Social
Studies researchers with areas for future research in instructional strategies. It
could also help authors and publishers in their presentation of content to
readers.
9. Implication of the study
This study’s observable implication rests on confirming that activity-based
strategies such as simulation games and brainstorming are superior to the
lecture strategy in boosting students’ learning outcomes. Teachers could attract
and sustain students’ interest and make learning permanent through the use of
these strategies. The strategies include numerous activities that will encourage
and enable both male and female students from different environments and
experiences to assimilate and internalise Social Studies skills and knowledge
effectively.

14
10. Recommendations
i) In-service teachers should be appropriately trained through seminars and
conferences on modern pedagogical strategies such as brainstorming and
simulation games for better Social Studies pedagogical strategies.
ii) Educational institutions charged with training teachers responsiblyshould
restructure the methodology course to include simulation games and
brainstorming pedagogical strategies. This will ensure that Social Studies
teachers are effectively trained in employing these Social Studies teaching
strategies. iii) Social Studies textbook writers should include explicit instructions
and illustrations in their textbooks for applying these strategies to enable
teachers to utilise in teaching.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the participants in this study.
11. References
Ahmad, S. M. S., Fauzi, N. F. M., Hashim, A. A., & Zainon, W. M. N. W. (2013). A study
on the effectiveness of computer games in teaching and learning. Journal of
Advanced Studies in Computers, Science and Engineering, 2(1), 1-8.
https://www.academia.edu.
/8177173/A_Study_on_the_Effectiveness_of_Computer_Games_in_Teaching_and
_Learning_1
Antunes, M., Pacheco, M. A. R., & Giovanela, M. (2012). Design and implementation of
an educational game for teaching chemistry in hgher education. Journal of Chemical
Educational, 89, 577–521. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed2003077
Ashammari, M. K. (2015). Effective brainstorming in teaching social studies for
elementary schools in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Education & Social Policy, 2(3), 70–75.
http://jes pnet.com/journals/Vol_2_ No_3_September_ 2015/8. pdf
Balasubramanian, N., & Brent, G. W. (2010). Games and simulations. Instructional
Technology Forum (ITFORUM). http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper73/paper
73.html
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian
Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 21-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00 024
Beuk, F. (2015). Sales simulation games student and instructor perceptions. Journal of
Marketing Education, 38(3), 170-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475315604686
Carenys, J., & Moya, S. (2016). Digital game based learning in accounting and business
education. Accounting Education, 25(6), 598-651.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2016. 1241951
Dankbaar, M. E. W., Alsma, J., Jansen, E. E. H., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Van Saase, J. L.
C. M., & Schuit, S. C. E. (2016). An experimental study on the effects of a
simulation game on students’ clinical cognitive skills and motivation. Advances in
Health Sciences Education, 21(3), 505–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-
9641-x
Essien, E. E., Akpan, O. E., & Obot, I. M. (2015). Students’ interest in social studies and
academic achievement in tertiary institutions in Cross Rivers State, Nigeria.
European Journal of Training and Development Studies, 2(2), 35-40.
Ezeudu, F. O., & Ezinwanne, O. P. (2013). Effects of simulations on students’
achievement in senior secondary school chemistry in Enugu east local
government area of Enugu State, Nigeria. Journal of Edu & Practice, 4(19), 58-66.

15
Folta, E, E. (2010). Investigating the impact on student learning and outdoor science interest
through modular serious educational games: A design-based research. [Doctoral
dissertation, North Carolina State University].
Guy, R. S., & Lownes-Jackson, M. (2015). The use of computer simulation to compare
student performance in traditional versus distance learning environment. Issues
in Informing Science and Information Technology, 12, 95–109.
Hashempour, Z., Rostampour, M., & Behjat, F. (2015). The effect of brainstorming as a
pre-writing strategy on EFL advanced learner’s writing ability. Journal of Applied
Linguistics and Language Research, 2(1), 86-99.
Hsu, C., Tsai, C., & Liang, J. (2011). Facilitating preschoolers’ scientific knowledge
construction via computer games regarding light and shadow: The effect of the
prediction observation explanation (POE) strategy. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 20(5), 482-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9298-z
Jack, G., & Kyado, J. (2017). Effectiveness of brain-based learning strategy on students’
academic achievement, attitude, motivation and knowledge retention in
electrochemistry. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioral Science, 21(3), 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.9734/ JESBS/2017/34266
Kikot, T., Costa, G., Magalhães, R., & Fernandes, S. (2013). Simulation games as tools for
integrative dynamic learning: The case of the management course at the
University of Algarve. Procedia Technology, 9, 11–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.002
Lu, J., Hallinger, P., & Showanasai, P. (2014). Simulation-based learning in management
education: A longitudinal quasi-experimental evaluation of instructional
effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 33(3), 218–244.
https://doi.org/10.1108/J MD-11-2011-0115
Mehr, M. M., Aziz-Malayeri, F., & Bayat, A. (2016). The effects of brainstorming as a
prewriting activity on Iranian EFL learners prompted expository
writing. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 3(3), 85-93.
Malkawi, N. A. M., & Smadi, M. (2018). The effectiveness of using brainstorming
strategy in the development of academic achievement of sixth grade students in
english grammar at public schools in Jordan. International Education Studies, 11(3),
92-100. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n3p92
Mozelius, P., Hernandez, W., Sällström, J., & Hellerstedt, A. (2017). Teacher attitudes
toward game-based learning in history education. ICTE Journal, 6(4), 27-35.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ijicte-2017-0017
Nja, O. C., Cornelius-Ukpepi, B. U., & Orim, E. R. (2019). Effect of simulation
instructional method on undergraduate chemistry education student’s academic
performance in sodium reactions. European Journal of Scientific Research, 155(1), 6-
12.
Ochoyi, U. E. (2018). Effects of computer simulated games and power point on senior secondary
students’ attitude and achievement in geometry in Adamawa State. [Ph.D. thesis,
Benue State Univeristy, Markudi, Nigeria].
Owo, W. J., Idode, V. O., & Ikwut, E. F. (2016). Validity of brainstorming strategy on
students’ prior knowledge and academic performance in chemistry in selected
secondary schools in South-South Nigeria. American Scientific Research Journal for
Engineering, Technology, and Sciences, 24(1), 113-130.
Ranchhod, A., Gurău, C., Loukis, E., & Trivedi, R. (2014). Evaluating the educational
effectiveness of simulation games: A value generation model. Information Sciences,
264, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.09.008
Rashtchi, M., & Beiki, M. (2015). The effect of teachers’ generated cooperative
brainstorming versus learner-generated cooperative brainstorming on activating

16
EFL learners’ background knowledge in essay writing classes. Indian Journal
of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 5(s2), 1218-1227.
Rowan, K. (2014). Glossary of instructional strategies. Beesburg.com.
http://www.beesburg.com/edtools/glossary.html
Shear, S. B. (2016). Does critical theory have a place in social studies research? A
commentary. Journal of Social Studies Research, 40(3), 229-231.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2016. 03.009
Tarman, B., & Kuran, B. (2015). Examination of the cognitive level of questions in social
studies textbooks and the views of teachers based on Bloom Taxonomy.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(1), 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015. 1.2625
Wood, K. R. (2011). Simulation video games as learning tools: An investigation of instructor
guided reflection on cognitive outcomes. [Dissertation, Georgia State University].
Appendix 1
Social Studies Learning Outcome (SSLOT) Instrument
Time: 1hr
INSTRUCTIONS: ATTEMPT ALL QUESTIONS
Choose from the options lettered A-E the one that best answers each of the
following questions and write out in your answer sheet the correct letter only.
Give only one answer to each question.
1. One of these is NOT a symptom of drug abuse: A. Depression; B. Violent
behaviour tendencies; C. Impaired vision; D. Lack of sleep; E. Good health.
2. ……. is the name of the agency responsible for the control and prevention of
harmful substances. A. NECO; B. EFCC; C. NURTW; D. NAFDAC; E.
NDLEA
3. ……… is one of the ways to prevent trafficking in drugs. A. Education;
B. Conflict; C. War; D. Disturbance; E. Greed.
4. All of the following ways would help to discourage drug abuse EXCEPT........
A. strict penalties on drug offenders;
B. education. C. constructive use of time;
D. choosing good friends. E. belonging to cult.
5. The following are factors responsible for drug trafficking EXCEPT ……
A. bad nation economy; B. education; C. greed; D. poverty;
E. unemployment.
6. The agency responsible for controlling and preventing drug abuse and drug
trafficking is called …. A. NDLEA; B. ICPC; C. EFCC;
D. FRSC; E. JAMB.
7. The following are the effects of harmful substances EXCEPT……………. A.
vomiting; B. death; C. good health; D. ill health; E. frequent stooling.
8. The following are the consequences of drug abuse to the individuals
EXCEPT…
A. mental disorder; B. poor attitude to work; C. good health; D. brain fatigue;
E. long disease.
9. The process whereby a person prescribes drugs for him- or herself is called….
A. acceptance;
B. drug abuse; C. discipline; D. protection; E. injection.

17
10. These are the negative impacts of drug trafficking on a country’s economy
EXCEPT …. A. currencies are buried underground; B. leads to death of
victims; C. increases development; D. increases crime rate; E. increases
money laundry.
11. One of the following is correct about harmful substances EXCEPT ….. A. can
make people sick; B. can lead to diabetes; C. healthy growth; D. can be
destructive to the body; E. damage to internal organs.
12. Which of the following is NOT a consequence of drug abuse on the
individual? A. good nutrition; B. death;
C. mental illness; D. depression; E. leads to crime.
13. A powerful person in an organisation that deals in illegal drugs is called…
A. Drug baron; B. Distributor; C. Drug officer; D. Drug master; E. Drug
seller.
14. ……… is the misuse or excessive consumption of drug. A. Drug trafficking;
B. Medication; C. Drug abuse; D. Treatment; E. Operation.
15. Food that has been exposed to insects is called….. A. stale food; B. good
food; C. infested food; D. expired food; E. rotten food.
16. The following are some of the causes of drug abuse EXCEPT… A. emotional
disturbance; B. broken homes; C. desire to feel high; D. education; E.
curiosity/ experiment.
17. …… food’s life span has been outlived. A. Expired; B. Rotten; C. Stale; D.
Immature; E. Infested.
18. One who sells illegal drugs is called …… A. drug baron; B. drug dealer; C.
drug carrier; D. drug runner; E. drug addict .
19. The following are the consequences of drug abuse on the community
EXCEPT…. A. development of gangsters; B. insecurity of lives and
properties.
C. increase in crime; D. destruction of the youths in the community;
E. growth and development of the community.
20. The following are consequences of drug trafficking EXCEPT ……
A. Bad image for the country; B. shame and disgrace;
C. improved education; D. Imprisonment;
E. Death penalty.

18
©Author
Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 18-32, March 2021
Innovative Teaching: A Qualitative Review of
Flipped Classrooms
Kevin Fuchs
Prince of Songkla University, Phuket, Thailand
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3253-5133
Abstract. The extent and importance of web-based learning in higher
education have increased tremendously in the last decade, triggered by
new educational technologies and pedagogical approaches. Higher
education lecturing has traditionally followed a teacher-centered
approach, with lecturers giving classes in the classroom and students
performing out-of-class activities. Under this traditional approach, the
main actor in the teaching-learning process is the lecturer, while
students play a passive role. The flipped classroom emphasizes the role
of the student in the center of the learning environment and facilities an
active learning pedagogy. This paper reviews the most recent case
studies related to the flipped classroom approach in order to provide
educators guidelines on the best practices, traits, and merits of the
flipped classroom. A total of 22 case studies were included in this
qualitative review of the flipped classroom. The methodological inquiry
followed the PRISMA flow diagram that identified an initial pool of
3,764 articles. Upon identification of relevant case studies (n=22), a five-
point Likert-type sentiment rating was assigned as the basis to structure
the discussion. The rating was based on the students’ perceptions of the
flipped classrooms as investigated in the articles. The assessment
confirms that the majority of students have a positive perception of this
learning pedagogy. However, there are concerns about increased
workload for students, ambiguity in expected learning outcomes, and an
initial barrier to actively contribute; these are the primary implications
of this review.
Keywords: flipped classroom; inverted learning; active learning;
constructivism; TEFC
1. Introduction
Both the importance and extent of web-based or online learning in higher
education have increased vastly in the last decade. As a result, this trend has
been further accelerated by new educational technologies and pedagogical
approaches while educators continue to debate the best practices and
approaches for their classrooms. The variety of courses have continued to
increase in scale and scope and the sudden COVID-19 crisis in early 2020 has

19
further fast-tracked universities’ implementation of online teaching (Tang et al.,
2020). Flexibility with regard to the workload and allowing the students to make
decisions about when and what they learn are two of the primary advantages of
technology-enhanced learning (TeL). Besides, research has indicated that online
learning is pedagogically promising because it encourages deeper learning via
its self-paced and student-centered approach (Tang et al., 2020). The flipped
classroom is a versatile and well-researched pedagogical approach that
facilitates active learning with the power of peer learning (Crews & Butterfield,
2014; Thai, De Wever & Valcke, 2017). It is the objective of this paper to share a
review of the existing literature and provide comprehensive insights by
outlining the most important traits of the flipped classroom, merits with regard
to student development, and shortcoming of this pedagogical approach. It is not
within the scope of this review to examine the perspective of the educator or the
institution, but to provide a holistic overview from the perspective of students.
The important findings of the most recent case studies in 2019 and 2020
contribute to the body of knowledge and close an identified research gap.
Through the findings of this review paper, educators will be able to obtain
practical guidance which will help them implement the most effective methods
for their flipped classroom courses. The next chapter will provide insights into
the conceptual design of a flipped classroom.
1.1. Conceptual design of a flipped classroom
The design and implementation of flipped classrooms largely depends on the
educators, yet there is no consensus with regard to a universal design of a
flipped classroom (Thai, De Wever & Valcke, 2017). However, a recurring claim
regarding the design of a flipped classroom is that there are three particular
consecutive phases (Figure 1). Crews and Butterfield (2014) noted that the pre-
class, during-class, and post-class stages are essential elements when
implementing a flipped classroom. There is an agreement in the literature that
the first phase of a flipped classroom takes place as a prerequisite for students to
acquire fundamental knowledge (Thai, De Wever and Valcke, 2017). During this
phase, the students are expected to work individually in anticipation of the
second phase. This stage is typically administered through a Learning
Management System (LMS) with online tutorials, lecture notes, video clips
prepared by the teacher, or other course material (Crews & Butterfield, 2014).
The second phase is considered the most influential phase in the flipped
classroom design and determines the impact on the students’ learning within the
paradigm of active learning (Thai, De Wever & Valcke, 2017). This student-
centered approach places emphasis on discussion amongst peers, wherein the
teacher acts as a facilitator of the discussion (Fuchs, 2021).

20
Figure 1: A simplified design of a flipped classroom (adapted from Fuchs, 2021)
The post-class phase is designed to allow the students to reflect on the content of
the pre-class phase in combination with the peer-discussion in the during-class
phase (Lo, Lie & Hew; 2018). This last phase is oftentimes accompanied by a
personal learning assignment to reflect on the newly constructed knowledge
(Crews & Butterfield, 2014; Thai, De Wever & Valcke, 2017).
2. Methods
A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted using the PRISMA flow
diagram in order to cross-examine case studies and identify which
characteristics of flipped classrooms were most commonly researched, as well as
what additional calls for future research had been stated. Moreover, upon
identifying the 22 case studies that were reviewed, a sentiment score was
assigned to each paper.
2.1. The PRISMA flow diagram
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews flow diagram, or
PRISMA, was developed by a delegation of 29 review authors, medical editors,
consumers, clinicians, and methodologists (Liberati et al., 2009). In 2005, the
focus group attended a three-day meeting and participated in extensive post-
meeting digital correspondence. A consensus was reached concerning the
optimal process. Henceforth, a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram
was developed (Liberati et al., 2009; Stovold et al., 2014). Liberati et al. (2009)
further noted, “PRISMA focuses on ways in which authors can ensure the
transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses”
(Liberati et al., 2009, p. 120).
2.2. The search process
A search in the abstract and citation database Scopus was conducted and yielded
3,752 records in January 2021 (Figure 2). The inquiry was guided by the
keywords "flipped classroom" and "flipped learning". A large volume of
literature was retrieved and further criteria were applied to refine the results.
The following five limits were set:
• articles dated in 2019 and 2020
• a focus on social science and business as the subject area

21
• publication stage: final
• publication language limited to English
• source type was set to journal and conference proceeding
This exact search syntax was used:
“TITLE-ABS-KEY ("flipped classroom") AND ( LIMIT-TO (
PUBSTAGE,"final" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE,"English" )
) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SRCTYPE,"j" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SRCTYPE,"p"
) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( PUBYEAR,2020) OR LIMIT-TO (
PUBYEAR,2019) )”
An additional 12 publications that were not Scopus-indexed, but the content of
which were familiar to the author, were included in this stage of the process
based on their merits. The identification stage was concluded with a total of
1,187 items that qualified for further screening.
The first stage of the screening process included reviewing each title of the 1,187
records. In this stage, a total of 752 records were excluded. In the second stage of
the screening process, another 317 records were excluded based on reviewing
their abstracts. A total of 118 articles were deemed eligible for full-text analysis.
In this final step, 96 articles were excluded wherein 79 were out of scope, 13 had
insufficient information about the methodology, and 4 were not adaptable to the
scope of this review. Eventually, 22 relevant case studies were selected for in-
depth analysis.
2.3. Appointing a sentiment score
A Likert-type rating system was utilized to assign a descriptive score to each
article that was included in the review. The following descriptive scores were
based on the Likert-type scale. The highest descriptive score corresponded to the
label “Positive”, the second-highest “Slightly Positive”, followed by “Neutral,
“Slightly Negative”, and finally “Negative”. Every article included in this paper
(n=22) was assigned a descriptive score by the reviewer (the author of this
report). The assessment for each score was based on the conclusion of the article
in regard to the participants’ perceptions of the flipped classroom. The purpose
of the sentiment score was to classify the articles into different categories and to
generate a variable for further analysis. After each article was assigned a
descriptive score, the author asked a colleague for an informal peer-review to
validate the results. Any opposing views were discussed until a consensus was
reached.

22
Figure 2: PRISMA flow diagram for a review of the literature
3. Flipping Classes: Where does all the hype come from?
The 22 articles that were included (Table 1) as the result of the PRISMA
procedure were reports of quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods inquiries.
Within the criteria that were used to retrieve the literature, the majority of
articles had conducted quantitative research (n=10), followed by mixed methods
(n=8) and with only four qualitative studies (n=4) reviewed. The most common
means of analysis for quantitative research was descriptive analysis as opposed
to thematic analysis. The sample size for the quantitative studies ranged from
the smallest sample of 52 participants [No. 10] to 495 participants [18]. The
mixed-methods approach utilized sample sizes ranging from 42 [No. 05] up to
the largest sample of 152 participants [No. 02]. Naturally, the sample size for
purely qualitative research was smaller and ranged from 13 participants for the
smallest study included [No. 08] to 25 participants in the largest qualitative
study [No. 15]. To collect versatile and comprehensive information on previous
studies about flipped classrooms, there was no limitation placed on the
geographical location of the sampling. This allowed for the generation of a broad
perspective and analysis of results from different learning environments and
learning cultures. While no specific limitations were applied to the origin of the
study, it can be noted that four (4) studies originated from Spain, three (3) from
Australia, and the remainder were single studies, each representing one of 15
countries (Table 1).

23
Table 1: Summary of articles included in this review
No. Author/s (Year) Type of Inquiry Sample Origin Country3
[01]
Murillo-Zamorano et al.
(2019)
Quantitative Method N = 160
Spain
[02] Castedo et al. (2019) Mixed Methods N = 152 Spain
[03] Kay et al. (2019) Quantitative Method N = 103 Canada
[04] Lopes et al. (2019) Quantitative Method N = 152 Portugal
[05] Goedhart et al.(2019) Mixed Methods N = 42 Netherlands
[06] Cai et al. (2019) Quantitative Method N = 111 China
[07] Tomas et al. (2019) Mixed Methods N = 171 Australia
[08] Ha et al. (2019) Qualitative Method N = 13 Hong Kong
[09] Cilliers & Pylman (2020) Quantitative Method N = 82 South Africa
[10] Stöhr et al. (2020) Quantitative Method N = 52 Sweden
[11]
Martínez-Jiménez et al.
(2020)
Spain
[12] Abdekhoda et al. (2020) Quantitative Method N = 110 Iran
[13]
Colomo-Magaña et al.
(2020)
Spain
[14] Alamri (2019) Mixed Methods N = 52 Saudi Arabia
[15] Wilson (2020) Qualitative Method N = 25 Australia
[16] Alebrahim & Ku (2020) Qualitative Method N = 14 United States
[17]
Aprianto & Purwati
(2020)
Qualitative Method N = 15 Indonesia
[18] Aljaraideh (2019) Quantitative Method N = 495 Jordan
[19] Almisad (2019) Mixed Methods N = 27 Kuwait
[20] Bhat et al. (2020) Mixed Methods N = 32 India
[21] Awidi & Paynter (2019) Mixed Methods N = 117 Australia
[22] Bicen & Beheshti (2019) Mixed Methods N = 130 Cyprus
3.1. The polarizing effect of flipped classrooms
Due to emerging educational technology and pedagogical methods, the extent
and value of online learning in higher education has increased tremendously in
the last decade. Teaching in higher education has conventionally followed a
teacher-centered method, with lecturers providing classroom courses and
students conducting out-of-class tasks. In this conventional method, students
play a passive role and the instructor is the key player in the teaching-learning
process (Murillo-Zamorano et al., 2019). A new viewpoint is provided by the
flipped classroom, in which education is student-centered and the lecturer has
shifted into a passive role.
“Flipping the classroom means that the traditional classroom becomes inverted.”
(Murillo-Zamorano et al., 2019)
Students are expected to regularly collect information by reading, watching
recorded lectures, or listening to podcasts outside of class time. This relates to
the two bottom levels of Bloom's Taxonomy, which allow students to remember
and process the class information given. The student is then required to apply
the knowledge they have acquired to problem-solving activities in groups
through peer instruction during classroom time. These tasks may include case
study research, analyzing different scenarios, and developing new problem

24
solutions that conform to Bloom's Taxonomy's higher-order level. When
students have a more extensive and comprehensive understanding of the
content, this makes for a better learning experience (Cilliers & Pylman, 2020).
Lopes et al. (2019) indicated that students are required to dedicate themselves to
being self-directed in their learning. This is particularly pertinent in the
classroom's e-learning aspect, which implies a cultural shift from an academic
point of view that can be pursued persistently, mainly in the context of higher
education (Lopes et al., 2019). The flipped classroom has been conceived as a
student-centered pedagogical method aiming to enhance the performance of
students. The literature recognized the flipped classroom's potential over
conventional methods for teaching and learning (Murillo-Zamorano et al., 2019).
Besides, to achieve comparable pre-knowledge and comprehension levels, the
self-regulated pre-class learning combination through prescribed reading and
video materials was considered to have merit, particularly in a diverse student
population alongside in-class activities integrating collaborative learning
activities which promote deeper learning (Goedhart et al., 2019; Lopes et al.,
2019).
Following the flipped approach to the classroom and to achieve a successful
learning outcome, the results of Murillo-Zamorano et al. (2019) trigger the
following essentials to be taken into account: firstly, there should be two-way
input (instructor to students and vice versa) as an efficient link between in-class
and out-of-class activities. Secondly, technology is used to move the lecture
outside (Murillo-Zamorano et al., 2019). Even though the overall experience was
pleasant, it was disappointing to see that some of the students claimed that the
flipped classroom did not contribute to their learning outcomes (Goedhart et al.,
2019). To effectively promote student participation and constructive learning,
teachers are often expected to incorporate several in-class pedagogical
modifications (Cai et al., 2019).
Moreover, the author performed an informal assessment of the 22 articles that
were included in the review and assigned an individual sentiment rating to each
article. A peer validated the rating by consensus with the reviewer and it ranged
through positive, slightly positive, neutral, slightly negative, and finally
negative on a five-point Likert-type scale. This approach was adapted from Qiu
et al. (2018), who used a similar technique to categorize articles based on the
sentiment expressed in the conclusion. In this context, the author assigned the
sentiment rating based on how the flipped classroom pedagogy was perceived
by the university students in the 22 articles. Furthermore, the author modified
the model from Qui et al. (2018) and sliced the results based on their type of
inquiry (Table 2). This aimed to identify whether there was a pattern between
the students’ perceptions and the strategy of how the data were collected.

25
Table 2: Cross-examination by sentiment and method
Sentiment Type of Inquiry Case Study No.
Positive
Quantitative Method [01], [04], [09], [11], [12], [13], [18]
Mixed Methods [14], [19], [20], [22]
Qualitative Method [17]
Slightly Positive Mixed Methods [02], [05], [21]
Neutral
Quantitative Method [03], [06]
Qualitative Method [16]
Mixed Methods [07]
Slightly Negative Qualitative Method [08]
Negative Quantitative Method [10], [15]
It can be noted that a simple majority of the studies were assigned a positive
rating. Out of the total 22 articles, 12 received a positive sentiment rating and, at
the other end of the spectrum, two (2) received a rating indicating a negative
perception towards the flipped classroom by the students. The remaining eight
(8) case studies fall in between, wherein (3) of them were rated slightly positive,
four (4) neutral, and one (1) slightly negative. The author did not identify any
pattern or correlation between the strategy of inquiry and the sentiment rating of
the study. While some of the flipped classroom case studies are associated with a
negative perception by the participating students, it can be stated that a large
majority (68%) had, at the minimum, a positive attitude towards this new active
learning approach. The sentiment rating helped to determine the general tone
amongst the selected case studies (Al-Natour & Turetken, 2020). In the
following, a more in-depth examination into both the challenges and positive
aspects of the flipped classroom pedagogy will be provided.
3.2. Flipped Classrooms: A remedy to achieve inclusive education?
As a consequence of the flipped classroom approach, Wilson (2020) identified a
significant problem in the students' workload. Also, it is recommended that a
lower workload could be tested to determine whether the same instructional
result could still be obtained. The paper highlights major concerns related to
flipped learning pedagogy due to the increased workload (Wilson, 2020).
Furthermore, Stöhr et al. (2020) were unable to confirm the flipped classroom's
reported positive effect in higher education in a quantitative assessment that
contrasted the flipped classroom with conventional lecture-based learning. Ha et
al. (2019) discussed beneficial outcomes of the flipped approach to the
classroom; in their case, the researchers indicated that students had adapted to a
“spoon-fed” system and, thus, initially failed to respond to the flipped model of
the classroom (Ha et al., 2019). A related observation was reported by Castedo et
al. (2019), in which students initially failed to respond to the latest method. Kay
et al. (2019) as well as Alebrahim and Ku (2020) defined positive and negative
perceptions; both studies concluded that there is a need for clarification,
flexibility, timely instruction, and feedback in the implementation of a flipped
classroom. Besides, it was observed that the transfer of materials from the
conventional face-to-face model to the computer-mediated format requires
specialized expertise, time, and dedication (Cai et al., 2019). Moreover, the usage
of efficient technology must be reviewed beforehand because this helps facilitate
outside-class engagement amongst students (Aprianto & Purwati, 2020). These

26
suggestions shared by Cai et al. (2019) and Aprianto and Purwati (2020)
demonstrate that there is still uncertainty among students when it comes to
technology-enhanced learning (TEL).
Table 3: Empirical findings of the selected case studies
No. Empirical findings
[01]
FC has positive effects on students’ knowledge, skills, and
engagement.
[02]
Initial reluctance towards the FC methodology, but finally a higher
attendance than traditional learning
[03]
Identified a need for clarity, flexibility, timely guidance and feedback,
and cognitive engagement
[04]
FC requires a high level of teacher work and creativity in developing
content and then properly organizing it
[05]
The combination of self-regulated pre-class learning in combination
with in-class activities facilitates deeper learning
[06]
The migration of materials from traditional face-to-face format to
computer-mediated format is a process that requires specific skills, as
well as a significant amount of time and effort
[07]
Respondents’ opinions regarding whether a flipped classroom
motivated them to learn, or was more engaging than traditional
instruction, were divided
[08]
Students that were used to a “spoon-fed” approach initially struggled
to adapt to the flipped classroom model
[09]
The activities done in the classroom provided real-life experience that
could be used for problem-solving when they enter the workplace
[10]
Results do not confirm the documented positive effect of the flipped
classroom in STEM education
[11]
The academic results have been better in which the flipped learning
methodology was implemented
[12]
An approach that encourages active learning and improves student
performance; meanwhile decreasing the failure rate in education
[13]
Sample responded positively to the initiative to implement the flipped
classroom and appreciated its potential to promote learning
[14]
Results demonstrated improved student academic achievement and
satisfaction, compared with the traditional lecture-based approach
[15]
This study highlights important problems associated with Flipped
Learning pedagogy and suggests future research in divergent
pedagogies attend to the critical issues of student workload, and to
consider if the same educational outcome could be achieved equally as
well by a lower workload pedagogy.
[16]
Positive and negative opinions depending on how they implemented
the flipped classroom including the engagement of students and the
environment
[17]
The use of efficient technology must be reviewed prior to use because
it helps facilitate outside-class engagement amongst students
[18]
Generally a high satisfaction with flipped classroom, wherein
difference were detected regarding the gender variable in favor of
male students
[19]
The results showed that the majority of the students were ready and
able to this active learning method
[20] Students prefer operating in the flipped mode as it provides them the

27
flexibility to acquire new insights on their own time while getting an
opportunity to interact with peers and teachers during the lecture time
[21]
We have found positive signs that a flipped classroom approach can
enhance the student learning experience and outcomes
[22]
The outcome of the study revealed that technology integrated learning
environments have positive impacts on students’ learning
Goedhart et al. (2019) indicated, contrary to the drawbacks described, that self-
regulated pre-class learning in combination with in-class activities encourages
deeper learning. This was confirmed by the research analysis of Awidi and
Paynters (2019), who noticed positive signs that a flipped-classroom approach
could increase the experience and results of student learning. The most
prominent positive outcomes from higher education case studies relating to
flipped classrooms confirmed positive results on students' understanding,
expertise, and participation (Alamri, 2019; Murillo-Zamorano et al., 2019;
Abdekhoda et al., 2020; Bhat et al., 2020). The fact that students adopted active
learning in this method is another prominent discovery and is corroborated by
research studies (Aljaraideh, 2019; Almisad, 2019; Cilliers & Pylman, 2020). Also,
the chance to develop new perspectives in their own time and the provision of
the opportunity to interact with peers and teachers were discussed as beneficial
factors during the lecture period (Bhat et al., 2020). This main observation
underlines the basic idea behind Constructivism's pedagogical ideology, in
which knowledge is built in a passive role through peer interaction rather than
by lecturing to the student. Cilliers and Pylman (2020) suggested that another
positive aspect identified by students was real-life exposure through
conversations with peers, as these could be used for problem-solving as they
enter the workplace (Table 3).
4. Conclusion
To conclude, among various learning cultures, the flipped classroom design and
its implementation were identified as challenges that led to negative experiences
of the flipped classroom pedagogy. Furthermore, the review identified that case
studies that attested a positive sentiment towards the flipped classroom stated a
common perception regarding the merits. Amongst the most commonly noted
characteristics were improved student engagement, better academic success, and
higher learning outcomes. The review contributed an outline of possible focus
areas for future research. Educators would benefit from a practical guide about
the best practices in designing their flipped classroom. More importantly, a
qualitative inquiry to identify why the flipped classroom was successful in some
cultures but failed in others would generate additional scientific value. This
could be further strengthened by a meta-analysis that aims to identify a
correlation between learning cultures and the perception of flipped classrooms.
The purpose of the study was not to generate a versatile stakeholder perspective,
but instead to identify areas of improvement through an analysis of perceptions
from students in higher education. The paper validated that the majority of the
samples have a positive perception towards this learning pedagogy. However,
there remain concerns about increased student workload, the ambiguity of
expected learning outcomes, and an initial barrier to actively contributing –
these were identified as the primary implications of the review.

28
5. Acknowledgements
The author declares having no potential conflicts of interest concerning the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
6. Notes
1Authors’ ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3253-5133.
2TITLE-ABS-KEY is referring to the syntax Title-Abstract-Keyword.
3Origin Country refers to the geographical location from where the sample was
collected.
4Mr. Kevin Fuchs is currently a lecturer in the Faculty of Hospitality and
Tourism, Prince of Songkla University, in Phuket, Thailand. He graduated with
a Master of Science in Informatics from Linnaeus University in Sweden and has
a keen research interest in topics that revolve around Technology-enhanced
Learning (TeL), Connectivism, Contemporary Educational Theories, and the
Technology-Enhanced Flipped Classroom (TEFL).
7. References
Abdekhoda, M., Maserat, E., & Ranjbaran, F. (2020). A conceptual model of flipped
classroom adoption in medical higher education. Interactive Technology and Smart
Education, 17(4), 393-401. doi:10.1108/ITSE-09-2019-0058
Alamri, M. M. (2019). Students' academic achievement performance and satisfaction in a
flipped classroom in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Technology Enhanced
Learning, 11(1), 103-119. doi:10.1504/IJTEL.2019.096786
Alebrahim, F., & Ku, H. Y. (2020). Perceptions of student engagement in the flipped
classroom: a case study. Educational Media International, 57(2), 128-147.
doi:10.1080/09523987.2020.1786776
Aljaraideh, Y. (2019). Students' perception of flipped classroom: A case study for private
universities in Jordan. JOTSE: Journal of Technology and Science Education, 9(3),
368-377. doi:10.3926/jotse.648
Almisad, B. (2019). Perceptions of the'flipped classroom': a case study from a developing
country. International Journal of Learning Technology, 14(1), 78-98.
doi:10.1504/IJLT.2019.100617
Al-Natour, S., & Turetken, O. (2020). A comparative assessment of sentiment analysis
and star ratings for consumer reviews. International Journal of Information
Management, 54, 102132. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102132
Aprianto, E., & Purwati, O. (2020). Multimedia-Assisted Learning in a Flipped
Classroom: A Case Study of Autonomous Learning on EFL University Students.
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 15(24), 114-127.
doi:10.3991/ijet.v15i24.14017
Awidi, I. T., & Paynter, M. (2019). The impact of a flipped classroom approach on
student learning experience. Computers & Education, 128, 269-283.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.013
Bicen, H., & Beheshti, M. (2019). Assessing perceptions and evaluating achievements of
ESL students with the usage of infographics in a flipped classroom learning
environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-29.
doi:10.1080/10494820.2019.1666285
Bhat, S., Raju, R., Bhat, S., & D’Souza, R. (2020). Redefining quality in engineering
education through the flipped classroom model. Procedia Computer Science, 172,
906-914. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.131

29
Cai, J., Yang, H. H., Gong, D., MacLeod, J., & Zhu, S. (2019). Understanding the
continued use of flipped classroom instruction: a personal beliefs model in
Chinese higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31(1), 137-
155. doi:10.1007/s12528-018-9196-y
Castedo, R., López, L. M., Chiquito, M., Navarro, J., Cabrera, J. D., & Ortega, M. F. (2019).
Flipped classroom—comparative case study in engineering higher education.
Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 27(1), 206-216.
doi:10.1002/cae.22069
Cilliers, L., & Pylman, J. (2020). South African students’ perceptions of the flipped
classroom: A case study of higher education. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 1-10. doi:10.1080/14703297.2020.1853588
Colomo-Magaña, E., Soto-Varela, R., Ruiz-Palmero, J., & Gómez-García, M. (2020).
University students’ perception of the usefulness of the flipped classroom
methodology. Education Sciences, 10(10), 275. doi:10.3390/educsci10100275
Crews, T., & Butterfield, J. (2014). Data for Flipped Classroom Design: Using Student
Feedback to Identify the Best Components from Online and Face-to-Face
Classes. Higher Education Studies, 4(3), 38-47. doi:10.5539/hes.v4n3p38
Fuchs, K. (2021). Evaluating The Technology-Enhanced Flipped Classroom Through The
Students’ Eye: A Case Study. Proceedings of The 3rd International Conference on
Research in Education, 2021, Vol. 1, 25-33. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14173622
Goedhart, N. S., Blignaut-van Westrhenen, N., Moser, C., & Zweekhorst, M. B. M. (2019).
The flipped classroom: supporting a diverse group of students in their learning.
Learning Environments Research, 22(2), 297-310. doi:10.1007/s10984-019-09281-2
Ha, A. S., O’Reilly, J., Ng, J. Y., Zhang, J. H., & Serpa, S. (2019). Evaluating the flipped
classroom approach in Asian higher education: Perspectives from students and
teachers. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1638147. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2019.1638147
Kay, R., MacDonald, T., & DiGiuseppe, M. (2019). A comparison of lecture-based, active,
and flipped classroom teaching approaches in higher education. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 31(3), 449-471. doi:10.1007/s12528-018-9197-x
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., &
Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and
meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and
elaboration. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 62(10), e1-e34.
doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
Lo, C. K., Lie, C. W., & Hew, K. F. (2018). Applying “First Principles of Instruction” as a
design theory of the flipped classroom: Findings from a collective study of four
secondary school subjects. Computers & Education, 118, 150-165.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.003
Lopes, S. F. S. F., Gouveia, L. M. B., & da Cunha Reis, P. A. (2019). The Flipped
Classroom and Higher Education-Experiences with Computer Science Students.
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science, 6(10).
doi:10.22161/ijaers.610.3
Martínez-Jiménez, R., & Ruiz-Jiménez, M. C. (2020). Improving students’ satisfaction and
learning performance using flipped classroom. The International Journal of
Management Education, 18(3), 100422. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100422
Murillo-Zamorano, L. R., Sánchez, J. Á. L., & Godoy-Caballero, A. L. (2019). How the
flipped classroom affects knowledge, skills, and engagement in higher
education: Effects on students' satisfaction. Computers & Education, 141, 103608.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103608

30
Qiu, J., Liu, C., Li, Y., & Lin, Z. (2018). Leveraging sentiment analysis at the aspects level
to predict ratings of reviews. Information Sciences, 451, 295-309.
doi:10.1016/j.ins.2018.04.009
Stovold, E., Beecher, D., Foxlee, R., & Noel-Storr, A. (2014). Study flow diagrams in
Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram.
Systematic reviews, 3(1), 1-5. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-54
Stöhr, C., Demazière, C., & Adawi, T. (2020). The polarizing effect of the online flipped
classroom. Computers & Education, 147, 103789.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103789
Tang, T., Abuhmaid, A. M., Olaimat, M., Oudat, D. M., Aldhaeebi, M., & Bamanger, E.
(2020). Efficiency of flipped classroom with online-based teaching under
COVID-19. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-12.
doi:10.1080/10494820.2020.1817761
Thai, N. T. T., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2017). The impact of a flipped classroom
design on learning performance in higher education: Looking for the best
“blend” of lectures and guiding questions with feedback. Computers & Education,
107, 113-126. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.003
Tomas, L., Doyle, T. and Skamp, K., 2019. Are first year students ready for a flipped
classroom? A case for a flipped learning continuum. International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), p.5. doi:10.1186/s41239-019-
0135-4
Wilson, K. (2020). What does it mean to do teaching? A qualitative study of resistance to
Flipped Learning in a higher education context. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-
14. doi:10.1080/13562517.2020.1822312
Appendix 1
Table 4: Summary of empirical key findings with sentiment rating
No.
Author/s
(Year)
Type of Inquiry
(Sample Size)
Empirical Findings Sentiment Country
[01]
Murillo-
Zamorano et
al. (2019)
Quantitative
Method
(n=160)
FC has positive effects on
students’ knowledge,
skills, and engagement.
Positive Spain
[02]
Castedo et al.
(2019)
Mixed Methods
(n=152)
Initial reluctance towards
the FC methodology, but
finally a higher attendance
than traditional learning
Slightly
Positive
Spain
[03]
Kay et al.
(2019)
Quantitative
Method
(n=103)
Identified a need for
clarity, flexibility, timely
guidance and feedback,
and cognitive engagement
Neutral Canada
[04]
Lopes et al.
(2019)
Quantitative
Method
(n=152)
FC requires a high level of
teacher work and
creativity in developing
content and then properly
organizing it
Positive Portugal
[05]
Goedhart et
al.(2019)
Mixed Methods
(n=42)
The combination of self-
regulated pre-class
learning in combination
with in-class activities
facilitates deeper learning
Slightly
Positive
The
Netherlan
ds
[06] Cai et al. Quantitative The migration of materials
from traditional face-to-
Neutral China

31
(2019) Method
(n=111)
face format to computer-
mediated format is a
process that requires
specific skills, as well as a
significant amount of time
and effort
[07]
Tomas et al.
(2019)
Mixed Methods
(n=171)
Respondents’ opinions
regarding whether a
flipped classroom
motivated them to learn,
or was more engaging
than traditional
instruction, were divided
Neutral Australia
[08]
Ha et al. (2019) Qualitative Method
(n=13)
Students that were used to
a “spoon-fed” approach
initially struggled to adapt
to the flipped classroom
model
Slightly
negative
Hong
Kong
[09]
Cilliers &
Pylman (2020)
Quantitative
Method
(n=82)
The activities done in the
classroom provided real-
life experience that could
be used for problem-
solving when they enter
the workplace
Positive South
Africa
[10]
Stöhr et al.
(2020)
Quantitative
Method
(n=52)
Results do not confirm the
documented positive
effect of the flipped
classroom in STEM
education
Negative Sweden
[11]
Martínez-
Jiménez &
Ruiz-Jiménez
(2020)
Quantitative
Method
(n=58)
The academic results have
been better in which the
flipped learning
methodology was
implemented
Positive Spain
[12]
Abdekhoda et
al. (2020)
Quantitative
Method
(n=110)
An approach that
encourages active learning
and improves student
performance; meanwhile
decreasing the failure rate
in education
Positive Iran
[13]
Colomo-
Magaña et al.
(2020)
Quantitative
Method
(n=123)
Sample responded
positively to the initiative
to implement the flipped
classroom and appreciated
its potential to promote
learning
Positive Spain
[14]
Alamri (2019) Mixed Methods
(n=52)
Results demonstrated
improved student
academic achievement
and satisfaction, compared
with the traditional
lecture-based approach
Positive Saudi
Arabia
[15]
Wilson (2020) Qualitative Method
(n=25)
This study highlights
important problems
associated with Flipped
Learning pedagogy and
suggests future research in
divergent pedagogies
attend to the critical issues
of student workload, and
to consider if the same
Negative Australia

32
educational outcome
could be achieved equally
as well by a lower
workload pedagogy.
[16]
Alebrahim &
Ku (2020)
Qualitative Method
(n=14)
Positive and negative
opinions depending on
how they implemented
the flipped classroom
including the engagement
of students and the
environment
Neutral United
States
[17]
Aprianto &
Purwati (2020)
Qualitative Method
(n=15)
The use of efficient
technology must be
reviewed prior to use
because it helps facilitate
outside-class engagement
amongst students
Slightly
Positive
Indonesia
[18]
Aljaraideh
(2019)
Quantitative
Method
(n=495)
Generally a high
satisfaction with flipped
classroom, wherein
difference were detected
regarding the gender
variable in favor of male
students
Positive Jordan
[19]
Almisad
(2019)
Mixed Methods
(n=27)
The results showed that
the majority of the
students were ready and
able to this active learning
method
Positive Kuwait
[20]
Bhat et al.
(2020)
Mixed Methods
(n=32)
Students prefer operating
in the flipped mode as it
provides them the
flexibility to acquire new
insights on their own time
while getting an
opportunity to interact
with peers and teachers
during the lecture time
Positive India
[21]
Awidi &
Paynter (2019)
Mixed Methods
(n=117)
We have found positive
signs that a flipped
classroom approach can
enhance the student
learning experience and
outcomes
Slightly
Positive
Australia
[22]
Bicen &
Beheshti
(2019)
Mixed Methods
(n=130)
The outcome of the study
revealed that technology
integrated learning
environments have
positive impacts on
students’ learning
Positive Cyprus

33
©Authors
Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 33-50, March 2021
Elementary Teachers’ Thoughts about Distance
Education and Learning 21st-Century Skills
during COVID Pandemic
Amani K. H. Alghamdi
Imam Abdulrahman bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8500-0266
Naimah Ahmad Al-Ghamdi
Imam Abdulrahman bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8851-0456
Abstract. There was a dearth of research documenting the Arab World’s
educational response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, female
Saudi elementary teachers’ views on distance education during those
unprecedented times were under-explored in the research literature. In
the wake of the outbreak in Saudi Arabia, concerns have been raised
about education disruption at the elementary school level and its impact
on instilling and developing 21st-century skills. Conducted at a college of
education in Saudi’s Eastern Province, a qualitative exploratory study
examined 20 Saudi postgraduate female students’ written responses to a
journal question concerning teaching elementary pupils online about the
pandemic while 21st-century skills were being inculcated. A critical
finding was that the participants expressed a sense of ample scope for
personal and pedagogical transformation despite the enormity of the
challenge. Suggestions for future research, pre-service, and in-service
teacher training, and professional development were recommended
around pedagogical adjustments for teaching elementary learners online
while ensuring they still learn and develop their 21st-century skills.
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic; elementary students; distance learning;
21st-century skills; Saudi Arabia
1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity to explore the subject of
schooling in a new context. At present, attempts to contain the crisis encompass
an adaptive response, which includes a transition to hybrid education (adopting
a blend of both online and face-to-face learning strategies in both learning
environments (Gagnon et al., 2020). There were concerns about whether such a
new approach will strengthen learning and whether, or how, teaching will resume

IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 3 March 2021

IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 3 March 2021

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 3 March 2021

Similaire à IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 3 March 2021 (20)

Plus de ijlterorg

Plus de ijlterorg (13)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 3 March 2021