View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Effects of Implementing Flipped Classroom Elements and Dynamic In-Class Discussion on Student Performance

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Effects of Implementing Flipped Classroom Elements and Dynamic In-Class Discussion on Student Performance
Language: English
Authors: Cao, Loan Thi Thanh, Swada, Jeffrey Gerard (ORCID 0000-0001-8473-0390)
Source: Journal of Food Science Education. Jan 2021 20(1):48-56.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 9
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Performance Factors, Instructional Effectiveness, Flipped Classroom, Discussion (Teaching Technique), Group Activities, Reading Assignments, Lecture Method, Foods Instruction, Food Processing Occupations, Difficulty Level, Student Attitudes
DOI: 10.1111/1541-4329.12211
ISSN: 1541-4329
Abstract: In a Food Processing-Unit Operations course, students learn the basic equipment that comprises unit operations and techniques commonly used in the food industry to prepare, process, and preserve a variety of food products. Due to the complexity of these operations, students frequently struggle with applying food processing principles to predict how unit operations influence the physical, biochemical, sensory, and nutritional properties of foods. This study is designed to evaluate how pre-class readings and in-class group activities improve the students' learning in a Food Processing course. The survey after the exams shows that 48 and 60% of students agree that reading assignments and in-class group activities help them understand the course material better, respectively. The mean value of exam scores shows that the students in the intervention section (Spring 2018) had significantly higher scores (88.4%) than that of the two previous sections without intervention (77.6%, Spring 2016 and 82.8%, Spring 2017) (P < 0.05). It is concluded that using a flipped class element like providing reading assignments and quizzes before the lecture can be an effective preparation technique for students as well as providing the instructors with critical insight into the students' level of understanding before the lecture. This allows the instructor to focus time spent in class on areas in which students struggle the most.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1281000
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFN2fUszbvcfSafPEYRCSFuAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNBBbR-Ff5OF1Ioy4QIBEICBmz_9c3BLowMmswG_yaIPrtS0zRpyyjGzlSe8iQSoPEWc2hba-YBYE2H4JkrXqrkDO1KYpdb6d2f7HEKQMFpzhXjcoH41k9Dp9dDj_vkSYh9Lq8WckxNTrUV03IDaExEBOOnsy3gmUSddDRpFcK9yGSj4GDfbgT-YAfXlX0f3vy31W4AWDLB5j9w7mJk2j3AWGpMGJXIXlsRQtUHO
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: &lt;anid&gt;AN0148160112;[2yg1]01jan.21;2021Jan20.02:30;v2.2.500&lt;/anid&gt; &lt;title id=&quot;AN0148160112-1&quot;&gt;Effects of implementing flipped classroom elements and dynamic in‐class discussion on student performance&#160;&lt;/title&gt; &lt;sbt id=&quot;AN0148160112-2&quot;&gt;INTRODUCTION&lt;/sbt&gt; &lt;p&gt;In a Food Processing–Unit Operations course, students learn the basic equipment that comprises unit operations and techniques commonly used in the food industry to prepare, process, and preserve a variety of food products. Due to the complexity of these operations, students frequently struggle with applying food processing principles to predict how unit operations influence the physical, biochemical, sensory, and nutritional properties of foods. This study is designed to evaluate how pre‐class readings and in‐class group activities improve the students&#39; learning in a Food Processing course. The survey after the exams shows that 48 and 60% of students agree that reading assignments and in‐class group activities help them understand the course material better, respectively. The mean value of exam scores shows that the students in the intervention section (Spring 2018) had significantly higher scores (88.4%) than that of the two previous sections without intervention (77.6%, Spring 2016 and 82.8%, Spring 2017) (P &amp;lt;.05). It is concluded that using a flipped class element like providing reading assignments and quizzes before the lecture can be an effective preparation technique for students as well as providing the instructors with critical insight into the students&#39; level of understanding before the lecture. This allows the instructor to focus time spent in class on areas in which students struggle the most.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The flipped classroom is a form of Blended Learning, which focuses on the active learning environment (Garrison &amp;amp; Kanuka, 2004). This model includes in‐class discussions and activities to engage students in the process of higher order thinking (Garrison &amp;amp; Kanuka, 2004; Prince, 2004; Roehl, Reddy, &amp;amp; Shannon, 2013). This pedagogical innovation builds upon the traditional lecture‐based course where materials are provided to the student in class with the primary delivery technique only being on the lecture delivering facts rather than utilizing a student‐centered methodology (Allen, Seaman, &amp;amp; Richard, 2007; Garrison &amp;amp; Kanuka, 2004; Graham, 2006; Mcgee &amp;amp; Reis, 2012; Picciano, 2019). The flipped‐class method introduces students to foundational concepts via lecture notes and videos or other supplemental materials prior to attending the lecture (Donovan &amp;amp; Lee, 2015). Therefore, classroom time can be devoted to in‐class group projects, active discussion, or problem‐solving activities related to the content students previously viewed (Herreid &amp;amp; Schiller, 2013; Tucker, 2012).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The benefits of the flipped classroom model to student performance have been shown in various disciplines, including Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematic (STEM) courses. For example, the flipped‐class model has demonstrated its effectiveness on student performance and engagement in analytical chemistry, in which the students were satisfied with being able to learn at their own pace and conduct problem‐based activities in classroom sessions (Ponikwer &amp;amp; Patel, 2018). Similarly, the flipped classroom and laboratory model was applied to a Sensory Evaluation of Foods class for undergraduate students majoring in Food Science and Human Nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign; this study highlighted that active engagement with the course material during hands‐on activities conducted in class improved their understanding of the course material (Donovan &amp;amp; Lee, 2015). Furthermore, fostering the flipped classroom model with active learning has improved test scores and decreased likelihood of course failure (Everly, 2013; Freeman et&#160;al., 2014). To date, this approach has not been reported for a Food Processing–Unit Operations course in which complex processes need to be taught to students using only theoretical examples in many cases.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;One of the major problems that was experienced in recent years in the teaching of the Food Processing–Unit Operations course was that many students struggled with applying core food processing principles to predict how unit operations influence the physical, biochemical, sensory, and nutritional properties of foods. Another issue was the materials needing to be presented in a theoretical manner due to equipment constraints. Limiting interaction with the equipment makes it difficult for students to reach the point of meaningful learning and knowledge retention. To promote students&#39; participation and motivation, the Blended Learning methodology was used for teaching aspects of a unit operations course in the Food Science and Human Nutrition department at Michigan State University. The aim of this study was to increase student understanding of course materials and determine overall student satisfaction by including pre‐readings and in‐class group activities in a student‐centered teaching and learning environment.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-3&quot;&gt;MATERIALS AND METHODS&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-4&quot;&gt;Study setting and subjects&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The study was approved by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board (IRB# x17‐1616e). The study was carried out in the spring semester over a 3‐year timespan: 2016 (n&#160;=&#160;64), 2017 (n&#160;=&#160;52), 2018 (n&#160;=&#160;61) in FSC 325–Food Processing: Unit Operations. This is a three‐credit course taught at the sophomore level, but open to any student that meets the prerequisites. The class met three days per week, in 50‐min sessions. All participants were recruited the first day of the semester, and the study was conducted at Michigan State University from January 2017 to May 2018. The students voluntarily participated in the study and signed a consent form. The intervention was described as in Figure&#160;1. The course was offered in 2016 and utilized a traditional lecture‐based model that involved presentations that complemented the textbook (Food Processing Technology: Principles and Practice, 4th edition by P.J. Fellows). In Spring 2017, discussion in class was implemented in select lectures. In Spring 2018, the course offered a Blended Learning model with the use of flipped classroom techniques and in‐class discussions and demonstrations. This Blended Learning model included pre‐class readings assigned for every lecture and an online quiz after finishing the assignment. In addition, depending on the content of the lecture, the instructor conducted in‐class group activities related to food evaluation, assessment, and discussion in groups of three to four students over approximately 15 minutes. This course was taught by the same instructor throughout the study. To determine the validity of the proposed model, it was discussed with an expert panel taking part in the Future Academic Scholars in Teaching (FAST) program. The panel consisted of instructors from across Michigan State University, from different colleges, teaching different course types, and at various stages of experience. Feedback from the panel included optimal methods for data collection, effective strategies to interact with students, and ways to interpret collected data. The progression of the study was presented to the panel weekly, and all feedback was incorporated into the study on a continuous basis.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/2YG1/01jan21/jfs312211-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS&quot; alt=&quot;jfs312211-fig-0001.jpg&quot; title=&quot;1 The design of the study over three semesters in Unit Operations course&quot; /&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-6&quot;&gt;Course information&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The course distributed points in exams (80%) and oral presentation (20%) in 2016 and 2017, whereas the point distribution was modified by attributing 60% to exams, 20% to the oral presentation, and the remaining 20% to participation and quizzes in 2018.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-7&quot;&gt;Pre‐class assignments and online quizzes&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Reading assignments were adapted from the textbook Food Processing Technology: Principles and Practice, 4th edition by P.J. Fellows. The students have access to all the lecture presentations on the course management software Desire to Learn (D2L) system. After completing the reading assignment, the students took a quiz with a single attempt consisting of four questions over 10 min. The questions covered the core information from the pre‐class readings in true or false; multiple choice, multiple selection, fill in the blank, or free response format. All the content for the quizzes was developed by the authors and approved by the course instructor. For example, in the reading material about coating and enrobing candy with chocolate, one of the quiz questions the students had to answer was &quot;Cocoa butter is a polymorphic fat (it crystallizes in different forms or &#39;polymorphs&#39;). Select which polymorph is most desirable in tempering of chocolate.&#160; Explain how this polymorph is achieved through the tempering process.&quot;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-8&quot;&gt;In‐class group activities&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;In‐class group activities were introduced in thirteen selected lectures depending on availability of materials to encourage hands‐on learning. During the lecture, the instructor provided background information related to the food and its specific processing unit operations. The instructor then let the students sample the food, evaluate the food, and discuss the effects of food processing on the quality or safety of the product with their team members. For example, in one lecture about pasteurization, different milk products (pasteurized, ultra‐pasteurized milk) were brought into the classroom. For 15 minutes, the students tasted and evaluated the quality of the product, and then in small groups, they discussed how different processing methods impact the flavor and quality of the milk as well as advantages and disadvantages of each pasteurization technology. Another example of in‐class group activity was the demonstration of freezing food products by liquid nitrogen using marshmallows and graham crackers. After observing how liquid nitrogen can be used for freezing food products, the students had to discuss with their peers different questions with selected examples discussed here&lt;emph&gt;: &quot;Liquid nitrogen has its boiling point at −196 &#176;C, or&#160;−321&#176;F, so why is the gas formed after we put the graham cracker in to the liquid nitrogen?&quot;&lt;/emph&gt; and &quot;&lt;emph&gt;Why does the marshmallow become crunchy after being immersed in liquid Nitrogen keeping in mind our discussion on the glass transition of foods&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;?&quot;. After 15 min, the instructor encouraged the small groups to share their thoughts with the entire class and the instructor guided the group to identify the correct concepts. Other innovative discussions and demonstrations were carried out using functional foods, edible insects, chocolate covered cherries, and jellybeans, to name a few.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-9&quot;&gt;Data collection&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Three types of data were collected: exam scores for 3 years, quiz scores, and a questionnaire survey for Spring semester 2018. There were 29 quizzes and 13 in‐class group activities offered in Spring 2018. Two exam scores were collected during the Spring 2018 semester and two surveys were administered immediately after the students finished each exam. Each survey consisted of 23 multiple‐choice questions, Likert scale questions on a 5‐point scale, and three open‐ended questions (Supporting Information). The Likert scale questions are reported in weighted mean for each survey with five being most likely, strongly agree, or excellent and one being least likely, strongly disagree, or poor. The questionnaire was used to evaluate the student&#39;s overall acceptance of the flipped classroom, their opinion on activities and learning, and suggestions for improvement. In addition, at the beginning of the course, a pre‐intervention survey was administered to collect demographic data of participants. Since the study was conducted in 2018, the demographic data from 2016 and 2017 were collected from The Office of the Registrar at Michigan State University. The exam questions throughout the 3 years were designed by the course instructor and independently evaluated by two researchers to ensure the same level of difficulty as well as similar distribution of exam questions according to Bloom&#39;s taxonomy.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-10&quot;&gt;Statistics&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The data were analyzed using the REG and MIXED procedures of SAS, version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA). A linear regression &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt;‐test was used to determine whether the slope of the regression line differs significantly from zero. Least square means were compared using the Fisher&#39;s least significant difference method and were considered significant when &lt;emph&gt;P&lt;/emph&gt;–values were less than.05.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-11&quot;&gt;RESULTS AND DISCUSSION&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-12&quot;&gt;Participant characteristics&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Total of 176 students in the Unit Operations course participated in this study, with 90.6% of them taking the course as a degree requirement—of which 62.5% of the students were female. Most students were in their second or third year when they took the course (Table&#160;1). Almost half of participants had an overall GPA higher than 3.4; however, there was no significant difference in their overall GPA across the 3 years of the study.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1 TABLESurvey results for participant demographics over 3 years (2016 to 2018)&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Item asked&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Spring 2016 (n&amp;amp;#160;=&amp;amp;#160;64)&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Spring 2017 (n&amp;amp;#160;=&amp;amp;#160;52)&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Spring 2018 (n&amp;amp;#160;=&amp;amp;#160;61)&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Mean (SE)&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Was this course required in your degree program?&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Yes&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;92.5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;91.8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;87.5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;90.6 &amp;amp;#177; 1.6&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;No&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7.4&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8.1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;12.5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;9.30 &amp;amp;#177; 1.6&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Sex&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Male&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;40.7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;34.2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;37.5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;37.5 &amp;amp;#177; 1.9&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Female&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;59.2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;65.7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;62.5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;62.5 &amp;amp;#177; 1.9&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Overall GPA&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1.9 or less&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2 to 2.2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3.7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.80 &amp;amp;#177; 0.5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.3 to 2.7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;31.4&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;23.6&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;6.4&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;15.0 &amp;amp;#177; 7.0&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.8 to 3.3&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;25.9&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;28.9&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;34.0&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;29.6 &amp;amp;#177; 2.4&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3.4 to 4.0&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;38.8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;44.8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;57.4&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;47.0 &amp;amp;#177; 5.5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Class level&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Freshman&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1.9&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4.2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.9 &amp;amp;#177; 0.7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Sophomore&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;31.5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;37.8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;25.1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;31.4 &amp;amp;#177; 3.7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Junior&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;42.5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;29.7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;39.5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;37.2 &amp;amp;#177; 3.9&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Senior&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;24.1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;29.7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;31.2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;28.3 &amp;amp;#177; 2.2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Graduate or other&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-13&quot;&gt;Perception evaluation&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;After each exam, a questionnaire was conducted to gauge students&#39; opinions on the Blended Learning methodology. When the students were asked whether they would recommend pre‐reading assignments for future students, there was encouraging results with 68.4 &#177; 0.46% of the students supporting the pre‐reading assignment (Figure&#160;2A). These interventions serve as an aid to students&#39; understanding before lecture, which may explain its high level of student support. Note that 46.7% of students agreed that reading assignments helped them to understand the lecture better (Table&#160;2). Major feedback received from the students showed that they were satisfied with the reading assignment before the lecture. For example: &lt;emph&gt;&quot;It was great&quot; or &quot;The pre‐readings prepped me for what I was going to learn that day.&quot;&lt;/emph&gt; The results were consistent with the previous studies, which determined that flipped class learning encouraged students to take active responsibility for their learning, helping them learn at their own pace and conduct problem‐based activities in classroom sessions (Ponikwer &amp;amp; Patel, 2018). In contrast, other student stated that &quot;&lt;emph&gt;I don&#39;t think the readings helped that much for what I was going to learn that day&lt;/emph&gt;,&quot; and some students complained about the insufficient time for quizzes. For example, one of the responses was &quot;&lt;emph&gt;the quizzes need more than 10 minutes especially for extended response and some low quiz grades should be dropped&lt;/emph&gt;.&quot; These comments might be attributed to the student opinions that reading assignments did not help them much in their preparation and studying for the course.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/2YG1/01jan21/jfs312211-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS&quot; alt=&quot;jfs312211-fig-0002.jpg&quot; title=&quot;2 Results for survey question &amp;quot;Would you recommend pre‐reading assignments (A) and activities (B) for class in the future&amp;quot;(N&#160;=&#160;61)&quot; /&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2 TABLEPercentage of students&#39; responses (N&#160;=&#160;61) to questions in the survey&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Questions&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Strongly disagree&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Disagree&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Neutral&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Agree&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Strongly agree&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1. Activities in class helped me understand the lecture better&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1.7 &amp;amp;#177; 0.13&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8.3 &amp;amp;#177; 0.28&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;35 &amp;amp;#177; 0.48&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;43.3 &amp;amp;#177; 0.50&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;11.7 &amp;amp;#177; 0.32&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2. Reading assignments helped me understand the lecture better&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3.3 &amp;amp;#177; 0.18&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;6.7 &amp;amp;#177; 0.25&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;43.3 &amp;amp;#177; 0.49&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;41.7 &amp;amp;#177; 0.49&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5.0 &amp;amp;#177; 0.22&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3. Activities in class helped me do better on the exams&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3.3 &amp;amp;#177; 0.18&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5.8 &amp;amp;#177; 0.23&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;44.2 &amp;amp;#177; 0.44&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;36.7 &amp;amp;#177; 0.48&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;10 &amp;amp;#177; 0.3&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4. Reading assignments helped me do better on the exams&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5.8 &amp;amp;#177; 0.23&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;15.8 &amp;amp;#177; 0.37&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;44.2 &amp;amp;#177; 0.50&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;30.8 &amp;amp;#177; 0.46&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3.4 &amp;amp;#177; 0.18&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Figure&#160;2B shows the results of students&#39; recommendations for in‐class group activities for future learning in food science education. From the qualitative data, the majority (81.4%) expressed a positive impression toward the in‐class group activities (Figure&#160;2B). When the students were asked if the activities in class helped them understand the lecture better, only 1.7% of students strongly disagreed with this statement, whereas approximately 43.3% of students indicated &quot;agree&quot; and 11.7% indicated &quot;strongly agree&quot; (Table&#160;2). Note that 81.4% of students liked the in‐class group discussions in this study, aligning with findings from previous studies since students like to interact in class and learn from discussion with peers (Kim, Kim, Khera, &amp;amp; Getman, 2014; &#214;ncel &amp;amp; Kara, 2018). In another study, the students considered an inverted classroom model in a general science course as &quot;fun&quot; and &quot;enthusiastic&quot; with scores of over 7 out of 10 points (Jeong, Gonz&#225;lez‐G&#243;mez, &amp;amp; Ca&#241;ada‐Ca&#241;ada, 2016).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The results of the survey in this study showed that the students had a positive perception of the new learning method. Some students express their opinion that the activities in class were fun and interesting. When the students were asked about in‐class group activities, overall comments were positive:&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;emph&gt;&quot;I like it when we have products for show in class along with the lecture. It is interactive learning&quot;&lt;/emph&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;emph&gt;&quot;Yes, they were interesting and fun&quot;&lt;/emph&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;emph&gt;&quot;Love learning about how the food was made and trying it&quot;&lt;/emph&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Since the class was designed to be student‐centered and focused on student engagement through in‐class group discussion, the pre‐reading material was used to provide them with background knowledge for the in‐class content enabling the instructor to cover a wider range of topics and creatively design interactive classroom experiences. More time was spent in‐person having discussions and problem ‐ solving. This deemphasized the need for rote memorization, a strategy that is typically used to gain declarative knowledge through traditional lectures (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, &amp;amp; Norman, 2010). However, there is also mix perception by students on flipped class learning as seen in a biology class, where in 33.9% (n&#160;=&#160;56) responded that they loved the setup of flipped classroom, where as 23.2% of students did not prefer this model (Heyborne &amp;amp; Perrett, 2016). In this study, the students commented that they did not like splitting up into groups for discussion since &quot;it wasted time,&quot; the subject was still not understood, or everyone did not participate.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-15&quot;&gt;Measuring effects&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-16&quot;&gt;Exam scores&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;To assess incremental learning by the intervention, exam scores were collected for three years continuously, with the first two years using traditional lectures and the third year implementing a flipped model. Figure&#160;3 showed the average scores of exam 1 and exam 2 across three semesters. When comparing the exam performance of students in the traditional lecture with students in the flipped classroom, a significant difference was found in both semesters (Spring 2017 and Spring 2018). The effectiveness of this flipped learning was not only supported by numeric scores but also by student&#39;s opinions in the final survey. The highest average scores were 86.2 points and 90.7 points in the 2018 semester for exam 1 and 2, respectively. In contrast, the average scores for both exams in 2016 and 2017 were 77.6 and 82.8 points, respectively. Furthermore, 34 and 47% of the students agreed that the reading assignments and in‐class group activities helped them do better on the exams, respectively (Table&#160;2). In 2017, only in‐class group activities were combined with the traditional course, whereas in 2018, the instructors used both in‐class group discussion combined with flipped classroom techniques, which significantly improved student test scores. Although in‐class group discussion was included in the Spring 2017 course, only 5 min were allotted for discussion due to the instructors time being spent on other subjects in that lecture. As a result, it was less effective as compared to the following year. In 2018, more time was spent for discussion (15 min), which gave students a greater opportunity to express their opinions. This also provided more opportunities for peer interaction, which had greater influence on student&#39;s perceptions of learning. In addition, since using the pre‐reading assignment, instructors can save time on detailed explanations of course materials, and students have increased time for direct interaction with the instructor and/or teaching assistant who can provide useful feedback to students&#39; discussion. although this indicates the effectiveness of the intervention, it is important to note some factors that may have influenced the positive results derived from the study. First, before each exam, the instructors provided students with study guide so if the students used this study guide effectively, it could help to improve the exam scores. Even though the study guide was provided for every semester, the effectiveness of these study guides was not accessed in this study. Second, even though the average GPA of students across the 3‐year study was not significantly different, it was hard to determine whether the knowledge and background of the students in each semester could be a factor that led to higher scores of exams in Spring 2018. Therefore, in future research, it would be better to have a control group and intervention group within the same semester, although this would result in student variation as well.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/2YG1/01jan21/jfs312211-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS&quot; alt=&quot;jfs312211-fig-0003.jpg&quot; title=&quot;3 Comparison of average exam scores for three semesters 2016 (SS16, N&#160;=&#160;64), 2017 (SS17, N&#160;=&#160;52) and 2018 (SS18, N&#160;=&#160;61). Different letters indicate statistically significant differences among each semester (P&#160;&amp;lt;&#160;.05)&quot; /&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-18&quot;&gt;Quiz scores&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;To evaluate the understanding of the reading assignment, the students had to take quizzes before attending class. The data were also used to test whether the reading assignment and quizzes could have positive effects on the student performance. Therefore, quiz questions focused on the students&#39; understanding and application of particular topics not simply memorization. It did appear from the student survey that 10% of students did not have a good impression of the quizzes and thought that the reading assignments followed by quizzes did not help them much in understanding the lecture and preparing for the exam (Table&#160;2). However, the quiz data showed that about 60% of the students got high scores (9 to 10 points) (Table S1). Even though some students complained that 10 minutes with a single attempt were not enough for them to finish the quiz, we thought this time limit was reasonable for a four‐question quiz to avoid student skimming through the assignment to find the answers without reading and understanding the materials. In semesters 2016 and 2017, reading the textbook was optional, so it was possible that the students only depended on the lectures without putting forth the effort to utilize the additional readings. The high scores of quizzes indicated that the students had read and were able to apply the knowledge from the reading to answer quiz questions (Table S1). Also, this was supported by 34% of students agreeing that &quot;Reading assignments helped me do better on the exam (Table&#160;2). In addition, the linear regression showed a positive relationship between quiz scores and both exam scores (&lt;emph&gt;P&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;&amp;lt;&#160;.01) (Figure&#160;4). This may indicate that the flipped learning model, which obligates students to complete reading assignments and finish the quizzes in preparation for class, causes students to become more engaged in their at‐home activities. Among the 3 years of teaching this course, the average scores of exams 1 and 2 were higher in the year with intervention (Figure&#160;3). This result was in accordance with a meta‐analysis of 225 studies by Freeman et&#160;al. (2014) compared across all STEM disciplines, which concluded that active learning is superior to traditional pedagogical methodology, and increases exam scores by 6% and decreases fail rates by more than 50%.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/2YG1/01jan21/jfs312211-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS&quot; alt=&quot;jfs312211-fig-0004.jpg&quot; title=&quot;4 Linear relationship between exam scores and quizzes for prereading assignments(P&#160;&amp;lt;&#160;.05) (N&#160;=&#160;61)&quot; /&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-20&quot;&gt;Benefits of the flipped class model&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The results showed that over 50% of the students in the class (SS18) suggested this intervention for future courses. The Blended Learning model may have been useful to students for a few reasons. Providing material for reading 4 to 7 days in advance gave them more time to learn the material thoroughly before coming to class (Ponikwer &amp;amp; Patel, 2018). In addition, this intervention also benefitted the instructors because when students came to class prepared, more class time was focused on addressing content that had not been understood. This also helped free up class time for peer collaboration rather than instruction. Furthermore, group activities in class not only engaged students in discussion but it also provided greater interaction in the classroom (Ambrose et&#160;al., 2010; Kim et&#160;al., 2014; &#214;ncel &amp;amp; Kara, 2018).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-21&quot;&gt;Practical considerations of applying flipped classroom&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The benefits of the flipped classroom model to student performance have been shown in various disciplines especially in STEM courses (Donovan &amp;amp; Lee, 2015; Everly, 2013; Freeman et&#160;al., 2014; Ponikwer &amp;amp; Patel, 2018). However, to implement this model successfully, there are some challenges that need to be addressed. The current classroom was not designed for working in groups, and with the class size ranging from 50 to 60 students, it is not easy for an instructor or teaching assistant to move around the room and to facilitate group discussion. Results of the survey showed that about half of the class spent 15 min on the reading and about 30% of students spend 30 min to 1 hr (Table S2). In this study, we used the textbook as the main source for reading materials because it is straight forward to read, easily searchable, and they can conveniently access the text anytime to have more exposure to the material. However, it is hard to determine the difficulty level of the readings from the students&#39; perspective as well as how the students actually use them to prepare for class. Therefore, a structured survey to collect information on self‐learning through reading the text would be beneficial for the instructor when applying the flipped class model in the future. Furthermore, instructors must remember that students have a variety of learning styles. In the survey, in‐class group activities were not recommended by 11.9% of students. Some students may be more comfortable taking notes in a traditional lecture setting. In addition, some students might be unsatisfied with the new learning method because they preferred to have a passive role in their learning and wanted the course material to be presented by instructors (Petersen &amp;amp; Gorman, 2014). Another reason that students disliked discussion was because they found the learning environment to be distracting; this may have resulted from noisy group conversations (Petersen &amp;amp; Gorman, 2014). There also may be issues with collaborative work because some students were dissatisfied with their partners (Donovan &amp;amp; Lee, 2015). In contrast, the students who preferred flipped class learning had more positive attitudes toward both the pre‐ and in‐class activities; for example, they participated actively and attentively in class discussions (McNally et&#160;al., 2017). This indicated that the success of active learning methodology depends a lot on the individual student (Pahl &amp;amp; Kenny, 2008). Therefore, to overcome these challenges, the instructor&#39;s role is very important. The instructors have to equip themselves with &quot;a large toolbox,&quot; such as new technology (i.e., interactive tutorials and online discussion forums), teaching techniques (i.e., video lectures and, visual learning materials), and knowledge to design interesting and interactive learning material to keep students engaged and ensure that they embrace their roles. This requires additional effort since the instructor needs to prepare the pre‐class materials in advance, which is a time‐consuming process. It also required the instructors to explain the flipped classroom so the students will have a definite understanding of what to expect on the first day of class.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-22&quot;&gt;CONCLUSIONS&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;This study provided an insight into the effectiveness of learning‐before‐lecture and active discussion on academic performance of students. While this study only incorporated a flipped environment into a portion of the course, it still demonstrated the positive effects of the Blended Learning method. Overall, this study illustrated that applying the Blended Teaching method with flipped classroom and discussion activities can enhance the student&#39;s performance and increase standardized test scores. Though the flipped model may result in more work outside the classroom for students, some students still indicated that this form of learning was more effective at helping them to engage with and retain course material. Most importantly, to apply this model successfully for other courses in Food Science, future research is needed to evaluate active engagement, participation, and time and effort from both the students and instructors. If both the students and the instructor embrace the flipped classroom approach, a learning environment that enhances student academic performance can be achieved.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-23&quot;&gt;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The authors would like to thank the members and steering committee of the Future Academic Scholars in Teaching (FAST) program for the 2017 to 2018 academic year, the participants in the Spring 2018 offering of FSC 325, as well as Khardwal Garima for her assistance as part of the teaching team during this research study. Additionally, the authors would like to thank The Graduate School at Michigan State University for their financial support of the FAST program.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-24&quot;&gt;AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Loan Thi Thanh Cao and Jeffrey Swada designed the study and interpreted the results. Both authors collected and analyzed test data as well as wrote and reviewed the manuscript.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0148160112-25&quot;&gt;CONFLICTS OF INTEREST&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The authors declare no financial interests regarding the outcomes of this investigation. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;GRAPH: Table 1S: Frequency and percentage distribution of quiz scores was graded before each examTable 2S: Percentage of students&#39; response on the survey question about time spent for reading assignments&lt;/p&gt; &lt;ref id=&quot;AN0148160112-26&quot;&gt; &lt;title&gt; REFERENCES &lt;/title&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib1&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;1&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., &amp;amp; Richard, G. (2007). Blending. In The extent and promise of blended education in the United States (1st ed.). Needham : Sloan Consortium.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib2&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;2&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., &amp;amp; Norman, M. K. (2010). How does students&#39; prior knowledge affect their learning. Ritter Lisa In How learning works: Seven research‐based principles for smart teaching (pp. 10 – 40). San Francisco : Jossey‐Bass.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib3&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;3&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Donovan, J., &amp;amp; Lee, S. (2015). How We Flipped: Student and Instructor Reflections of a Flipped‐Class Model in a Sensory Evaluation Laboratory Course. NACTA Journal, 59 (4), 335 – 342. Retrieved October 20, 2018, from https://&lt;ulink href=&quot;http://www.jstor.org/stable/nactajournal.59.4.335&quot;&gt;www.jstor.org/stable/nactajournal.59.4.335&lt;/ulink&gt;&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib4&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;4&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Everly, M. C. (2013). Are students&#39; impressions of improved learning through active learning methods reflected by improved test scores? Nurse Education Today, 33 (2), 148 – 151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2011.10.023&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib5&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;5&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., &amp;amp; Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111 (23), 8410 – 8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib6&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;6&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Garrison, D. R., &amp;amp; Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7 (2), 95 – 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib7&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;7&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends and future directions. In C. J. Bonk &amp;amp; C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Blended Learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3 – 21). San Francisco : Pfeiffer Publishing.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib8&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;8&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Herreid, C. F., &amp;amp; Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42 (5), 62 – 66. Retrieved from https://&lt;ulink href=&quot;http://www.researchgate.net/publication/264860703%5fCase%5fStudies%5fand%5fthe%5fFlipped%5fClassroom&quot;&gt;www.researchgate.net/publication/264860703%5fCase%5fStudies%5fand%5fthe%5fFlipped%5fClassroom&lt;/ulink&gt;&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib9&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;9&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Heyborne, W., &amp;amp; Perrett, J. (2016). To flip or not to flip? Analysis of a flipped classroom pedagogy in a general biology course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45 (4), 31 – 37. Retrieved from https://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true%26profile=ehost%26scope=site%26authtype=crawler%26jrnl=0047231X%26AN=113275515%26h=4UOnCfMAjXFZ07ljkbHup4q8jQtspBMzDfwf8366494ZeDQGEv8NeOrJfA12QmowEMaB5tGMneLcGdYzO9xC5w%3D%3D%26crl=c%26resultNs=AdminWebAuth%26resultLocal=Er&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Jeong, J. S., Gonz&#225;lez‐G&#243;mez, D., &amp;amp; Ca&#241;ada‐Ca&#241;ada, F. (2016). Students&#39; perceptions and emotions toward learning in a flipped general science classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25 (5), 747 – 758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9630-8&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., &amp;amp; Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.003&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Mcgee, P., &amp;amp; Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16 (4), 7 – 22. Retrieved from &lt;ulink href=&quot;http://www.educause.edu/Resources/Browse/HybridorBlended&quot;&gt;http://www.educause.edu/Resources/Browse/HybridorBlended&lt;/ulink&gt;&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; McNally, B., Chipperfield, J., Dorsett, P., Del Fabbro, L., Frommolt, V., Goetz, S., ... Rung, A. (2017). Flipped classroom experiences: Student preferences and flip strategy in a higher education context. Higher Education, 73 (2), 281 – 298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0014-z&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; &#214;ncel, A. F., &amp;amp; Kara, A. (2018). A flipped classroom in communication systems: Student perception and performance assessments. International Journal of Electrical Engineering &amp;amp; Education, 56 (3), 208 – 221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020720918788718&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Pahl, C., &amp;amp; Kenny, C. (2008). The future of technology enhanced active learning: A roadmap. Miltiadis D. Lytras, Dragan Gasevic, Patricia Ord&#243;&#241;ez de Pablos, and Weihong Huang In Technology enhanced learning: Best practices (pp. 348 – 375). Hershey, Pennsylvania : IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-600-6.ch014&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Petersen, C. I., &amp;amp; Gorman, K. S. (2014). Strategies to address common challenges when teaching in an active learning classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014 (137), 63 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20086&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Picciano, A. G. (2019). Blended learning: Implications For growth and access. Online Learning, 10 (3), 95 – 102. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v10i3.1758&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Ponikwer, F., &amp;amp; Patel, B. A. (2018). Implementation and evaluation of flipped learning for delivery of analytical chemistry topics. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 410 (9), 2263 – 2269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-018-0892-2&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93 (3), 223 – 231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., &amp;amp; Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 105 (2), 44 – 49. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1045858&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12 (1), 82 – 83. Retrieved from https://&lt;ulink href=&quot;http://www.educationnext.org/the&amp;amp;#8208;flipped&amp;amp;#8208;classroom/&quot;&gt;www.educationnext.org/the&amp;amp;#8208;flipped&amp;amp;#8208;classroom/&lt;/ulink&gt;&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;/ref&gt; &lt;aug&gt; &lt;p&gt;By Loan Thi Thanh Cao and Jeffrey Gerard Swada&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Reported by Author; Author&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/aug&gt;
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1281000
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Effects of Implementing Flipped Classroom Elements and Dynamic In-Class Discussion on Student Performance
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Cao%2C+Loan+Thi+Thanh%22&quot;&gt;Cao, Loan Thi Thanh&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Swada%2C+Jeffrey+Gerard%22&quot;&gt;Swada, Jeffrey Gerard&lt;/searchLink&gt; (ORCID &lt;externalLink term=&quot;https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8473-0390&quot;&gt;0000-0001-8473-0390&lt;/externalLink&gt;)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SO&quot; term=&quot;%22Journal+of+Food+Science+Education%22&quot;&gt;&lt;i&gt;Journal of Food Science Education&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/searchLink&gt;. Jan 2021 20(1):48-56.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 9
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles&lt;br /&gt;Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Performance+Factors%22&quot;&gt;Performance Factors&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22&quot;&gt;Instructional Effectiveness&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Flipped+Classroom%22&quot;&gt;Flipped Classroom&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Discussion+%28Teaching+Technique%29%22&quot;&gt;Discussion (Teaching Technique)&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Group+Activities%22&quot;&gt;Group Activities&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Reading+Assignments%22&quot;&gt;Reading Assignments&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Lecture+Method%22&quot;&gt;Lecture Method&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Foods+Instruction%22&quot;&gt;Foods Instruction&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Food+Processing+Occupations%22&quot;&gt;Food Processing Occupations&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Difficulty+Level%22&quot;&gt;Difficulty Level&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Student+Attitudes%22&quot;&gt;Student Attitudes&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/1541-4329.12211
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1541-4329
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In a Food Processing-Unit Operations course, students learn the basic equipment that comprises unit operations and techniques commonly used in the food industry to prepare, process, and preserve a variety of food products. Due to the complexity of these operations, students frequently struggle with applying food processing principles to predict how unit operations influence the physical, biochemical, sensory, and nutritional properties of foods. This study is designed to evaluate how pre-class readings and in-class group activities improve the students&#39; learning in a Food Processing course. The survey after the exams shows that 48 and 60% of students agree that reading assignments and in-class group activities help them understand the course material better, respectively. The mean value of exam scores shows that the students in the intervention section (Spring 2018) had significantly higher scores (88.4%) than that of the two previous sections without intervention (77.6%, Spring 2016 and 82.8%, Spring 2017) (P &lt; 0.05). It is concluded that using a flipped class element like providing reading assignments and quizzes before the lecture can be an effective preparation technique for students as well as providing the instructors with critical insight into the students&#39; level of understanding before the lecture. This allows the instructor to focus time spent in class on areas in which students struggle the most.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1281000
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1281000
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/1541-4329.12211
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 48
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Performance Factors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Flipped Classroom
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discussion (Teaching Technique)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Assignments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Lecture Method
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foods Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Food Processing Occupations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Difficulty Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Effects of Implementing Flipped Classroom Elements and Dynamic In-Class Discussion on Student Performance
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cao, Loan Thi Thanh
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Swada, Jeffrey Gerard
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1541-4329
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 20
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Food Science Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1