📘 Research Overview

📄
Paper Summary

This study critically evaluates the Flipped Classroom (FC) model in an undergraduate social statistics course at Johns Hopkins University, examining how it impacts student engagement and inclusion in post-pandemic educational contexts.

Using a mixed-methods approach with 35 participants across Fall 2023 and Fall 2024, the research combines Likert-scale surveys with focus group discussions to assess both cognitive and affective engagement dimensions.

Key findings reveal that while FC provides foundational learning benefits, it presents significant limitations in fostering student autonomy and accommodating diverse learning preferences—challenges intensified by post-pandemic educational disruptions. The study identifies how Blended Learning (BL) design elements could better address these gaps through enhanced interaction, material diversification, and progressive scaffolding.

35
Participants
2
Semesters
26
Survey Questions
4
Focus Groups

Context: Post-Pandemic Challenges

Following COVID-19, higher education faced unprecedented challenges in creating flexible yet rigorous learning environments. Remote learning had uneven impacts across student groups, creating variability in self-directed learning skills and highlighting structural inequities that require fundamental course redesign.

Purpose of the Study

To empirically evaluate the Flipped Classroom model's effectiveness in quantitative education and identify how Blended Learning design elements could better address diverse student needs through enhanced interactions, material diversification, and progressive scaffolding approaches.

Research Questions

RQ1: How does the design of online pre-class materials impact students' perceived learning and engagement in the remote portion?

RQ2: How do availability, diversification, and scaffolding of materials impact perceived relevance and engagement during in-class activities?

🧪 Methodology Explorer

Mixed-Methods Approach

This study employs a mixed-methods approach integrating quantitative and qualitative analyses to develop a comprehensive understanding of the FC model's effectiveness.

📊 Quantitative

Likert-scale surveys administered to all course participants, providing quantifiable data for statistical analysis with a 5-point scale (excluding neutral option).

💬 Qualitative

Focus groups conducted with voluntary participant subsets, capturing in-depth insights into nuanced opinions and emotional responses.

Study Participants

35 students enrolled in "Introduction to Social Statistics" at Johns Hopkins University.

Demographics

Age Range 18-22 years (M=19.8, SD=1.2)
Gender Distribution Female: 66% | Male: 31% | Other: 3%

Academic Majors

Survey Structure

Survey 1 — Research Question #1

18 questions measuring engagement in the remote portion

  • • Cognitive Engagement: Q1-Q4, Q16-Q17
  • • Affective Engagement: Q6-Q11, Q14-Q15
  • • Preparedness: Q5, Q12
  • • Perceived Learning: Q13, Q18

Survey 2 — Research Question #2

8 questions measuring inclusion and in-class engagement

  • • Availability & Accessibility: Q1
  • • Diversification: Q2-Q3
  • • Scaffolding: Q4
  • • Perceived Relevance: Q5
  • • Engagement: Q6 (Cognitive), Q8 (Social)

Focus Groups

Four focus group sessions with 12 total participants provided qualitative depth to complement survey data.

Analysis Methodology

Thematic analysis following Braun & Clarke's (2006) six-phase approach with intercoder reliability (Cohen's κ = 0.82).

Phase 1
Initial Coding

Two researchers independently reviewed transcripts with line-by-line analysis.

Phase 2
Focused Coding

Codes grouped into broader categories based on recurring patterns.

Phase 3
Theoretical Coding

Categories refined into themes connecting to conceptual framework.

📅 Data Collection Timeline

FALL 2023

Weeks 10-14

Surveys + Focus Groups

FALL 2024

Weeks 10-14

Surveys + Focus Groups

📊 Research Findings

Strongly Disagree
Slightly Disagree
Slightly Agree
Strongly Agree

Cognitive Engagement in Remote Learning (Survey 1)

Affective Engagement in Remote Learning (Survey 1)

Availability, Accessibility & Scaffolding (Survey 2)

In-Class Engagement (Survey 2)

✓ Strengths Identified

  • 100% clarity of instructions
  • 100% material availability
  • 100% scaffolding effectiveness
  • 96% preparedness for class

âš  Limitations Found

  • Only 46% adequate interaction
  • Only 58% feel autonomous
  • 21% want more diverse materials
  • 22% desire more collaboration

🧠 Focus Group Themes

Three primary themes emerged from qualitative analysis, providing context for quantitative findings and deeper insights into student experiences.

01

Challenges with Self-Directed Learning

Students reported difficulties with the self-directed nature of pre-class activities, particularly where concepts build sequentially.

Learn more
02

Importance of Immediate Feedback

Participants emphasized the need for timely guidance during pre-class activities, especially with complex statistical concepts.

Learn more
03

Learning Preference Diversity

Students expressed varied preferences for material presentation and learning pathways based on mathematical background.

Learn more

🚀 Blended Learning Redesign Insights

Based on FC evaluation findings, the research identifies strategic BL approaches that could address identified limitations through interdependent learning components.

Key Takeaway

Effective learning design is not about implementing a single model, but about creating flexible, responsive educational experiences that recognize and nurture the unique learning potential of each student. The validated inclusion-engagement interconnection demonstrates that addressing inclusion gaps through material diversification and collaborative opportunities could simultaneously enhance both cognitive and affective engagement dimensions.

📚 Citations & Further Reading

Key References

Mizza, D., Reese, M., & Malouche, D. (2025). Flipped classroom evaluation and blended learning potential: A case study of engagement and inclusion in quantitative education. Smart Learning Environments, 12(56). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-025-00412-2
Strelan, P., Osborn, A., & Palmer, E. (2020). The flipped classroom: A meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines and education levels. Educational Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314
Means, B., & Neisler, J. (2021). Teaching and learning in the time of COVID: The student perspective. Online Learning Journal, 25(1), 8–27. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i1.2496
Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments: A conceptual framework. Online Learning, 23(2), 145–178. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1481
Mizza, D., & Rubio, F. (2020). The foundation of blended language learning: The blend, the blending process, and the blended path. In Creating effective blended language learning courses (pp. 51–74). Cambridge University Press.

Download & Resources

Access the Full Paper

This research is published as Open Access under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Download Full Paper (DOI)

About the Authors

Daria Mizza — Department of Applied Linguistics and Educational Studies, American University in Cairo

Mike Reese — Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation, Johns Hopkins University

Dhafer Malouche — Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Qatar University