Sport Management Education Journal, 2015, 9, 79  -90

http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/SMEJ.2014-0042
© 2015 North American Society for Sport Management ARTICLE

Flipping a Class: Active Learning and More of It

Angela Lumpkin
Texas Tech University

Rebecca M. Achen
Illinois State University

Despite what many claim, just because there is teaching does not mean there is learning. Clear and convincing
evidence supports changing the instructional paradigm to a learner-centered classroom. Flipping a class shifts
the delivery, often through technologically presented lectures, to free class time for student participation in a
plethora of learning activities, such as think-pair-share and discussions, leading to student perceptions of greater
learning and more enjoyment. In an action research approach with one class, 72% of juniors and seniors in
an undergraduate sport finance and economics class reported out-of-class lectures often positively impacted
their learning, and the remaining 28% responded these lectures did sometimes. End-of-course evaluations and
surveys were overwhelmingly positive about class engagement, interaction, and enjoyment.

Keywords: teaching, sport management

In too many college classrooms, subject matter
experts lecture on and on about content that often fails to
connect with or interest the smattering of students who
choose to attend (Anderson, Young, & Franklin, 2014).
Some students who are present physically may be absent
mentally as they send text messages or surf the Internet
whenever the teacher fails to engage their minds. Does
this seem much too familiar and disconcerting?
The evidence is clear and substantial that the teacher-
centered, lecture-centric classes predominant in higher
education (Crews & Butterfield, 2014; Lom, 2012;
Wallace & Weiner, 1998) fail to engage most students’
minds, challenge their critical thinking skills, and develop
their metacognition abilities (Bonwell & Eison, 1991).
Michael (2006) concluded lecturing is at odds with human
cognitive research about how students learn. Whereas lec-
tures can successfully disseminate complex information
(Burgan, 2006), lectures should not comprise the totality
or even majority of instruction if students are to learn,
construct new knowledge, and understand more as well
as retain and be able to apply what they learn (Bonwell &
Eison, 1991; Diamond, 2008; Komarraju & Karau, 2008).
Student-centered learning actively involves students
as they learn by doing. When challenged to think, exam-
ine, integrate, analyze, apply, evaluate, and synthesize,
Angela Lumpkin is with the Department of Kinesiology and
Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
Rebecca M. is with the School of Kinesiology and Recreation,
Illinois State University, Normal, IL. Address author correspon-
dence to Angela Lumpkin at angela.lumpkin@ttu.edu.
students become more eager and willing to delve more
deeply into content-rich texts and readings leading to
quests to construct new knowledge and expand their com-
prehension (Bergmann & Sams, 2014; Bonwell & Eison,
1991). Since long-term learning depends on the active
engagement of students, college faculty should design,
deliver, and assess their courses based on best practices
to encourage students to put the time and effort into their
studies and class-related activities to ensure academic
success (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005).
In an era when learning management systems (LMS)
are ubiquitous and online courses proliferate, some teach-
ers in higher education have found flipped, inverted,
hybrid, or blended classes have enabled them to imple-
ment a plethora of instructional strategies that emphasize
what students do, not what the teacher does (King, 1993;
Means, Toyama, Murphy, & Baki, 2013). The learn-
ing environment of a flipped class focuses out-of-class
learning on disciplinary content to free up class time for
students to engage in participatory learning activities
(Bergmann & Sams, 2014). A learner-centered, flipped
class becomes more dynamic as students work together
to solve problems, grapple with content-based issues, and
answer questions, rather than listen passively (Ander-
son et al., 2014; Kim, Kim, Khera, & Getman, 2014).
A flipped class emphasizes students bringing to class
knowledge about course topics based on having com-
pleted reading assignments and viewed online lectures, so
they can spend valuable time with the teacher to expand
critical thinking skills through completing problem sets,
synthesizing ideas, and making real-world applications
(Baepler, Walker, & Driessen, 2014; Bergmann & Sams,

79
80  Lumpkin and Achen
2014; Kim et al., 2014; Means et al., 2013; See & Conry,
2014; Wallace, Walker, Braseby, & Sweet, 2014).
Given the breadth and depth of the financial and eco-
nomic principles comprising the business of intercolle-
giate athletics and professional sports and dissatisfaction
with the learning of students when this course was taught
previously, the teacher decided to flip a sport finance
and economics course. The overall purpose of this work
is to describe why and how one teacher flipped a class
and whether flipping it led to more active and engaged
learning and other positive outcomes as perceived by
the teacher and students. The teacher sought to reflect
personally and, most importantly, assess whether students
perceived the active learning strategies infused when this
class was flipped helped them learn and if participating in
several active learning activities was enjoyable.
Review of Literature
Active learning and student-centered learning are
grounded in constructivism, a theory of learning based
on the work of Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky (Fosnot
& Perry, 1996). Constructivist learning is “based on the
belief that learning is brought about as a process of active,
individual construction of knowledge” (Stage, Muller,
Kinzie, & Simmons, 1998, p. 35). Teaching approaches
grounded in this theory focus on learners being actively
involved in the construction of knowledge, instead of pas-
sively receiving information (Stage et al., 1998). Accord-
ing to Stage et al. (1998), the constructivist umbrella
encompasses a myriad of instructional practices because
different theorists focus on the construction of learning in
different ways. One of the major critiques of constructiv-
ism is that it overlooks the role social interaction plays in
learning (Stage et al., 1998). The social constructionist
view supports the addition of active learning strategies
including group discussion and group problem-solving
activities to facilitate the construction of knowledge.
Examples of learning and instructional strategies that
fall under this theoretical umbrella include student-
centered learning, active learning, flipped classrooms,
and problem-based learning. The overarching principle
behind constructivist learning, that learning is constructed
by doing instead of passively listening to information,
forms the foundation of this article.
Learner-Centered, Active Learning
Strategies
The concept that students learn and enjoy the learning pro-
cess more when they are actively engaged is decades old.
For example, Chickering and Gamson (1987) emphasized
that using active learning techniques leading to greater
engagement was one of the seven principles essential to
improving teaching and undergraduate student learning.
Research has suggested “the exclusive use of the lecture
in the classroom constrains students’ learning” (Bonwell
& Eison, 1991, p. 24), especially since cognitive research
SMEJ Vol. 9, No. 2, 2015
has affirmed that individuals with different learning styles
benefit from use of a variety of pedagogical techniques
and differentiated instruction (Kim et al., 2014). As Sams
and Bergmann (2013) emphasized,
Education is for everyone, but the way we deliver
education—and the way students receive it—is not
the same for everyone. A flipped classroom gives
teachers the flexibility to meet the learning needs of
all their students, and it gives students the flexibility
to have their needs met in multiple ways. (p. 20)
A learner-centered environment capitalizes on the
diversity of today’s college students by providing oppor-
tunities for individual and interactive reflection, analysis,
and synthesis and asks teachers to shift responsibility
for learning to students (Doyle, 2008; Machemer &
Crawford, 2007).
Active engagement strategies transform the learning
of students because they replace passive listening with
active participation. Several examples of these strategies
are briefly described below. Think-pair-share is possibly
the most frequently used and effective strategy (Barkley,
Cross, & Major, 2005; Cooper & Robinson, 2000; King,
1993). The teacher asks students to think for a short time
about a question with several possible responses; then
each student is invited to discuss his or her thoughts with
a classmate; pairs might then be asked to share what
they decide with the entire class; or, each pair can form
a square and share responses among the foursome. An
alternative to think-pair-share is write-pair-share, which
begins with asking students to write their responses to
questions or thought-provoking ideas before sharing what
they have written with partners. This approach focuses
students’ thinking more fully and encourages higher
levels of analysis and synthesis (Bean, 2011).
Students in buzz groups of three to six are asked to
discuss a teacher’s or student’s question, current events
or issues, topics related to course content, or assigned
readings (Brookfield, 2006). These groups may be asked
to generate several responses or reactions through their
discussions. Because every student has had time to think,
formulate answers, and learn from classmates in the
reporting out process, students typically will feel more
confident in contributing to whole-class discussions.
Bean (2011) emphasizes how numerous types of
writing contribute to and solidify learning, stating that
“. . . good writing assignments (as well as other active
learning tasks) evoke a high level of critical thinking, help
students wrestle productively with a course’s big ques-
tions, and teach disciplinary ways of seeing, knowing,
and doing” (pp. 1–2). Asking students to write in every
class helps develop their metacognitive and critical think-
ing skills, adds Bean. Exploratory writing, or thinking-
on-paper, can be transformative for students because it
forces them to read, study, and come to class prepared
so they have something to write about and subsequently
share what they have written with pairs, small groups,
or in whole-class discussions (Nilson, 2010). Students

respond to the minute paper, another example of writ-
ing and active learning, by anonymously answering two
questions, typically at the end of a class (Stead, 2005):
first, “what is the most important thing you learned in
class today?” and second, “what remaining question do
you have about anything discussed in class today?” To
respond to the first question, students must reflect on
what they learned and decide what is most critical to
remember. In responding to the second question, with-
out embarrassment or concern about what others or the
teacher might think, students are invited to anonymously
ask for further explanation about a challenging topic or
concept. Answers to the first question are reaffirming
to the teacher that learning is occurring and specifically
what is being learned. Answers to the second question
provide significant insights into what topics or content
students are struggling to learn.
Students also can be asked to write in responding
to questions on assigned chapters, articles, or other
readings (Cooper & Robinson, 2000). Instead of the
teacher lecturing, students are required to write answers
to teacher-designed questions. Students may be asked to
write responses individually or discuss possible responses
with partners before recording answers. These written
responses to questions might become whole-class dis-
cussion starters or the initiation point for a brief lecture.
Expecting students to write answers to review questions
for tests is another way to engage their minds through
written words as well as an effective motivational strategy
for studying for tests. Review games, such as Jeopardy-
style games, can be used to help students prepare for
tests. Poll Everywhere, a free, online polling website (pol-
leverywhere.com) used as a classroom response system,
allows students to respond to objective and open-ended
questions with their responses shown immediately; these
responses reveal learning or misperceptions while pro-
viding feedback on whether students understand what is
being taught and discussed.
Although video clips might not come immediately
to mind as active learning strategies, they can be highly
engaging mentally as long as the teacher sets the stage
to capture students’ interests about what to look for and
why (Hoover, 2006; Wright & Abell, 2011). Short video
clips typically are perceived by students as valuable in
helping them make real-world applications of what they
are thinking, writing, and talking about in class and out of
class. Enfield (2013) reports 100% of his students found
instructional videos to be very helpful or somewhat help-
ful. D’Angelo and Woosley (2007) emphasize how video
clips keep students’ attention and improve the overall
learning experience.
Flipped Classes
Too often in higher education, teachers as the “sage on
the stage” (King, 1993) dominate classes through lectures
that affirm their wealth of knowledge as they synthesize
complex information using seemingly endless slides
shown via presentation software like PowerPoint. This
SMEJ Vol. 9, No. 2, 2015
Flipping a Class   81
teacher-centered environment typically fails to capture
and maintain the attention of students who lack an under-
standing of a discipline and see little connection with
past experiences, daily lives, or interests. This disconnect
may result in a disenchantment that dissuades students
from even attempting to read challenging textbooks
and assigned readings because they simply perceive no
relevance. But, what if the role of the teacher changes to
become a “guide on the side” (King, 1993) who facili-
tates student learning through doing? This constructivist
approach to learning begets the flipped classroom, which
is an extension of student-centered and active learning
that shifts the focus of in-class time to problem-based,
interactive learning and out-of-class time to listening to
lectures and reading (Bishop & Verleger, 2013).
Wallace et al. (2014) compares the instructional
paradigm of the lecture with the learning paradigm of the
flipped classroom. In the former, the role of the teacher
is to teach by lecturing so a vast amount of content can
be covered more efficiently. In the latter paradigm, the
teacher serves as a cognitive coach who designs learn-
ing activities to challenge students to practice thinking
like experts as they hone their knowledge and skills.
The role of students in the instructional paradigm is
as passive participants who listen to experts explain,
demonstrate, and showcase their knowledge followed by
students replicating what they heard when completing
homework assignments or tests. Students in the learn-
ing paradigm engage in a cognitive apprenticeship by
actively engaging individually and collaboratively with
classmates under the guidance of a teacher’s coaching.
The premise of these two approaches to instruction dif-
ferentiates between learning through memorization and
constructing knowledge to solve challenging problems.
Wallace et al. (2014) concludes, “The flipped classroom
transforms students from passive participants to cognitive
apprentices who are expected to take ownership of their
learning, become active members of the community of
learners within the course, and practice thinking like an
expert” (pp. 259–260).
The blending of face-to-face instruction with
technology-mediated delivery of information is not
new (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004; Means et al.,
2013). Bergmann and Sams, who Arnold-Garza (2014)
credits with originating flipped classes, argue a flipped
classroom is not a goal or place but rather “. . . a path to
move toward some of the powerful learning and teach-
ing strategies that many educational practitioners are
interested in adopting . . .” (Bergmann & Sams, 2014, p.
19). In the flipped classroom model, traditional classes
are liberated from lectures and replaced by higher-value
experiential activities (Wallace & Weiner, 1998), such as
meaningful thinking and learning activities, discussions,
homework assignments, and problem solving (Anderson
et al., 2014). Bergmann and Sams (2014) emphasize that
once direct instruction has been moved out of the group
space (i.e., the classroom), critical learning activities of
applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating thrive in a
dynamic and interactive learning environment.
82  Lumpkin and Achen
Requiring viewing of digital delivery of multimedia
tutorials before class leads to greater learning as students
engage with concepts at higher levels in class with the
teacher available to answer questions (Amaral & Shank,
2010; Baepler et al., 2014; See & Conry, 2014; Wallace
et al., 2014). In addition, being able to access lectures
and review exercises 24/7 via the LMS enables students
to embrace a paradigm shift to a new learner-centered
model (Cummins-Sebree & White, 2014; Dziuban et al.,
2004). Other strengths of flipped classes include more
efficient use of class time, increased one-on-one interac-
tions between teachers and students, students accepting
greater responsibility for their learning, accommodation
of multiple learning styles, and practical application
of knowledge learned and constructed (Arnold-Garza,
2014). While active learning is not unique to flipped
classes, as these strengths affirm, learning by doing is
fostered using this model.
The paradigm shift of the flipped class challenges
teachers to create learning experiences that enable
students to discover facts, construct new knowledge
based on what they learn before class, and develop their
metacognitive skills to learn how to learn (Bristol, 2014).
The interactive nature of a flipped classroom supports
pedagogical research that postulates learning is an active
process situated in a social and cultural context (Crews
& Butterfield, 2014).
Student Perceptions
Students value participating in engaging learning activi-
ties and affirm active engagement positively impacts their
learning (Lumpkin, Achen, & Dodd, 2015). Diamond
(2008) examined the research on instructional methods
and learning and reported 10 noteworthy findings: (1)
active involvement is much more effective than pas-
sive listening; (2) students learn differently; (3) student
effort and involvement, such as hours spent studying,
determine how much students learn; (4) students learn
more through positive reinforcement and interactions
with other students and faculty; (5) unlearning is more
difficult than new learning; (6) new learning must be
meaningfully connected to prior knowledge; (7) higher
expectations and standards result in higher achievement;
(8) the teacher can affect motivation to learn as can the
learning environment and student; (9) student contact
with faculty out of class is positively correlated with
retention of material; and (10) students must be taught
how to learn effectively. Student learning can be expanded
when they take greater responsibility for their learning
through active engagement (Lowerison, Sclater, Schmid,
& Abrami, 2005–2006). They conclude, “Perhaps the
most profound overall impression to emerge from these
data is students’ overwhelming support for constructiv-
ist (active learning) approaches to instruction” (p. 422).
Constructivism places students at the center of the learn-
ing process (King, 1993).
The flipped class requires students to replace pas-
sivity and anonymity with taking personal responsibility
SMEJ Vol. 9, No. 2, 2015
for learning, a challenging transition or paradigm shift
for many. Flipping means a total redesign of the college
classroom that supplants lecturing and listening with
teachers and students investing more time and effort. For
teachers, planning and implementing a plethora of engag-
ing learning activities requires letting go of class lectures
and replacing them with thinking, writing, discussing,
analyzing, and synthesizing activities; in a way, “teach-
ers have to relearn how to teach” (Dziuban et al., 2004,
p. 10). For students, this means a dramatic socialization
change resulting in accepting personal accountability for
their learning, spending more time out-of-class learning
on their own, and engaging fully with classmates and the
teacher during class activities; as such, “students have to
relearn how to learn” (Dziuban et al., 2004, p. 10).
Based on increased evidence, well-designed flipped
classes enhance student learning and retention (Amaral &
Shank, 2010). Students in flipped classes agree interac-
tive activities are helpful to their understanding of course
content (Kim et al., 2014). Cummins-Sebree and White
(2014) report their students perceive the flipped classroom
design is positive, and they especially like doing home-
work during class, having the teacher available to answer
questions that arise while they are completing assign-
ments, and having access to lectures for review. Students
report they are more prepared when they come to class
and more engaged during class. Flipped classes facilitate
student learning at their own pace and times convenient to
their schedules (Anderson et al., 2014; Enfield, 2013) and
result in the achievement of learning outcomes as active
learning replaces lectures shifted online (Baepler et al.,
2014). Learning is further enhanced, students perceive,
when technology-captured lectures are presented in short
chunks of time joined with an online review activity, both
of which characterize the current project.
Three research questions inform this investigation.
First, would flipping an undergraduate sport finance and
economics class result in more active and engaged learn-
ing as perceived by the teacher and students? Second,
which active learning strategies would work most effec-
tively in this new flipped learning environment? Third,
how would students perceive learning through and enjoy-
ment of active learning strategies?
Method
This study was designed as a collaborative action research
project and, as such, focused on one specific class.
According to Ferrance (2000), action research involves
five steps: identification of problem area, collection and
organization of data, interpretation of data, action based
on data, and reflection. This flipped class was a required
sport finance and economics course taught to 46 junior
and senior sport management majors (11 females; 35
males) at a large, public, 4-year Midwestern university.
The teacher, who had taught this class previously for
six consecutive years, noticed students often struggled
with the content and staying focused in the course (i.e.,
 Flipping a Class   83

identification of problem area), which prompted her to
redesign this course. She prepared 24 video lectures to
present key content via the LMS (i.e., Blackboard) that
students were required to view and listen to before when
each topic would be discussed in class. The content in
these lectures was not retaught during class, and stu-
dents were expected to use the information from these
online lectures to complete discussions with classmates,
answer questions, and apply information during class
discussions.
To further reinforce their importance, each topical
lecture was supplemented by one or more SoftChalk
review exercises provided on the LMS so students could
check their understanding of what was presented. For
example, lectures on revenues and expenses and the arms
race in intercollegiate athletics were presented along with
SoftChalk self-checks, a sorting activity, and a crossword
puzzle to check for understanding. Table 1 provides a
complete topical outline for the online lectures along
with corresponding SoftChalk reviews.
Step 2 of action research involves the collection and
organization of data. In this project, student perceptions
were of primary interest to us. Because of this, student
perceptions were purposefully gathered in multiple
ways at the end of the semester to assess the flipped
class approach. On the day when students completed
the university’s required course and teacher evaluations,
students were asked to anonymously respond to a five-
question survey designed specifically to address their
perceptions of the learning strategies used in the course.
This survey template, while tailored to the sport finance
and economics class, was used previously in an examina-
tion of student perceptions by three researchers at two
different universities across multiple classes (Lumpkin,
Achen, & Dodd, 2015). In the absence of the teacher, a
student volunteer distributed and collected this survey,
placed the completed surveys in a large envelope, and
gave this to the teacher. The first question on this survey
asked students to identify, using a 3-point scale (i.e.,
not at all, sometimes, often), the extent to which each
of 12 active learning activities (i.e., Blackboard materi-
als; group blogs; group project; Jeopardy-style review
games; minute papers; pairs; Poll Everywhere; Power-
Point slides; review questions/checks for understanding;

Table 1  SoftChalk Review Lessons by Topic in Sport Finance and Economics

Topic
Intercollegiate Athletics
Intercollegiate Athletics
Intercollegiate Athletics
Monopolies
Antitrust
Ownership
Competitive Balance
Market Power
Media Power
Labor–Management Issues
Labor–Management Issues
Major League Baseball
Major League Baseball
Major League Baseball
National Football League
National Football League
National Football League
National Basketball Association
National Basketball Association
Tickets
Sponsorships
Economic Impact Studies
Financing Stadiums and Arenas
Financing Stadiums and Arenas
Focus of Online Lecture SoftChalk Exercises
Amateurism 3 Self-Checks; Did You Know Activity
Revenues and expenses Crossword Puzzle
Arms race 2 Self-Checks; Sorting Activity
Monopoly, monopsony, and cartels 2 Self-Checks
Antitrust lawsuits 8 Self-Checks
Ownership structures Sorting Activity; Self-Check
Competitive balance 4 Self-Checks
Market power Crossword Puzzle
Media power Test Yourself; Self-Check
League–player issues 4 Self-Checks
Sports agents Quiz Group
Reserve clause and free agency; 3 Self-Checks; Crossword Puzzle
Antitrust exemption
Final salary arbitration Flash Card Activity
Revenue sharing 2 Self-Checks
Lawsuits and free agency Flash Card Activity; Quiz Group
Revenue sharing Crossword Puzzle
Collective bargaining agreement Sorting Activity
Draft and uncertainty of outcome 3 Self-Checks
Collective bargaining agreement Self-Check
Ticket pricing 2 Self-Checks; Sorting Activity
Sponsorship Comprehension; Question; SeekaWord Activity
Economic impact studies 3 Self-Checks
Benefits of public subsidies 3 Self-Checks
Realities of public subsidies Self-Check

SMEJ Vol. 9, No. 2, 2015

84  Lumpkin and Achen
small groups; SoftChalk reviews; and video clips)
used in this flipped class positively impacted his or her
learning. Using the same scale, students were asked the
extent to which they enjoyed each activity. This survey
also gathered qualitative data, asking students to choose
which learning activity used in class was most and least
helpful to their learning and explain why. After grades
were submitted, the quantitative data were compiled, and
percentages were calculated. Next, the qualitative data
were sorted, and student comments were organized for
each strategy. These comments were examined by each
of us separately to determine student sentiment related to
each strategy mentioned. The two researchers discussed
their individual reviews and determined which student
comments that best represented overall student senti-
ment. Students also were asked at the end of the course
to respond to a separate, anonymous, online survey about
the video lectures and SoftChalk reviews. They were
asked on a 3-point scale (i.e., not at all, sometimes, often)
whether the video lectures and SoftChalk reviews posi-
tively impacted their learning. Data were compiled using
Qualtrics and reported as percentages for each scale point.
While the first survey specifically asked students
for their feedback about instructional strategies, the
researchers used students’ anonymous responses on the
open-ended course and teacher evaluations required by
the university and department to triangulate the informa-
tion from the instructor-designed questionnaire. These
open-ended surveys broadly asked students what the
instructor did well and what areas the instructor could
improve on. These surveys were included in data analysis
to determine whether students identified the classroom
environment as engaging and whether their general
statements corroborated the results from the instructor-
designed questionnaire. The researchers individually
reviewed the comments from students on the open-ended
questionnaire for comments related to the online lectures,
active learning activities, and the classroom environment
and then extracted and reported these comments.
Finally, in this course the Classroom Observation
Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) was pilot
tested for use in a future study. These data were used to
substantiate the active, problem-based structure of in-
class time. The coding protocol used adapted the COPUS
protocol presented by Peacock (2013) at the campus
teaching summit. The protocol includes six codes for
student activity during class time: individual thinking,
listening, clicker question discussion, worksheet group
work, answer instructor questions, and student asks a
question. There are nine codes for instructor activity
including lecturing, real-time writing, follow-up, posing
questions, clicker questions, answering questions, moving
through the classroom, one-on-one discussions, and
administration. Based on our observations (the second
author attended each class period), codes were added
for videos and Jeopardy-style games for both student
and instructor activity. In addition, the teacher used Poll
Everywhere instead of classroom clickers, so classroom
clicker questions was coded when Poll Everywhere was
SMEJ Vol. 9, No. 2, 2015
used. The researchers reviewed and then approved codes,
finalizing the code book. COPUS requires the collection
of two pieces of data every 2 min: what the teacher was
doing and what the students were doing. To collect data
and code classroom time, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet
was created with the definitions of codes and columns
for student activity, instructor activity, and time point
(i.e., 2 min, 4 min, and so on). A total of 8 days of class
were coded (with 39 data points on each day). Using a
stopwatch, the second author recorded the codes for the
teacher and students every 2 min. Microsoft Excel was
used to calculate percentages and create charts to repre-
sent the activity in the classroom.
Results
The third step in action research involves interpreting the
data. The use of the COPUS protocol provides evidence
that this course was flipped, shifting from a teacher-cen-
tered to a student-centered active learning environment.
Figure 1 details the teacher’s activities during class time.
The teacher lectured 25% of the time and spent 26% of
the time posing questions to students and 20% of the time
answering questions from students. Students’ activities
during class are depicted in Figure 2. Students spent 33%
of the time listening to the teacher and 25% of the time
answering questions posed by the teacher.
In responding to a Qualtrics survey conducted after
the semester ended, 72% of the students reported out-of-
class lectures often positively impacted their learning,
and the remaining 28% responded these online lectures
did sometimes. Students also were asked to assess which
active learning activities were most and least helpful to
their learning.
To better understand student perceptions of active
learning activities made possible by flipping this class,
students were asked how these may have impacted their
learning and enjoyment. A great majority of students rated
(80% or higher) review questions/checks for understand-
ing and Jeopardy-style review games as often positively
impacting their learning (see Table 2). The majority of
students rated all activities as sometimes or often posi-
tively impacting their learning.
Students also were asked which of the same 12
learner-centered activities was most helpful to their learn-
ing and why. Students chose review questions/checks for
understanding, Jeopardy review games, flipped lectures,
minute papers, and video clips as the most helpful.
Among the comments about why the review questions/
checks for understanding were most helpful, students
wrote, “helped understand better,” “answered a lot of the
questions I had,” “helped prepare for the test,” “gave an
idea of how questions will be asked on tests,” “good study
guide and encouraged me to write down answers,” “good
overview of material in a section,” and “opportunity to
ask questions.” Participating in the Jeopardy-style review
games “gave me opportunity to look back and fully absorb
the information,” and “a competitive way to learn is best
for me.” Yet another wrote, “keeps you involved.”
Figure 1 — Breakdown of instructor activity during class time.

Figure 2 — Breakdown of student activity during class time.

Table 2  Student Perceptions of the Extent to Which Each In-Class Active Learning Activity
Positively Impacted Learning

0 1 2
(Not at All) (Sometimes) (Often)
Jeopardy review games 0% 19% 81%
Minute papers 10% 42% 48%
Pairs 6% 45% 48%
Poll Everywhere 7% 37% 57%
Review questions / checks for understanding 0% 13% 87%
Small groups 6% 55% 39%
Video clips 3% 45% 52%
Note. N = 31.

SMEJ Vol. 9, No. 2, 2015 85

86  Lumpkin and Achen
Table 3  Student Perceptions of the Extent to Which Each In-Class Active Learning Activity Was
Enjoyable
Jeopardy review games
Minute papers
Pairs
Poll Everywhere
Review questions / checks for understanding
Small groups
Video clips
Note. N = 31.
The next question asked students to what extent they
enjoyed each of the 12 class activities, using the same
scale. Table 3 shows that sometimes and often, students
enjoyed participating in active learning activities during
class. Students (58%) most often enjoyed Jeopardy
review games and video clips.
In responding to the fourth question, students rated
their enjoyment preferences in this way: Jeopardy-style,
Poll Everywhere, video clips, and small groups. Students
also were asked to explain why they enjoyed the learning
activities they chose. Commenting on the Jeopardy-style
review games, students stated, “got to test knowledge
before the test,” “made me think and tested how much
I really knew,” “I love games,” “fun and engaging,”
and “helped test what I knew regarding the class.” Poll
Everywhere was perceived as “fun and interactive” and
“entertaining”; plus two students enjoyed this online
polling system for “using updated technology” and as
“something different from the normal.” Two students
commented that the video clips “related material with
visual learning” and “helped broaden understanding.”
“Getting to discuss with classmates is beneficial when
you don’t like to speak up in front of entire class” was an
enjoyable benefit of working in small groups; in pairs, it
was “nice to talk to people, better understanding.”
In responding to open-ended questions about what
the instructor did well and what could be improved,
one student stated, “online mini-lectures were a great
substitute to additional learning.” Another student’s com-
ment, “being active in class through learning process,”
summarizes what both the teacher and students did. In
addition, one student wrote that what the teacher did well
was to “make class interactive and fun,” while another
commented, she “makes class interesting.” Additionally,
multiple students referenced the engagement in class and
the discussion-based environment by stating, “engaged
the class with meaningful discussions that will be very
relevant as we begin our careers very shortly,” “(things
the instructor did well) class discussions,” “engaged
students,” “like usual class it is very involved and hands
on,” “made the class engaging; forced participation
which helped me learn,” “keeps audience engaged very
SMEJ Vol. 9, No. 2, 2015
0 1 2
(Not at All) (Sometimes) (Often)
3% 39% 58%
13% 52% 35%
13% 48% 39%
6% 48% 45%
10% 42% 48%
19% 48% 32%
6% 35% 58%
well,” and “engaged all students.” Also, one student
referenced the teacher’s use of questions stating, “asked
enough questions.” Most poignantly, a student stated,
“very interactive & was not just a boring lecture with a
teacher just going over slides.” A few students had nega-
tive comments about the interaction in class commenting,
“less group activity,” and “less routine in class; try to mix
things up with some different activities.” Finally, one
student commented “(suggested improvements) more
Poll Everywhere.”
Discussion
The constructivist approach to learning suggests teach-
ers design courses and use instructional strategies that
actively involve students in creating knowledge (Stage
et al., 1998). In our study, results from coding students’
and the instructor’s activities during class time provides
evidence that the class met the goals of a flipped class-
rooms because students spent more time doing rather than
listening. Requiring students to listen to online lectures
before class allowed the teacher to use class time for
discussions, group work, and other interactive activities.
One essential goal of flipping a class is to move away
from an almost exclusive reliance on lectures to deliver
information and structure a class. In addition to lectur-
ing on content via a LMS, teachers should use a variety
of active learning strategies, such as think-pair-share, to
place students at the center of the learning experience.
Students in this sport finance and economics class stated
they enjoyed participating in active and engaging learning
activities, as Bonwell and Eison (1991), Felder and Brent
(1996), and many others emphasized. Several students
in this course commented they enjoyed think-pair-share,
small-group discussions, and buzz groups thus supporting
the advocacy of Brookfield (2006) that discussion was
essential for constructivist learning.
In the end-of-the-course survey students rated review
questions/checks for understanding and Jeopardy-style
review games as often positively impacting their learn-
ing. This suggests students perceived these instructional
approaches as helpful to the learning process. Rather

than having to sit and listen passively, these learning aids
along with others, such as pair and small-group discus-
sions, minute papers, and video clips, facilitated students
more actively engaging with course content leading to
greater understanding.
To extend what they perceived as positively impact-
ful on their learning, students also identified which learn-
ing activity he or she personally felt was most helpful.
Given that students learn differently, it is important for
the teacher to identify which learning activities were
most helpful to students so that incorporation of even
more of these could occur. Written comments were
especially insightful because they provided a glimpse
into student preferences. Students wanted activities
that helped them be more successful on tests, such as
review questions/checks for understanding, Jeopardy-
style review games, and minute papers. Students wanted
instructional approaches that addressed how they learned
best and when they wanted to invest the time, such as by
having materials such as the flipped lectures and read-
ings available online 24/7 on the LMS. Active learning
strategies, such as in-class polling, viewing video clips,
and discussing topics and answers with classmates that
elicited greater engagement, seemed most enjoyable.
Several students commented these activities were fun and
engaging but also positively impactful on their learning.
Benefits of providing electronically developed and
delivered online lectures of unfamiliar, detailed, and chal-
lenging content abound. First, students through the LMS
and convenient technology devices such as tablets and
smart phones could view and listen to the lectures that
were then used as starting points for whole- and small-
group class discussions. Second, these lectures helped
students become familiar with key concepts before class
discussions and completion of in-class writing activities
building upon essential information and concepts as
they constructed new knowledge. Third, students who
may have missed classes were able to partially catch up
by viewing these lectures. Fourth, students used these
lectures to review or clarify content and study for tests.
In the action research framework after data are
analyzed, action must be taken. Student perceptions
quantitatively and qualitatively solidified our belief that
a flipped class combined with active learning activities
is a beneficial environment for students. Based on these
results, the researchers plan to continue using class time
to allow students to actively participate in the creation of
knowledge. Although other faculty members are encour-
aged to take action, some may be reluctant to embark on
flipping one of their courses because they feel inadequate
about how to do this or perceive that doing so will be
much too time consuming. Dispelling these mispercep-
tions, however, is relatively easy. Most faculty already
possess or can readily learn how to record portions or all
of their lectures using screen recording and video editing
software such as Camtasia. Many institutions are already
using ECHO 360 (echo360.com) to capture classroom
lectures, provide instructional content management,
and actively engage students. The free app VoiceThread
SMEJ Vol. 9, No. 2, 2015
Flipping a Class   87
(voicethread.com) can deliver video lectures and online
presentations and connect these with synchronous and
asynchronous discussions among students and the teacher.
Using Blackboard Collaborate (http://www.blackboard.
com/online-collaborativelearning/index.aspx), an upgrade to
this LMS, faculty can provide web conferencing, mobile
collaboration, instant messaging, and voice authoring.
These are examples of delivery systems that are not dif-
ficult or time consuming to use. A faculty member can
sit at a desktop computer or at home with a laptop and
record short lectures that can easily be placed on a LMS
or through a free Screencast.com account.
Most institutions have a teaching and learning center
on campus with trained personnel who can sit side-by-
side a faculty member and teach how to capture short
lectures and enhance PowerPoint slides to illustrate taped
lectures. Templates for individual courses and entire pro-
grams can be provided. Typically, a wealth of professional
development workshops and sharing sessions are offered
to faculty to encourage and facilitate flipping classes and
incorporating active learning activities into their classes.
Faculty with experience in these areas often are willing to
model what has worked for them and serve as mentors for
colleagues moving into uncharted waters with trepidation.
Institutions are increasingly offering course release time
and financial stipends for the redesign of courses that
incorporate flipped content and active learning strategies.
So, incentives, assistance, and technologies abound to
help each faculty member who is willing to flip a course
and engage students in more effective learning strategies.
The appendix to this article provides a list of additional
written and online resources for faculty members.
Effective teaching encompasses the curriculum, or
the knowledge and skills taught; the instruction, or the
methods of how content is taught; and the assessment,
or how learning outcomes are measured (Pellegrino,
2006). Traditionally, most faculty find deciding what
knowledge to impart through lectures relatively easy,
along with the expectation that students will repeat on
tests what was presented. The problem, however, is that
this curriculum-instruction-assessment triad has been
found to be increasingly less effective as a measure of
actual learning. From students’ perspectives, learning
includes information relevant to their current lives and
future careers, how they can construct and apply new
knowledge, and what they do as they learn (Arnold-Garza,
2014; Bristol, 2014). Our investigation revealed that a
flipped design incorporating active and engaging learning
strategies resulted in students perceiving they found the
flipped class approach combined with numerous active
learning activities beneficial to their learning in one sport
finance and economics course.
Dziuban et al. (2004) suggested that when teachers
change from an emphasis on lecturing, they must relearn
how to teach. First, the teacher prioritized what content
students could learn before class, developed lectures
teaching some of this content, and expected students
to view and listen to these lectures. Second, the teacher
chose an array of activities to engage students actively
88  Lumpkin and Achen
in learning what they had viewed and read. This scaf-
folding approach used think-pair-share, write-pair-share,
buzz groups, small- and whole-class discussions, in-class
writing assignments, review questions/checks for under-
standing, Jeopardy-style review games, Poll Everywhere
for classroom responses, minute papers, and video clips
to reinforce and extend learning with each other and
from the teacher during class time. Overall, these learn-
ing activities challenged students to use critical thinking
through writing, discussing, analyzing, and synthesizing.
Dziuban et al. (2004) also suggested students had to
relearn how to learn. Students were not allowed to come
to class unprepared and sit passively while mentally
disengaged. Active learning required preparation through
viewing and listening to lectures and completing assigned
readings for each class. Once in class, students answered
questions in writing; they were questioned, thought about
answers, and discussed their answers with partners, in
small groups, or with the entire class. Students solved
problems, debated issues and ideas, and proposed solu-
tions to real-world scenarios.
Finally, action research calls for reflection on the
problem, project, and results. The teacher’s personal
reflection on flipping this course was highly positive.
Having taught this course multiple times previously,
the teacher found that providing content previously pre-
sented in lectures through a flipped approach resulted
in expanded and more engaging class discussions, and,
most importantly, allowed for the infusion of some of
the chosen active learning activities into each class.
Flipping the class and using several active instructional
strategies helped facilitate greater student engagement.
End-of-course anonymous feedback suggested students
enjoyed the learning process more, possibly because this
class was flipped, and they were actively engaged in every
class. While actual learning was not measured through
an experimental design with a control group, students’
quantitative and qualitative feedback and the teacher’s
perceptions provided strong support for the effectiveness
of using a flipped class approach.
Conclusion
A sport finance and economics course provided a case
study of why and how one teacher flipped a class to
determine if flipping it would lead to more engagement
in the learning process and other positive outcomes
as perceived by the teacher and students. Delivering
some prioritized content via lectures that students were
expected to view and listen to via their smart phones,
tablets, and laptops at times and places convenient to their
busy lives was perceived positively. Through continued
verbal encouragement because participation in learning
activities depended on coming to class prepared (i.e.,
having viewed and listened to the lectures and read the
assignments), students spent more time out-of-class that
enriched their learning, another positive outcome reported
by Bergmann and Sams (2014), Dziuban et al. (2004),
and Kuh et al. (2005).
SMEJ Vol. 9, No. 2, 2015
Based on student responses to a postcourse survey
and open-ended, anonymous comments on the end-of-
course survey, the active learning strategies used by the
teacher were believed to work effectively in this flipped
class. Students found class activities interactive, engag-
ing, interesting, and fun, seeming to value their role
in discovering and constructing knowledge. They also
affirmed the lectures moved out-of-class contributed to
their learning. Through reflection, the teacher concluded
students were more actively engaged in the learning
process because they spent more time engaged with the
content and benefited from learning in different ways as
well as from classmates.
Limitations and Future Research
This action research project focuses on only one sport
management class at one university with the one of the
two researchers teaching the flipped class, thus limiting
its generalizability. Even though all student comments
were anonymous and analyzed by the researchers after
the grades had been submitted, students may have been
influenced to respond in certain ways because of this. The
results also might have differed in a different type or
level of course.
The positive reactions from students and reduced
lecture time in class supported the need to share the
results of this pedagogical approach with other teachers
who could then examine their own courses and consider
how they could adopt or adapt this approach. In the future,
multiple teachers could collaborate to use the flipped
class model combined with active learning strategies in
their courses to determine whether student perceptions
are similar across institutions. Since measurements of
academic achievement of student learning outcomes and
actual student learning were not examined, future work in
this area could be strengthened by connecting measures
of actual student learning (i.e., exam scores or scores on
projects) to the flipped classroom approach. This could
be examined within one class, potentially by flipping
one unit and primarily lecturing during another. While
experiments in the classroom are complicated by differ-
ing student abilities, institutional profiles, and ranges in
content difficulty, at the very least a quasi-experimental
design should be considered. In addition, future research
should continue to evaluate pedagogical approaches to
determine their effectiveness and student perceptions of
their use.
References
Amaral, K.E., & Shank, J.D. (2010). Enhancing student learning
and retention with blended learning class guides. EDU-
CAUSE Review Online. Retrieved from http://er.educause.
edu/articles/2010/12/enhancing-student-learning-and-
retention-with-blended-learning-class-guides
Anderson, J., Young, I.I.W., & Franklin, T. (2014). Brief reflec-
tions on flipping the college classroom. Journal of the
World Universities Forum, 6(3), 21–29.

Arnold-Garza, S. (2014). The flipped classroom teaching model
and its use for information literacy instruction. Communi-
cations in Information Literacy, 8(1), 7–22.
Baepler, P., Walker, J.D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about
seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learn-
ing classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227–236.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006
Barkley, E.F., Cross, K.P., & Major, C.H. (2005). Collaborative
learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bean, J.C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to
integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in
the classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2014). Flipping learning: Gateway
to student engagement. Learning and Leading with Tech-
nology, 41(7), 18–23.
Bishop, J.L., & Verleger, M.A. (2013). The flipped classroom:
A survey of the research. 120th American Society of
Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition,
Atlanta, GA, June 23–26.
Bonwell, C.C., & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning: Creating
excitement in the classroom. Retrieved from http://files.
eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED336049.pdf
Bristol, T.J. (2014). Educate, excite, engage. Teaching
and Learning in Nursing, 9, 43–46. doi:10.1016/j.
teln.2013.11.002
Brookfield, S.D. (2006). The skillful teacher: On technique,
trust, and responsiveness in the classroom (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burgan, M. (2006). In defense of lecturing. Change, 38(6),
30–34. doi:10.3200/CHNG.38.6.30-34
Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles
for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bul-
letin, 3–7 Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED282491.pdf.
Cooper, J.L., & Robinson, P. (2000). Getting started: Informal
small-group strategies in large classes. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 81, 17–24. doi:10.1002/tl.8102
Crews, T., & Butterfield, J. (2014). Data for flipped classroom
design: Using student feedback to identify the best com-
ponents from online and face-to-face classes. Higher
Education Studies, 4(3), 38–47. doi:10.5539/hes.v4n3p38
Cummins-Sebree, S.E., & White, E. (2014). Using the flipped
classroom design: Student impressions and lessons
learned. AURCO Journal, 20, 95–110.
D’Angelo, J.M., & Woosley, S.A. (2007). Technology in the
classroom: Friend or foe. Education, 127, 462–471.
Diamond, R.M. (2008). Designing and assessing courses and
curricula: A practical guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Doyle, T. (2008). Helping students learn in a learner-centered
environment: A guide to facilitating learning in higher
education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Dziuban, C.D., Hartman, J.L., & Moskal, P.D. (2004). Blended
learning. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research,
Research Bulletin. Retrieved from http://net.educause.
edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0407.pdf
Enfield, J. (2013). Looking at the impact of the flipped class-
room model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia
students at CSUN. TechTrends: Linking Research and
Practice to Improve Learning, 57(6), 14–27. doi:10.1007/
s11528-013-0698-1
Felder, R.M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to
student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44, 43–47.
doi:10.1080/87567555.1996.9933425
SMEJ Vol. 9, No. 2, 2015
Flipping a Class   89
Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research. Providence, RI: LAB at
Brown University. Retrieved from http://www.brown.edu/
academics/education-alliance/sites/brown.edu.academics.
education-alliance/files/publications/act_research.pdf.
Fosnot, C.T., & Perry, R.S. (1996). Constructivism: A psycho-
logical theory of learning. In C.T. Fosnot (Ed.), Construc-
tivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 8–33). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hoover, D.S. (2006). Popular culture in the classroom: Using
audio and video clips to enhance survey courses. The His-
tory Teacher, 39, 467–478. doi:10.2307/30037067
Kim, M.K., Kim, S.M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014).
The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban
university: An exploration of design principles. The
Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37–50. doi:10.1016/j.
iheduc.2014.04.003
King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side.
College Teaching, 41, 30–35. doi:10.1080/87567555.19
93.9926781
Komarraju, M., & Karau, S.J. (2008). Relationships between
the perceived value of instructional techniques and aca-
demic motivation. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
35, 70–82.
Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E., and Associates.
(2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions
that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lom, B. (2012). Classroom activities: Simple strategies to incor-
porate student-centered activities within undergraduate
science lectures. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience
Education, 11, A64–A71.
Lowerison, G., Sclater, J., Schmid, R.F., & Abrami, P.C.
(2005-2006). Are we using technology for learning?
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34, 401–425.
doi:10.2190/ER58-3H7P-Y8FK-U8F7
Lumpkin, A., Achen, R.M., & Dodd, R.K. (2015). Student
perceptions of active learning. College Student Journal,
49(1), 121–133.
Machemer, P.L., & Crawford, P. (2007). Student perceptions
of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary class-
room. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8, 9–30.
doi:10.1177/1469787407074008
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The
effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-
analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College
Record, 115(3), 1–47.
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning
works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159–167.
doi:10.1152/advan.00053.2006
Nilson, L.B. (2010). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource
for college instructors. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Peacock, S.M. (2013, August). Transforming undergraduate
science education using a research-based approach: Suc-
cesses and lessons learned from UBC’s Carl Wieman
Science Education Initiative. Presented at the Center for
Teaching Excellence Teaching Summit, Lawrence, KS.
Pellegrino, J.W. (2006). Rethinking and redesigning curriculum,
instruction and assessment: What contemporary research
and theory success. Washington, DC: National Center on
Education and the Economy.
Sams, A., & Bergmann, J. (2013). Flip your students’ learning.
Educational Leadership, 70(6), 16–20.
See, S., & Conry, J.M. (2014). Flip my class! A faculty
development demonstration of a flipped-classroom. Cur-
rents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 6, 585–588.
doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2014.03.003
90  Lumpkin and Achen
Stage, F.K., Muller, P.A., Kinzie, J., & Simmons, A. (1998).
Creating learning centered classrooms: What does learn-
ing theory have to say? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Report, 26 (4). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Higher Education.
Stead, D.R. (2005). A review of the one-minute paper.
Active Learning in Higher Education, 6, 118–131.
doi:10.1177/1469787405054237
Wallace, D.R., & Weiner, S.T. (1998). How might class-
room time be used given WWW-based lectures? The
Journal of Engineering Education, 87, 237–248.
doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.1998.tb00350.x
Appendix: Written and Online Resources for Flipping a Class
Books and Other Printed Resources
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2101). Flip your classroom: Reach
every student in every class every day. Arlington, VA:
International Society for Technology in Education.
Fulton, K.P. (2014). Time for learning: Top 10 reasons why
flipping the classroom can change education. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K.M.
(2013). The flipped learning model: A white paper based
on the literature review titled a review of flipped learn-
ing. Retrieved from http://www.flippedlearning.org/
cms/lib07/VA01923112/Centricity/Domain/41/WhitePa-
per_FlippedLearning.pdf
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Oigara, J. (2014). Promot-
ing active learning through the flipped classroom
model. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4987-3
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E.R., & Kuhn, M. (2012). Using technology
with classroom instruction that works (2nd ed.). Alexan-
dria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
SMEJ Vol. 9, No. 2, 2015
Wallace, M.L., Walker, J.D., Braseby, A.M., & Sweet, M.S.
(2014). “Now, what happens during class?” Using team-
based learning to optimize the role of expertise within
the flipped classroom. Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching, 25, 253–273.
Wright, D.G., & Abell, C.H. (2011). Using YouTube to
bridge the gap between baby boomers and millenni-
als. The Journal of Nursing Education, 50, 299–300.
doi:10.3928/01484834-20110419-03
Online Resources
Camtasia, used for screen recording and video editing, at http://
discover.techsmith.com/try-camtasia/?gclid=Cj0KEQiA
4OqnBRDAj9aazvPji9ABEiQANq28oAsA3Z1wBKV3
efxt1ThTYOqPJ2AbEDpCfuEvy0acGl4aAnJl8P8HAQ
EDUCAUSE at http://www.educause.edu/ and enter flipped
learning into search box
Flip It Consulting at www.flipitconsulting.com/ lots of flipping
resources including Honeycutt, B. 101 ways to flip. (2012).
Flipped Learning Network at http://flippedlearning.org/site/
default.aspx?PageID=1 provides knowledge, skills, and
resources about how to implement flipped learning
Frontrow to capture lessons and screencasts at http://gofrontrow.
com/en/lesson-capture?gclid=CITjsN63xsICFaZDMgod
g1oAXQ to capture lessons through screencasts without
touching your computer
Swirl at http://www.swivl.com/flipped-classroom/?gclid=C
OTzj4C4xsICFSyZMgodEX8AUQ is a mobile (remote
controlled) accessory app and cloud hosting service used
to deliver and capture lectures on video
TechSmith at http://www.techsmith.com/education-flipped-
learning.html?gclid=CMSHxqC3xsICFQkuaQodmaYAlQ
to create video lessons
Copyright of Sport Management Education Journal (Human Kinetics) is the property of
Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.