=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3099/paper10
|storemode=property
|title=Learning Styles and Flipped Classroom: An Experience in Secondary School
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3099/paper10.pdf
|volume=Vol-3099
|authors=Vicent Fornons,Ramon Palau
}}
==Learning Styles and Flipped Classroom: An Experience in Secondary School==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3099/paper10.pdf
Learning Styles and Flipped Classroom: An Experience
in Secondary School
Vicent Fornons1[0000-0001-6552-9501], Ramon Palau2[0000-0002-9843-3116]
1 Departament d’Educació. Generalitat de Catalunya.
vfonons@xtec.cat
2 Departament de Pedagogia. Universitat Rovira i Virgili
ramon.palau@urv.cat
Abstract. Flipped Classroom (FC) has been gaining prominence in recent years
and multiple articles have appeared that highlight its ability to increase the
academic performance of the students who use it. This research asks how
students' academic outcomes vary when using FC compared to traditional class
based on their learning style. The sample used to carry out the research were
two groups of 3rd level of Secondary Education who took math classes using
FC during a quarter. The methodology used has been quantitative, at the
beginning of the quarter all students took a questionnaire to determine their
learning style (CHAEA questionnaire) and also, before and after each topic,
conducted evaluation tests. The results show that students improve their
academic performance by using FC compared to the traditional class; however,
this improvement is not statistically significant. When we focus on the different
learning styles, different results appear depending on the block of mathematical
content treated and the active style is the one that gets the best results. The main
contribution of this research lies in the study of the correlation between
academic results and the learning style of each student.
Keywords: Flipped Classroom, Mathematics, Academic Results, Secondary
Education, Learning Style.
1 Introduction
The FC is a pedagogical model that is based on the investment of time and the role
of students and the teacher [1]. When using the FC the transmission of theoretical
concepts in class is usually replaced by the viewing of online videos at home by the
students [2]. In this way students have already received the contents and face-to-face
time in class can be used for top-level activities of bloom taxonomy [3] such as
applying, analyzing, evaluating or creating [4]. Students go from passive recipients in
the traditional model to having an active participation in the FC [5]. Moreover, the
teacher goes from being a mere transmitter of knowledge in the traditional class to a
guide and creator of learning scenarios in the FC [6]. Currently in the international
databases, there are more than 5000 scientific documents on different areas and
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons
License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
1
aspects of the FC [7]. This issue highlights the impact that the FC is currently having
on the world of education and how important it is for its future.
On the other hand, learning styles in education is one of the most studied fields, but
there is no universal definition of this concept [8]. Despite this, there is a consensus
that it refers to each student's way of learning [9]. Authors such as [10-16], among
others, have developed different types of learning styles and created instruments to
classify students, but the most used in Spanish is the Honey-Alonso Questionnaire on
Learning Styles (CHAEA) [17].
Students are a source of basic information to assess the quality, relevance and
fairness of their training, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the learning
process [18]. This information is nourished by two sources: the learning outcomes and
the assessments of their experiences during their training [19].
The objective of this research is to analyze the results of students' assessments
based on the learning style.
This research raises the following hypotheses:
H1- The academic results of students with active learning style when using the FC
get better results than students who follow the traditional class.
H2- Students' learning style conditions their academic performance when using FC
compared to traditional class.
2 Theoretical framework
The FC began to become known from 2007, when two teachers Jonathan Bergman
and Aarom Sams professors of chemistry at Woodland Park High School in Colorado,
video-posted Power Point presentations from their classes and published them online,
for students who could not attend class. His surprise was that his videos went viral
and many students began to watch them [20]. Another milestone that helped
popularize fc was the emergence of the Khan Academy website, founded by Salman
Khan in 2006, where videos of different subjects could be found [21].
Regarding the academic performance, you get from using FC instead of the
traditional class in the ESO math area, most research supports that they increase. An
example of this is the research of [22-29] and [30] among others. On the other hand,
[31] claim that on an algebra issue the academic results were similar in both groups.
In relation to learning styles, there have been many attempts by researchers to
define them [8]. In the 1940s, researchers focused on cognitive elements or
psychological aspects [32]. Later there is a third trend that proposes the synthesis of
both approaches that argues that the style of learning is constituted by cognitive style
and learning strategies [33]. [34] Indicated that motivation, emotions and sociological
aspects are variables that affect learning styles. In the 1980s with the increase in
research in learning styles, the affective dimension began [35]. In the 1990s, [32],
researched the relationship not only of cognitive style with learning strategies but also
with the affective dimension and motivational aspect. From Goleman's so-called
emotional intelligence [36] he resurfaces interest in the inclusion of the affective, as a
way of indegging to deepen the theory of learning styles. [37] Analyzes different tools
2
and tools to diagnose learning styles and finds only six that analyze cognitive and
affective styles together, among which the CHAEA questionnaire.
[38] Describes the characteristics of people with predominance in any of the
learning styles, in Table 1 are the main ones.
Table 1. Characteristics according to learning style
Learning style Main characteristics
Active Style Emphasis on concrete experience. They are students
who are fully and unbiasedly involved in new
experiences.
Reflective Style Emphasis on reflective observation. They are students
who like to consider experiences and observe them
from different perspectives.
Theoretical Style Emphasis on abstract conceptualization. They adapt by
integrating observations into logical and complex
theories. They approach problems in a vertical.
Pragmatic Style Emphasis on active experimentation. Its strong point is
the practical application of ideas. They like to act
quickly and confidently with those ideas and projects.
A study conducted by [39] using the CHAEA questionnaire, indicated that learning
styles are not associated with age or gender. On the other hand, [40] found that
learning styles are heterogeneous depending on the university career.
3 Methods
A quantitative approach has been used in this research. The scope of the research is
correlational, in claiming to know the relationship between the learning style of the
students and their academic performance when using the FC.
The participants in this research have been two groups of 3rd Compulsory
Secondary Education (ESO) of the Ermengol IV Institute of the town of Bellcaire
d'Urgell in Spain. The class A of 3rd level of secondary school A had 19 students and
the class B with 18 students, of which 62% were girls and 38% were boys. The
components of the classes did not vary throughout the research, and were already
created at the start and were homogeneous. Students used FC throughout the first
trimester of the course in math classes.
The instruments used have been a questionnaire and evaluation tests. On the one
hand, the Honey-Alonso Learning Styles Questionnaire (CHAEA) consisting of 80
questions (20 items for each of the four learning styles) to which it responds
dichotomy way by expressing whether you agree or disagree. The maximum score in
each style (Active, Reflective, Theoretical and Pragmatic) is 20. At the start of the
quarter, all students took the CHAEA questionnaire to determine their learning style.
3
In 1988 Honey and Mumford created the LSQ (Learning Styles Questionnaire),
detecting four learning styles: Active, Reflective, Theoretical and Pragmatic. This
four styles were took it by CHAEA (Honey-Alonso Questionnaire on Learning
Styles) [33].
On the other hand, the evaluation tests consisted of ten questions related to the
knowledge acquired by students on the subject to be addressed at one point each. A
pre-evaluation (Pretest) and a final evaluation (Postest) were performed on each topic.
The evidence contained the same questions only varied the figures contained in the
advertised ones. Also after 4 months of carrying out the final evaluation of item 1
they were again asked to perform the same test, to see how their knowledge of topic 1
had varied over time. In this case we had a pretest, pre-evaluation and two postest,
final evaluation and evaluation after 4 months.
Three topics were made from different blocks of the math subject. Item 1:
Fractions, belonging to the numbering and calculation block; topic 2: Geometric
places, block space and shapes and theme 3: Polynomials, block changes and
relationships.
In topic 1 the students of 3rd ESO A used the master class and those of 3rd ESO B
the FC methodology. In the next topic, they changed and the students of 3rd ESO A
were the ones who used the FC and the 3rd ESO B master class.
Before each class, students of FC group had to watch at home a video of a
maximum of 10 minutes, made by the teacher and with content of the subject. The
videos were available in Moodle and were posted on the Edpuzzle page, which
allowed the videos to contain questions and not be advanced.
Once in class they had to ask questions and doubts that had arisen from the video
seen at home. After students were placed in groups of four (the members changed in
each new topic) and carried out activities related to the contents seen at home. After
every activity, a volunteer exhibited his solution on the board and the teacher
corrected it and commented for all students.
4 Results
Below are the academic results obtained by students according to their learning
style. To achieve this, students have previously been divided among the four styles
from their responses to the CHAEA questionnaire. All 37 students answered the
questionnaires, of which 62% were girls and 38% were boys.
Table 2. Results of evaluations unit 1
Average pre- Average
Increase
evaluation evaluation
(pretest 1) (postest 1)
Active Style 3rd ESO A (Master) 5,03 8,01 +2,98 (+59,24%)
3rd ESO B (FC) 4,29 7,94 +3,65 (+85,08%)
Reflective Style 3rd ESO A (Master) 5,31 8,46 +3,15 (+59,32%)
3rd ESO B (FC) 5,45 8,13 +2,68 (+49,17%)
Theoretical Style 3rd ESO A (Master) 5,88 8,09 +2,21 (+37,58%)
3rd ESO B (FC) 6,11 8,40 +2,29 (+37,47%)
4
Pragmatic Style 3rd ESO A (Master) 4,68 7,95 +3,27 (+69,87%)
3rd ESO B (FC) 4,76 8,01 +3,25 (+68,27%)
TOTAL 3rd ESO A (Master) 5,16 8,10 +2,93 (+56,97 %)
3rd ESO B (FC) 5,09 8,11 +3,02 (+59,33 %)
Table 2 shows the results obtained by students in topic 1 corresponding to that of
fractions belonging to the numbering and calculation block. We can see that the
control group (3rd ESO A) goes from an average of 5.16, in the previous evaluation,
to 8.10, which represents an increase of 2.93 points (+56.97%). On the other hand, the
experimental group (3rd ESO B) in the pretest gets 5.09 and reaches 8.11 in the
postest, which means an increase of 3.02 points (+59.33%). Thus, we can see that the
two groups start from almost the same note and reach it, this is collaborated by the
results obtained with the T-Student test (table 3) for independent samples.
Table 3. Results of the T-Student test unit 1
3rd ESO A 3rd ESO B
Pretest Postest (Master) (FC)
Pretest-Postest Pretest-Postest
Active Style 0,301 0,942 <0,001 <0,001
Reflective Style 0,913 0,776 <0,001 0,002
Theoretical Style 0,857 0,841 0,011 0,002
Pragmatic Style 0,940 0,967 0,005 0,003
TOTAL 0,887 0,983 <0,001 <0,001
The first two columns in Table 3 correspond to the T-Students test for separate
samples and all their values are p>0.05, so the results of the two groups do not differ
either in the pretest or postest. This implies that, by not differing in prestest, they are
comparable groups. However, not differing in postest means that the differences in
results obtained by experimental or control groups are not statistically significant.
Still, it is true that those who used FC get a bigger increase.
If you look at the results obtained by the students in each of the different types of
learning (table 2), we can see that the active students are the ones who get the most
increase when using the FC. They start on average 4.29 and reach 7.94 increasing by
3.65 points (85.08%), while the control group is on average 5.03 and reaches 8.01, an
increase of 2.98 points (59.24%). The active type group when using the FC achieves
an increment of 0.67, on average, higher than the control group.
In theoretical and pragmatic students the difference in results between the control
and experimental group is very small, does not exceed 1%; in these cases, the use of
the FC has given the same result as the traditional class. Finally, in reflexive types it
has been the control group that has obtained the best results, 0.47 points of higher
average in the increase than the experimental group.
The last two columns in Table 3 show the results of the T-Students test for related
samples. In all cases the results have been p<0.05, this implies that the difference in
notes between the pretest and postest obtained are not the result of chance, they are
statistically significant. Therefore, the improvement of the notes is due to the use of
the FC and of the traditional class, in each case.
5
Table 4. Results of evaluations unit 2
Average pre- Average
Increase
evaluation evaluation
(pretest 2) (postest 2)
3rd ESO A (FC) 3,57 7,71 +4,14 (+115,96%)
Active Style
3rd ESO B (Master) 2,91 6,5 +3,59 (+123,36%)
3rd ESO A (FC) 4,23 8,14 +3,91 (+92,43%)
Reflective Style
3rd ESO B (Master) 4,57 6,86 +2,29 (+50,10%)
3rd ESO A (FC) 3,56 7,35 +3,79 (+106,46 %)
Theoretical Style
3rd ESO B (Master) 4,91 7,34 +2,43 (+49,49%)
3rd ESO A (FC) 3,15 6,99 +3,84 (+121,9%)
Pragmatic Style
3rd ESO B (Master) 3,54 6,78 +3,24 (+91,52%)
3rd ESO A (FC) 3,59 7,55 + 3,96 (+110,30 %)
TOTAL
3rd ESO B (Master) 3,91 6,84 +2,92 (+74,93 %)
Table 4 shows the results obtained by students in topic 2 that corresponded to that
of geometric places belonging to the space and shape block. It can be seen that the
students of the control group (3rd level B) departed with an average of 3.91 in the
pretest and reached 6.84 in the postest, reaching an increase of 2.92 points (74.93 %).
On the other hand, students in the experimental group (3rd level A) went from 3.59 to
7.55 on average with an increase of 3.96 points (110.30%). Thus, in this second topic,
students who used the FC scored an average of 1.04 points (35.37%) more increase
than the students who used the traditional class.
Table 5. Results of the T-Student test unit 2
3rd ESO A 3rd ESO B
Pretest Postest (FC) (Master)
Pretest-Postest Pretest-Postest
Active Style 0,352 0,217 < 0,001 0,003
Reflective Style 0,844 0,427 0,029 0,011
Theoretical Style 0,234 0,996 0,009 0,013
Pragmatic Style 0,694 0,903 0,011 0,024
TOTAL 0,549 0,282 < 0,001 < 0,001
All and this difference of more than one point, the results of the T-Students test
(table 5) tell us that the differences in results obtained are not statistically significant.
As in topic 1 the T-Students in the pretest and postest is p>0.05 and the differences in
notes between the pretest and postest obtained are statistically significant.
In Table 3 we can see that the active, theoretical and pragmatic types, which used
the FC, double the average obtained in the previous evaluation. Moreover, in the case
of the reflective type they get 1.62 points more increase from the control group, that
is, their grade improves by 42.33% compared to what increases that of the control
group.
Thus, in the topic of geometric places belonging to the space and shape block, all
styles except the asset surpass the control group, highlighting the reflective style
students who get the most increase from the control group.
6
Table 6. Results of evaluations unit 3
Average pre- Average
Increase
evaluation evaluation
(pretest 3) (postest 3)
3rd ESO A (Master) 3,14 5,83 +2,69 (+85,66 %)
Active Style
3rd ESO B (FC) 2,27 4,61 +2,34 (+103,08 %)
3rd ESO A (Master) 3,95 6,19 +2,24 (+56,70 %)
Reflective Style
3rd ESO B (FC) 3,40 5,53 +2,13 (+62,64 %)
3rd ESO A (Master) 2,93 6,58 +3,66 (+124,57 %)
Theoretical Style
3rd ESO B (FC) 3,59 7,19 +3,60 (+100,27 %)
3rd ESO A (Master) 3,34 5,97 +2,63 (+78,74 %)
Pragmatic Style
3rd ESO B (FC) 2,79 5,35 +2,56 (+91,75 %)
3rd ESO A (Master) 3,30 6,07 +2,77 (+83,93 %)
TOTAL
3rd ESO B (FC) 2,97 5,57 +2,60 (+87,54 %)
Table 6 shows the results obtained in topic 3 corresponding to that of polynomials
belonging to the block changes and relationships. Students in the control group (3rd
level A) get an average of 3.30 in the previous evaluation and increase to 6.07 in the
assessment of the subject, reaching an increase of 2.77 points corresponding to
83.93%. In addition, students in the experimental group (3rd level B) go from 2.97 to
5.57 with an increase of 2.60 points by 87.54%. All and that the increase in the two
chaos is very similar the students of the FC group get a higher percentage increase,
3.61% more.
If you look at the results obtained by each type of learning style, those of the active,
reflective and pragmatic type get a higher percentage increase relative to the control
group. These stand out those of the active type that double the results obtained in the
previous evaluation and obtain a 17.42% increase than those of the control group. On
the other hand, the control group gets the greatest increase in its valuations.
Table 7. Results of the T-Student test unit 3
3rd ESO A 3rd ESO B
Pretest Postest (Master) (FC)
Pretest-Postest Pretest-Postest
Active Style 0,220 0,245 0,004 < 0,001
Reflective Style 0,611 0,624 0,023 0,012
Theoretical Style 0,535 0,688 0,004 < 0,001
Pragmatic Style 0,589 0,683 0,028 < 0,001
TOTAL 0,446 0,423 < 0,001 < 0,001
When performing the T-Students test for separate samples and related samples (table
7) we get the same results as in the previous topics. That is, the valuations of the
control and experimental group do not differ between them in both prestest and
postest and the difference in notes between the pretest and postest obtained by each
group are statistically significant.
Table 8. Results of unit 1 evaluations after four months
Average Difference with Difference with
7
pre-evaluation final evaluation
3rd ESO A (Master) 6,89 +1,86 (+36,97 %) -1,11 (-13,98 %)
Active Style
3rd ESO B (FC) 6,51 +2,21 (+51,74 %) -1,43 (-18,01 %)
3rd ESO A (Master) 6,84 +1,53 (+28,81 %) -1,63 (-19,14 %)
Reflective Style
3rd ESO B (FC) 7,18 +1,73 (+31,74 %) -0,96 (-11,68 %)
3rd ESO A (Master) 7,30 +1,43 (+24,14 %) -0,79 (-9,76 %)
Theoretical Style
3rd ESO B (FC) 8,27 +2,16 (+35,35 %) -0,13 (-1,54 %)
3rd ESO A (Master) 6,84 +2,16 (+46,15 %) -1,11 (-13,96 %)
Pragmatic Style
3rd ESO B (FC) 7,28 +2,52 (+52,94 %) -0,73 (-9,11 %)
3rd ESO A (Master) 6,95 +1,79 (+34,68 %) -1,15 (-14,19 %)
TOTAL
3rd ESO B (FC) 7,23 +2,14 (+42,04 %) -0,87 (-10,85 %)
Table 8 shows the results of the evaluation of item 1 made after 4 months of final
evaluation. Students who used FC in topic 1 (3rd level A) with respect to the previous
assessment have increased by 2.14 points (42.04%) and in contrast those of the
control group by 1.79 (34.68%), obtaining a 7.36% increase in the experimental
group. In relation to the final evaluation, the students in the control group decreased
by 1.15 points (14.19%) and the DSs lost an average of 0.87 points (10.85%), 3.34%
less loss. Thus, we can say that the assessments of the knowledge of the students who
used the FC in topic 1 after 4 months are better than those of the control group.
The results obtained by FC students are better than those obtained by the control
group, when compared with results of the previous evaluation. Highlighting those of
an active type with an increase of 14.77% more than that obtained by the control
group. In relation to the final evaluation, all styles in the sense of the asset have a
smaller difference in the FC than in the traditional class. The most significant is the
case of the theoretical type that only decreases by 0.13 points (1.54 %) what was
achieved in the final evaluation.
Table 9. Results of the T-Student test unit 1 (pre-evaluation - 4 months)
3rd ESO A 3rd ESO B
Pretest Postest (Master) (FC)
Pretest-Postest Pretest-Postest
Active Style 0,301 0,623 0,004 0,003
Reflective Style 0,913 0,730 0,021 0,036
Theoretical Style 0,857 0,386 0,026 0,029
Pragmatic Style 0,940 0,653 0,030 0,005
TOTAL 0,887 0,523 < 0,001 < 0,001
When performing the T-Students test for separate samples and related samples (table
9) we get the same results as in the previous topics.
Table 10. Results of the T-Student test unit 1 (Evaluation - 4 months)
3rd ESO A 3rd ESO B
Pretest Postest (Master) (FC)
Pretest-Postest Pretest-Postest
Active Style 0,942 0,623 0,016 0,123
Reflective Style 0,776 0,730 0,005 0,319
Theoretical Style 0,841 0,386 0,266 0,864
8
Pragmatic Style 0,967 0,653 0,060 0,418
TOTAL 0,983 0,523 < 0,001 0,036
Table 10 shows that the improvements obtained by students of a theoretical and
pragmatic type, both in the case of the control and experimental group, are randomly
attributable, are not statistically significant. The same is true of those of the active and
reflective type of the experimental group.
5 Discussion
The results show that students using the FC have a greater increase in the
evaluation, of prestest with respect to postest, than those using the traditional
methodology. These results in the evaluation are consistent with those obtained in
different researches of the FC and the mathematics carried out by [22-30].
On the other hand, we find that the results show that these differences in the
academic performance of the students who used the FC or the traditional
methodology are not statistically significant. Therefore, we cannot categorically
affirm that they are the result of the use of FC, all and appear in the different topics
and in the two groups. It should be noted that the control group and the experimental
group has been changing in each topic, and in all cases, the experimental group has
obtained better academic results. These results can also be found in other researches
such as that conducted by [31]. Another reason for this fact could be based on [50]
because there are no statistically significant differences in academic outcomes
between FC and unvested, if two classes use active methodologies.
6 Conclusion
Two hypotheses had been raised in this research, the first saying that the academic
results of students with active learning style when using the FC get better results than
students who follow the traditional class.
Indeed, the results have shown that in the different topics of mathematics the
students who have used the FC have obtained better results in the postest and a greater
increase from the pretest than the students who used the traditional class. In addition,
the ones that have been the most active learning style students. In item 2 (Geometric
Places) is where this difference was greatest, the control group averaged 6.84 and the
experimental group by 7.55, which means a difference of 0.77 points on average
(10.38% increase). Also in this topic 2 the increase experienced by the experimental
group between the prestest and postets was +3.96 points (+100.30 %) +2.92 points
(+74.93%) that the students of the control group obtained on average, thus improving
by 25.37% more.
It was also found that the use of the FC provides greater assimilation of long-term
content. Since in the postest of topic 1 performed 4 months after finishing topic 1,
students who used FC obtained a higher average grade and a greater increase from the
first test pretest than the students in the control group as shown in the results.
9
The second hypothesis was that students' learning style conditions their academic
performance when using FC compared to traditional class.
As seen in the results, students' academic performance has varied according to their
learning style. In topic 1 (Fractions) the postest results were very similar, but not so
the increase experienced between the pretest and the postest. Active students using the
FC achieved a 25.84% increase than those in the master class. In contrast, in the item
2, (Geometric Places) students who used reflexive type FC scored an average of
18.65% more score than those in the control group, and a 42.33% increase between
pretest and postest. In topic 3 (polynomials) again active-style FC students are the
ones who achieved the best results, obtaining 26.46% more average postest score than
those of the master class of the same style. Finally, in the postest of topic 1, conducted
4 months later, the FC students of theoretical style were the ones who made the most
difference from those of the traditional class with an increase of 13.28% more.
We can see that active-style students are the ones who, when using the FC,
improve their academic performance more than those who use the master class. In
addition, that those of theoretical style when using the FC are the ones that best retain
knowledge over time.
The results obtained in this research will allow teachers to have an approximate
idea of which type of students get the best academic performance when using FC.
Helping to make the decision to use the FC, with a certain group of students, in the
event that you are considering it. For example, if an active learning style
predominates in your class, you will get better academic performance when using FC
than if reflective-style students predominate.
The research has limitations related to the sample size; the class of 3rd level A had
19 students and the 3rd level B 18 students. In addition, the time students have been
using the FC has been reduced, one quarter. That is why it would be interesting to
replicate research with more students and for longer. A post-test was also planned
after 4 months under topics 2 and 3, but the 2020 pandemic situation prevented it.
References
1. Berenguer Albaladejo, C.: Acerca de la utilidad del aula invertida o flipped classroom. XIV
Jornadas de Redes de Investigación En Docencia Universitaria. Universidad de Alicante,
1466–1480. (2016).Retrieved from http://rua.ua.es/dspace/handle/10045/59358
2. Talbert, R.: Flipped Learning: Aguide for higher education faculty. Sterling, Virginia:
Stylus Publishing. (2017).
3. Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., & Krathwohl, D. R.: Taxonomy of education
objectives: Cognitive domain. New York: McGraw-Hill. (1956).
4. Santiago, R., & Bergmann, J.: Aprender al revés. Barcelona: Ediciones Paidós. (2018).
Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Raul_Campion/publication/
327040344_Aprender_al_reves_Flipped_Classroom_30_y_Metodologias_activas_en_el_au
la/links/5bd0266aa6fdcc204a036718/Aprender-al-reves-Flipped-Classroom-30-y-
Metodologias-activas-en-el- aula.pdf
5. Prieto, A.: Profesor 3.0: Flipped classroom ¿Cuáles son sus ventajas? ¿Cuál es su origen y
su evolución posterior? ¿Por qué no es una moda más? ¿Por qué mejora el aprendizaje?
¿Por qué deberías leer sobre este modelo en este verano? .(2017). Retrieved July 15, 2020,
from profesor3punto0.blogspot.com/2016/07/flipped-classroom-cuales-son-sus_7.html
10
6. Tourón, J., & Santiago, R.: El modelo Flipped Learning y el desarrollo del talento en la
escuela. Revista de Educacion, (368), 33–65. (2015). https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-
RE-2015-368-288
7. Strelan, P., Osborn, A., & Palmer, E.: The flipped classroom: A meta-analysis of effects on
student performance across disciplines and education levels. Educational Research Review,
30, 100314. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314
8. Hernández, J.: Análisis psicométrico del Cuestionario de Estilos de Aprendizaje Honey
Alonso (CHAEA), (Septiembre), 0–58. (2010). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270578555_Analisis_psicometrico_del_Cuestion
ario_de_Estilos_de_Aprendizaje_Honey_Alonso_CHAEA
9. Coto, M.: Descubrimiento del estilo de aprendizaje dominante de estudiantes de la carrera
de tecnología en análisis de sistemas. Revista Educación, 44(1), 193–202. (2020).
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15517/revedu.v44i1.38571
10. Felder, R., & Silverman, L.: Estilos de aprendizaje y enseñanza In Engineering Education.
Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681. (1988).
11. Gardner, H.: Frames of mind. The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic books.
(1983).
12. Guild, P., & Garger, S.: Marching to Different Drummers. Virginia: ASCD-Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1998).
13. Honey, P.: Improve your people skills. Buckingham: Institute of Personel Management.
(1988).
14. Hunt, D.: Student Learning styles: diagnosis and prescribing program. Virginia: Reston.
(1978).
15. Kolb, D.: The Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual. Boston: McBer. (1976).
16. Lozano, A.: Estilos de Aprendizaje y Enseñanza. Un panorama de la estilística educativa.
México: Trillas. (2000).
17. Gutiérrez, M., & García, J.: Estudio comparativo de los estilos de aprendizaje del alumnado
que inicia sus estudios universitarios en diversas facultades de Venezuela, México y
España. Journal of Learning Styles, 4(7). (2011). Retrieved from
http://learningstyles.uvu.edu/index.php/jls/article/view/50
18. Gorghiu, G., Anghel, G. A., & Ion, R.-M.: Students’ Perception Related to a Responsible
Research and Innovation Demarche. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
180(November 2014), 600–605. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.166
19. Salas Perea, R., & Salas Mainegra, A.: La educación en el trabajo y el individuo como
principal recurso para el aprendizaje. Edumecentro, 6(1), 1–13. (2014).
20. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A.: Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every
day. Washington, D.C.: International Society for Technology in Education. (2012).
21. Parslow, G. R.: Multimedia in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
Commentary : Critical Thinking. Biochemistry and molecular biology education, 33(5),
371. (2005). https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb20642
22. Belmonte, J. L., Cabrera, A. F., Núñez, J. A. L., & Sánchez, S. P.: Formative transcendence
of flipped learning in mathematics students of secondary education. Mathematics, 7(1226),
1–14. (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/MATH7121226
23. Chen, S. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hsiao, C. C.: Exploring student perceptions, learning
outcome and gender differences in a flipped mathematics course. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 47(6), 1096–1112. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12278
24. Esperanza, P., Fabian, K., & Toto, C.: Flipped Classroom Model: Effects on Performance,
Attitudes and Perceptions in High School Algebra. DM Review, 9891, 85–97. (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45153-4_7
25. Hung, C. Y., Sun, J. C. Y., & Liu, J. Y.: Effects of flipped classrooms integrated with
MOOCs and game-based learning on the learning motivation and outcomes of students
11
from different backgrounds. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1028–1046. (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1481103
26. Kumar, K., Chang, C., & Chang, C.: International Forum of Educational Technology &
Society The Impact of the Flipped Classroom on Mathematics Concept Learning in High
School. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 134–142. (2015).
27. Ni, M., Kwok, L., Zhen, L., Xie, Y., Long, H., Zheng, X., & Li, W.: Preface. Lecture Notes
in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and
Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 9167, 243–254. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-20621-9
28. Song, Y., & Kapur, M.: How to Flip the Classroom – “ Productive Failure or Traditional
Flipped Classroom ” Pedagogical Design ? Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
20(1), 292–305. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci
.20.1.292?seq=1
29. Stroh, H. R., & Sink, C. A.: Applying APA’s Learner-Centered Principles to School-Based
Group Counseling. Professional School Counseling, 6(1), 71–78. (2002). Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ655213&site= ehost-
live
30. Wei, X., Cheng, I. L., Chen, N. S., Yang, X., Liu, Y., Dong, Y., Kinshuk.: Effect of the
flipped classroom on the mathematics performance of middle school students. Educational
Technology Research and Development. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-
09752-x
31. Kirvan, R., Rakes, C. R., & Zamora, R.: Flipping an Algebra Classroom: Analyzing,
Modeling, and Solving Systems of Linear Equations. Computers in the Schools, 32(3–4),
201–223. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2015.1093902
32. Rayner, S., & Riding, R. J.: Towards a categorizations of cognitive styles and learning.
Educational Psychology 17. (1997).
33. Alonso, C., Gallego, D., & Honey, P.: Los estilos de aprendizaje. Procedimientos de
diagnóstico y mejora. Annals of Physics, 54(2). (1997). Retrieved from
http://www.mendeley.com/research/no-title-avail/
34. Dunn, R., & Dunn, K.: Teaching students thought their individual learning styles: A
practical approach. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. (1978).
35. Hervás, R. M., & Hernández, F.: Diferentes formas de enseñar y aprender: estilos y
enfoques de aprendizaje y su aplicación en contextos educativos. (2004). Retrieved from
http://mural.uv.es/salmama/03_52_25_Abstract_rosa_hervas.pdf
36. Goleman, D.: Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam books. (1998).
Retrieved from http://www.resumido.com
37. Gallego, D.: Diagnosticar los Estilos de Aprendizaje. In Conferencia del I Congreso
Internacional de Estilos de Aprendizaje. Madrid. (2004). Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Diagnosticar+los+Estilos
+de+Aprendizaje#1
38. Alonso, C. M., Gallego, D. J., & Honey, P.: Los estilos de aprendizaje. Bilbao: Mensajero.
39. Padierna-Luna, J. Oseguera-Rodríguez, L. J. y Gudiño- Hernández, N. (2009). Factores
socio académicos, estilo de CHAEA aprendizaje, nivel intelectual y su relación con el
rendimiento académico previo de médicos internos de pregrado. Educación Médica. 12(2),
91-102. (1997).
40. Castillo, M. V; Bracamonte, E. A; De La Rosa, F; Sandoval, C. R. y Morales, J. E.:
Relación entre el estilo de aprendizaje de los estudiantes de primer ingreso a la Facultad de
Ingeniería y su rendimiento en el curso Matemática Básica 1. Revista social. Recuperado el
19 de julio de 2010. (2009). Retrieved from
http://digi.usac.edu.gt/bvirtual/revista2009/resumenes/educacion/Estilos%20de%20Aprendi
zaje.pdf. Cohen,
12