Challenges to Overcome and Scaffolding to Build on: Flipping a Humanities Course in a Chinese University

Complexities In Evaluating Flipped Classroom

Results emerging from empirical studies on flipped classrooms are mixed and reveal a complex picture. Flores, del-Arco, & Silva (2016), Hsieh et al. (2016) and Yu & Wang (2016) suggested that the adoption of flipped model leads to better student test performance and higher student satisfaction compared with the traditional approach. It is worth noting that the three studies claiming double gains for flipped classrooms over the traditional approach make too oversimplified a conclusion without taking into account potential biases built in design that may lead to their self-fulfillment. Flores and colleagues (2016) claimed the flipped model’s achievement gain by comparing academic results of student cohorts from three consecutive academic years, with only the flipped classroom cohorts given a special treatment of continuous assessment for remedial purposes. Apart from relying on the writing test to measure students’ writing skills, which was susceptible to raters’ subjective bias, the rigor of Yu and Wang’s study (2016) was further weakened by hypothesising better academic achievements and student preference for the flipped classroom over the traditional one. Hsieh et al. (2016), while perceiving the extra amount of time and effort required of students as a significant contributing factor in achievement gains of flipped classroom, did not address this issue by ramping up time commitment requirement and (or) time efficiency for the traditional mode of teaching in a way that levels the time playing field.