Flipped classroom in laboratory practices of molecular biologyperception of the students from chemistry degree

  1. María Dolores Busto Núñez 1
  2. Natividad Ortega Santamaría 1
  3. Silvia María Albillos García 1
  4. Sonia Ramos Gómez 1
  5. María Concepción Pilar Izquierdo 1
  6. Blanca Velasco Arroyo 1
  7. David Palacios Santamaría 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Burgos

    Universidad de Burgos

    Burgos, España

    ROR https://ror.org/049da5t36

EDULEARN22 Proceedings: 14th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies : July 4th-6th, 2022
  1. Luis Gómez Chova (coord.)
  2. Agustín López Martínez (coord.)
  3. Joanna Lees (coord.)

Verlag: IATED Academy

ISBN: 978-84-09-42484-9

Datum der Publikation: 2022

Seiten: 725-732

Kongress: Edulearn. International conference on Education and New Learning Technology (14. 2022. Palma)

Art: Konferenz-Beitrag


The flipped classroom (FC) model based on active learning has become one of the most popular technology-based learning models. The FC is a form of Blended Learning (BL), that reorganizes the workload in and outside the classroom and requires active participation of students in learning activities before and during face-to-face lessons with teachers [1]. The FC model is based on different methodological approaches -applied in university teaching since the 1990s- that encourage student preparation before classes: team-based learning, peer instruction and just-in-time teaching, where the teacher provides the information to his or her students through electronic means [2]. In the FC model, students are exposed to initial learning material prior to class attendance through a variety of methods, many of which are technology-based or technology-enhanced and learner controlled, such as instructor-provides videos [3]. The FC model is seen as an important tool that provides opportunities for students in higher education to learn on their own. In addition, the FC model is widely accepted by educators because it defines the needs and capacities of individuals, offers individualized teaching and provides flexibility on planning the learning, gives homework and adjusts the pace of learning [4]. The purpose of this study was to explore the students’ performance and perceptions of a flipped classroom for a molecular biology laboratory session. The data were purposively collected from a group of 26 third year university students enrolled in a Chemistry degree in the academic year 2021-22. The flipped methodology applied prior to the lab session was based on watching videos, webpages (text and images), and the laboratory session manual. The application of flipped classroom model in the lab practice resulted in a grade of 7.0±1 (range from 0-10), with a coefficient of kurtosis and asymmetry of -0.1 and -0.05, respectively. In terms of student perceptions, the results of the survey in weighted percentages considering the ratings 3, 4, 5 (Likert scale from 1-not all- to 5 -high-) showed that the objectives (100%) and methodology (100%) were clearly defined, and documentation and explanations provided by the professor were very suitable (96.1%). The overall satisfaction indicated for the students with the proposed learning activity was 92.3%.References:[1] Mshayisa, V.V. and Basitere, M. (2021). Flipped laboratory classes: Student performance and perceptions in undergraduate Food Science and Technology. Research Food Sci Educ, 20, pp 208-2020.[2] Prieto, A., Barbarroja, J., Álvarez, S. and Corell, A. (2021). Effectiveness of flipped classroom model in university education: a synthesis of the best evidence. Rev Educ, 391, pp 143-170.[3] Thai, N.T.T., Wever, B.D. and Valcke, M. (2017). The impact of a flipped classroom design on learning performance in higher education: Looking for the best “blend” of lectures and guiding questions with feedback. Comput Educ, 107, pp 113-126.[4] Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L. and Ball, N (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educ Tech Research Dev, 61, pp 563-580.