In this technology era, the value of higher education is under careful examination in terms of efficient use of class time and assessment which are quite important for academics and universities than ever (Ziegelmeier &Topaz, 2015). It was stressed that “professors can no longer simply pump out information and take it on faith that students understand it” (Berrett, 2012, p.2). Hence, there is a need to investigate for different instructional theories, methods and procedures to find out how students learn better, easily and permanently was seen important by researchers and different types of active learning processes were suggested. In this sense, an active learning approach which is called flipped learning was proposed (Zappe et al., 2009; Ziegelmeier & Topaz, 2015).

The flipped learning is defined by the Flipped Learning Network (2014) as “a pedagogical approach in which direct instruction moves from the group learning space to the individual learning space, and the resulting group space is transformed into a dynamic, interactive learning environment where the educator guides students as they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter”. As it can be seen, the fundamental principle of the flipped learning is that students begin to interact with new concepts outside of the traditional classroom, complete pre-class activities in order to benefit from in-class tasks efficiently, complete assignments and conduct activities involving group work and peer support in class (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015; Bergman & Sams, 2012; Mason, Shuman, & Cook, 2013). 

According to Schwab (1969), the curriculum should rely more on practical methods and principles applicable in concrete situations than theory. Schwab (1969) stressed the need to imply the learning environment as one of the important properties that should be taken into account during teaching-learning practices.

The study of classroom environments is concerned with “conceptualizing, assessing and investigating what happens to students during their schooling (Fraser & Fisher, 1994, p.23). In addition to cognitive and demographic characteristics that students bring into the educational settings, it is also important to consider the psychosocial aspects of the classroom environment. Classroom environment involves different psychosocial aspects such as satisfaction, cooperation, student involvement, task orientation, student cohesiveness, difficulty and teacher support. They were defined by Fraser and his colleagues (Fraser, 1980; Fraser & Fisher, 1983; Fraser, McRobbie, & Fisher, 1996; Fraser & Treagust, 1986). 

According to literature, the perceptions of students about the classroom environment have a significant influence on various learning outcomes and have been replicated for a variety of cognitive and affective outcomes like achievement, attitude, engagement, motivation, satisfaction,  self-esteem ( Dotterer & Lowe, 2011; Fraser & Treagust, 1986; Roth 1998; Zandvliet, 1999) by using different classroom environment instruments in different countries and grade levels (Fraser, 1998).

The purpose of this study was to develop and implement flipped learning materials in the Principles and Methods of Instruction course and investigate the effect of flipped learning on student achievement and perceptions related to the classroom environment.

Based upon the main purpose of the study, the following research questions were proposed:

1) Is there a significant difference between the experimental (flipped learning) and control group (traditional instruction) according to achievement test scores and final grades?

2)  Is there a significant difference between the experimental and control groups according to perceptions of the classroom environment (satisfaction, cooperation, involvement, task orientation, student cohesiveness, difficulty) scores?

In this study, quasi-experimental research design was used. The study was conducted during the fall semester of 2017-2018 for 11 weeks at Manisa Celal Bayar University which is a public university in Turkey. The study was implemented in the Principles of Methods of Instruction Course at the Classroom Teaching Department-Elementary Education Division. The instruction which was designed according to the principles of flipped learning was implemented in the experimental group, while traditional instruction was implemented in the control group of this study. There were 30 pre-service teachers in the experimental group and 26 pre-service teachers in the control group. Among the 30 pre-service teachers, 25 (83.3%) of them were female and 5 (16.7%) of them were male. Among the 26 pre-service teachers, 18 (69.2%) of them were female and 8 (30.8%) of them were male. The equivalency of groups was controlled according to their Principles and Methods of Instruction Course achievement test scores and they were found equal at the beginning of the treatment. Principles and Methods of Instruction Course Achievement Test and Classroom Environment Inventory were implemented to answer the research questions. They were explained below. Principles and Methods of Instruction Course Achievement Test Achievement test (AT) was implemented as pre and post-test both in experimental and control groups. It consisted of 40 questions (all of them were multiple choice type except the last question which is a matching type and included five items) related to the Principles and Methods of Instruction course. The mean item difficulty was 0.51, mean item discrimination value 0.37 and the Kr-20 reliability coefficient was 0.78. The Classroom Environment Perceptions Scale of Pre-Service Teachers (CEPSPT) The CEPSPT was developed by researchers as a valid and reliable 38-item 5-point (ranging from 1-completely disagree to 5- completely agree) Likert scale consisting of six scales: 1. Satisfaction, 2. Cooperation, 3. Involvement, 4. Student Cohesiveness, 5. Task Orientation, and 6. Difficulty. Data Analysis The data collected from the achievement test and classroom environment scale were analyzed by using descriptive and inferential statistical analysis techniques. Also, multivariate analysis of variance, MANOVA was conducted to examine the effect of flipped learning on pre-service teachers’ AT scores and final grades and to examine the effect of flipped learning on classroom environment scales (Hair, et al., 2014; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). For the analysis of quantitative data, SPSS 22.0 was used and alpha level was determined as .05.

According to the results of the MANOVA analysis, pre-service teachers who were in the flipped group had significantly higher achievement test scores and final grades than the pre-service teachers who were in the traditional instruction group. The reason for this result might be that pre-service teachers in the flipped learning group spent relatively more time for the course in terms of receiving instruction by watching videos and summarizing them out of the classroom and applying knowledge in the face to face part of the course compared to the pre-service teachers who were in the traditional classroom. They were asked to write examples about the use of different methods, prepare posters or sample lesson plans and presentations which might have also affected their involvement positively. Since pre-service teachers cooperated with others when completing assignments, they could learn from each other. According to the results obtained from the classroom environment scale, pre-service teachers who were in flipped learning group did not have significantly different mean scores than those who were in the control group according to all dimensions of the classroom environment. The reason for similar classroom environment perceptions of flipped learning and the traditional instruction groups might have stemmed from the instructor support. The pre-service teachers of both groups were taught by the same instructor and both of the groups cared and they knew that whenever they had problems, they would be welcomed and solved by the instructor. Also, different kinds of technical issues like lack of fast internet connection might have affected the satisfaction of pre-service teachers. Also, lecture videos might not be much interesting for some pre-service teachers and the total duration of videos might be long for some of them.

Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2014.934336. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Alexandria, VA: International Society for Technology in Education. Berrett, D. (2012). How flipping the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. TheChronicle of HigherEducation. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/How Flipping-the-Classroom/130857/ Dotterer, A. M. & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom context, school engagement, and academic achievement in early adolescence. J Youth Adolescence, 40, 1649-1660. doi: 10.1007/s10964-011-9647-5 Fraser, B. J. (1980). Criterion validity of an individualized classroom environment questionnaire. Retrievedfrom https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED214961.pdf Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity, and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1(1), 7-33. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009932514731 Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1983, April). Assessment of classroom psychosocial environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas,TX. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED228296.pdf Fraser B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1994). Assessing and researching the classroom environment. In Fisher, D. L.(Ed.), The study of learning environments (pp. 23-38). Perth: Curtin University of Technology. Fraser, B. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Fisher, D. (1996). Development, validation and use of personal and classforms of a new classroom environment questionnaire. Proceedings Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Forum. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y7faw3cc Fraser, B. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1986). Validity and use of an instrument for assessingclassroom psychosocial environment in higher education. Higher Education, 15, 37-57. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3446741 Mason, G. S., Shuman, T. R., & Cook, K. E. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroomto a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 430-435. doi: 10.1109/TE.2013.2249066. Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. The School Review 78(1), 1-23. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1086/442881 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (6th Ed.). Boston: Pearson EducationInc. Zappe, S., Leicht, R., Messner, J., Litzinger, T., & Lee, H. (2009). Flipping theclassroom to explore active learning in a large undergraduate course. Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exhibition. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y93n7r3j Ziegelmeier, L. B., & Topaz, C. M. (2015). Flipped calculus: A study of student performance and perceptions. Primus, 25(9-10), 847-860. doi: 10.1080/10511970.2015.1031305.