This document describes a study that evaluated the effectiveness of a flipped classroom approach compared to a traditional lecture format in an introductory equine science course. The flipped classroom required students to view online video lectures before class and complete activities and assessments in class. Students in the flipped format scored higher on exams and showed improved critical thinking skills compared to the traditional lecture format. Students also responded positively to course evaluations and ranked the flipped approach as an enjoyable learning experience that better developed their independent thinking skills. The results suggest the flipped classroom stimulates greater learning for today's students compared to the traditional lecture model.

1. 3722
INTRODUCTION
The Information Age is rapidly changing the
way society accesses and processes information.
This is clearly seen in higher education where it is
not uncommon to see students in class using techno­
logical tools, such as laptops, smartphones, or other
hand held devices, to seek and access information.
However, the Industrial Age educational system still
persists today. Watson and Reigeluth (2008) stated
that this factory-model style of education is insuf­
ficient to meet the demands of a 21st century work­
force. In this model, students are expected to learn
the same content in the same amount of time while
instructors strive for standardization through exams.
DeBard (2004) described today’s college stu­
dents, termed Millennials, as special, sheltered, con­
fident, conventional, team-oriented, achieving, and
pressured. He goes on to describe this generation of
college students as the most ethnically and gender
The flipped classroom stimulates greater learning
and is a modern 21st century approach to teaching today’s undergraduates
C. J. Mortensen*1 and A. M. Nicholson†
*Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611;
and †Center for Instructional Technology and Training, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
ABSTRACT: Many classrooms in higher education
stillrelyonatransformativeapproachtoteachingwhere
students attend lectures and earn course grades through
examination. In the modern age, traditional lectures are
arguedbysomeasobsoleteanddonotaddressthelearn­
ing needs of today’s students.An emerging pedagogical
approach is the concept of the flipped classroom. The
flipped classroom can simply be described as students
viewing asynchronous video lectures on their own and
then engaging in active learning during scheduled class
times. In this study, we examined the flipped classroom
teaching environment on student learning gains in an
Introduction to Equine Science course. Students (n =
130) were asked to view 7.5 h of recorded lectures
divided into 8 learning modules, take online quizzes
to enforce lecture viewing, take 3 in-class exams, and
prepare to participate in active learning during sched­
uled class times. Active learning approaches included
individual activities, paired activities, informal small
groups, and large group activities. When compared
to students in the traditional lecture format in earlier
years, students in the flipped format scored higher on
all 3 exams (P < 0.05), with both formats taught by the
same instructor. Analysis of ACT scores demonstrated
no intellectual capacity differences between the student
populations. To evaluate any gains in critical thinking,
flipped format students were asked to take the Cornell
Critical Thinking Exam (version X). Scores improved
from the pretest (50.8 ± 0.57) to the posttest (54.4 ±
0.58; P < 0.01). In the flipped course, no correlations
were found with student performance and interactions
with online content. Students were asked in class to
evaluate their experiences based on a 5-point Likert
scale: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The
flipped classroom was ranked as an enjoyable learning
experience with a mean of 4.4 ± 0.10, while students
responded positively to other pointed questions. In for­
mal course evaluations, flipped format students ranked
the following higher (P < 0.05): instructor availability
to assist students; encouragement of independent, cre­
ative,andcriticalthinking;andamountlearned.Overall,
the flipped classroom proved to be a positive learning
experience for students. As the classroom continues to
modernize, pedagogical approaches such as the flipped
classroom should be considered for many lecture-style
courses taught in the animal sciences.
Key words: classroom, education, flipped, hybrid, instruction, learning
© 2015 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. J. Anim. Sci. 2015.93:3722–3731
doi:10.2527/jas2015-9087
1Corresponding author: cmortensen@ufl.edu
Received March 9, 2015.
Accepted May 4, 2015.
Published July 17, 2015

2. Flipped classroom stimulates greater learning 3723
diverse. Millennials can be perceived as more ambi­
tious than previous generations and as hard work­
ing with almost 50% of students holding employ­
ment while in school (DeBard, 2004). Additionally,
Millennials reared on technology often have a de­
creased tolerance for traditional lecture style formats;
therefore, incorporation of active learning strategies
should be explored (Prensky, 2001; Roehl et al., 2013).
The flipped classroom is a modern pedagogi­
cal approach to teaching that is gaining popularity in
higher education. Simply stated, the flipped classroom
is where students are asked to view online lectures on
their own time to prepare for learning activities that
occur during scheduled class time. Many proponents
claim the flipped classroom model encourages ac­
tive learning compared to the more passive learning
found in traditional formats. Our goal was to evaluate
the effectiveness of the flipped classroom on student
learning and opinions and also to investigate whether
active learning strategies used in place of traditional
lecture could increase critical thinking.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Student Population
Data collection methods and anonymous sur­
veys were approved through the University of Florida
Institutional Review Board. A total of 130 students
enrolled in an Introduction to Equine Science course
offered in the flipped format were evaluated in this
study during the fall semesters of 2013 and 2014. For
comparison, students (n = 173) taught the same course
in the more traditional lecture format during the 3 fall
semesters between the years 2010 and 2012 were used
to evaluate student performance and opinions of the
course through the formal course evaluations. The
Introduction to Equine Science course is taught through
the Department of Animal Sciences and is an elective
for any students across campus interested in learning
more about horses. The course was delivered over a 15-
wk semester, worth 3 credits, and scheduled to meet 3
d/wk. Student data collected included current year in
school (senior, junior, sophomore, or freshman), gender,
ACT score, and current enrolled major.
Course Structure
Previously, the Introduction to Equine Science
course was taught in a traditional format, which included
PowerPoint delivered lectures, in-class quizzes and ex­
ams, and assigned readings. Students were expected to
attend 36 live lectures. In the flipped format, live lectures
were converted to 40 video lectures that were prerecord­
ed at the University of Florida Center for Instructional
Technology and Training (CITT) using Mediasite (Sonic
Foundry, Madison, WI). Lectures were then divided
into 8 separate learning modules and offered to students
through the Sakai course management system (Apereo
Foundation). Each individual learning module had stated
learning objectives and other reminders to facilitate the
online component of the course (Fig. 1).
Students in both the traditional lecture and flipped
formats were required to take 3 in-class exams dur­
ing the semester. In the flipped format of the course, a
Figure 1. Example of a student view of an online learning module
used in the flipped format of the Introduction to Equine Science course
taught at the University of Florida.

3. Mortensen and Nicholson3724
weekly online timed quiz (10 questions, 10 min) was
required for students to enforce lecture viewing for
that week. Additionally, in the flipped format, during
each meeting period students were given a short re­
flection assignment to quiz them on the online lecture
that was required of them before coming to class.
A semester long project was required of all students
registered in the flipped format. During select scheduled
meeting times, students were required to develop man­
agement plans for hypothetically owned horses. Weekly
discussion board topics centered on students summariz­
ing their management plans and required them to post
their results to the course message board through Sakai.
Supplemental content provided to students included links
to external websites, videos, and industry posted infor­
mation among other resources to enhance the informa­
tion made available to them. Finally, in the flipped format
of the course students were required to access a gaming
website (Quia; IXLLearning, San Mateo, CA) each week
to play 1 educational game (created by the instructor) us­
ing that week’s presented material for review.
The course scheduled class times were Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday for a total of 43 total scheduled
class meetings over the 15-wk semester. For meeting
times on Mondays and Wednesdays, course activities
(Table 1) varied. They were created with the goals of
enhancing student mastery of the material, develop­
ing students’ critical thinking and problem solving
skills, enhancing students’social skills, and stimulating
higher-order thinking according to Bloom’s taxonomy
(Seddon, 1978). Our main goal was for students to take
the knowledge gained and apply it in real-life contexts.
On select Fridays (n = 12) in the flipped format of
the course, students were introduced to gaming. Lecture
material was converted into the gaming material and
students were asked to play the games during scheduled
class time. The format of each game varied from popu­
lar board games to quiz type games created to be used
with timed buzzers (Table 2). Students were formed
into gaming groups. Gaming material was created us­
ing game design elements and was then presented in
nongame (educational) contexts. The goals were to en­
hance student mastery of the material presented in lec­
ture and to engage students in group-learning activities.
Student Assessment
Exams given to the students (n = 130) in the
flipped course were in the same format with compa­
rable rigor when compared to the previous 3 offerings
of the course that were taught to students (n = 173)
in a traditional lecture-style format. Questions ranged
from multiple choice, fill in the blank, matching, and
short answer. Students were taught by the same in­
structor in both the traditional and flipped format. A
retrospective analysis of student ACT scores was con­
ducted to determine the intellectual capacity of stu­
dents taught under both formats. Students instructed
in the flipped format were asked to take the Cornell
Critical Thinking Test (CCTT) version X on the first
and last day of the course to evaluate critical think­
ing. Students enrolled in an Animal Sciences Senior
Seminar course were also administered the CCTT on
the first and last day of the course. The goal was to
see if students’ scores improved after being exposed
to the same CCTT exam twice in the same 15-wk se­
mester. Both courses were taught by the same instruc­
tor. Attendance rate was compared between students
Table 1. Summary of course activities used in the flipped version of the Introduction to Equine Science course
taught at the University of Florida and levels achieved in Bloom’s Taxonomy
Activity Description Example(s) Bloom’s taxonomy
Flashcards Create flashcards using either technology (e.g.,
phone app) or provided index cards
Identify various breeds of horses, anatomical structures,
or digestive disorders
Knowledge, comprehension
Worksheets Work as an individual, small group, or large
group to complete a given set of problems
Identify anatomical structures, conduct feedstuff analy­
sis, or pasture analysis
Knowledge, comprehen­
sion, application, analysis
Case
studies
Answer questions related to a given scenario Assess negative behavior issues with an animal and
summarize steps to correct
Application, analysis,
synthesis, evaluation
Creative
learning
Use artistic abilities in small groups to illustrate
given structure/scenario
Construct external and internal structures of the hoof
using modeling compound
Knowledge, comprehen­
sion, application
Facts vs.
opinion
Evaluate statements and judge whether they are a
fact or opinion
Everyone tells you how to feed your animal, discrimi­
nate between their statements as either fact or opinion
Analysis, evaluation
Argument
mapping
Create a visual representation of the structure of
an argument
Support the statement that “all horses should be fed
forage”
Analysis, synthesis, evalu­
ation
Concept
mapping
Link the relationships of a given set of concepts Complete a concept map of the equine digestive system Comprehension, analysis,
synthesis, evaluation
Speed
dating
Rotate each round between classmate and within
60 s answer the given question
Review of concepts before an exam Knowledge, comprehension
Horse
portfolio
Describe in detail your management plan for
your hypothetically-owned animal
Complete management plans relating to feeding,
health, housing, and training
Application, synthesis,
evaluation

4. Flipped classroom stimulates greater learning 3725
in both the flipped and traditional format of the
Introduction to Equine Science course.
At the conclusion of the Introduction to Equine
Science course in the flipped format, students were
asked to fill out a 12-question evaluation on their ex­
periences and to rank their answers using a 5-point
Likert scale: 1(strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neu­
tral), 4 (agree), and 5 (strongly agree). This course sur­
vey instrument was reviewed by a panel of experts in
educational research design, and the panel determined
the survey was appropriate for the course. Finally, a
retrospective analysis was conducted of the University
of Florida formal course evaluation responses and was
compared between students in the traditional against
the flipped format of the course.
Statistics
Comparisons of student exam scores and atten­
dance were analyzed by a mixed model ANOVA using
the SAS MIXED procedure (SAS version 9.2; SAS Inst.,
Inc., Cary, NC). Course structure (flipped or traditional),
year in school, gender, and major were included in the
model as fixed effects. Majors were identified asAnimal
Science, Biology, or Other. For CCTT comparisons,
scores were compared by SAS MIXED and course struc­
ture (flipped or traditional) was included in the model
as a fixed effect. Major and year in school were not in­
cluded, as students in the Senior Seminar course are all
Animal Science seniors, and too few Animal Science
seniors were enrolled in the Introduction to Equine
Science course to make a valid comparison. Pearson’s
correlation coefficients were conducted by SAS CORR
to evaluate student online activity and exam perfor­
mance, online lecture length and frequency viewed, and
ACT scores with exam performance. Students’ respons­
es in both the course survey and formal course evalu­
ation were pooled, and answers to each question were
individually compared by a Students t test.
RESULTS
Course Redesign
The course was first offered in the flipped format in
the fall semester of 2013. Planning of the course rede­
sign began in May 2013 and was completed in August
2013 before the beginning of the fall semester. A con­
servative estimate of 10 h/wk for the instructor were
required to completely redesign the course over 14 wk.
Activities for the instructor included syllabus redesign,
reorganizing lectures, creation of grading rubrics, cre­
ation of online quizzes, creation of online and in class
games, and creation of in-class learning activities among
other course creation activities with the assistance of the
Instructional Designer at the University of Florida CITT.
Lectures were recorded in the studio at the University
of Florida CITT, with an average of 3 lectures recorded
Table 2. Summary of games used in the flipped version of the Introduction to Equine Science course taught at
the University of Florida
Game Based on Description
It’s taboo Taboo (Hasbro, Pawtucket,
RI)
Individuals have their team guess the given word without using a set of 5 “taboo” words. Students given set
of game cards with terms associated with horse evolution.
Join the herd
family feud
Family Feud (game show) Teams compete to provide all possible answers to a given question; focused on horse industry.
Catchy breed
phrases
Catch Phrase (Hasbro) Individuals have their team guess a given word. Teams rotated picking cards until 45 s is up. Students given
a set of game cards with terms associated with horse breeds.
Gator races General quiz-type game Each team given a buzzer. PowerPoint slides had questions that varied in difficulty; more difficult questions
related to horse behavior/training were worth more strides in the race.
Trojan jenga Jenga (Hasbro) Small groups formed. On each of the 54 blocks was written a question related to horse behavior, evolution,
anatomy, that an individual attempted to answer correctly. Wrong answers resulted in student pulling one
additional block per turn.
Piction...
neighhh...ary
Pictionary (Hasbro) Teams compete trying to identify specific words or phrases from their teammates drawing. Students given
a set of game cards with terms associated with horse breeds.
You don’t know
horses
You Don’t Know Jack
(Jackbox Games, Chicago, IL)
Each team given a buzzer. PowerPoint slides had questions that varied in difficulty. More difficult questions
related to hoof anatomy/care were worth more points.
Farm scene-it Scene-It (Screenlife, Mattel,
El Segundo, CA)
Each team given a buzzer. PowerPoint slides had images that formed words (round 1), 4 descriptors de­
scribing a concept (round 2), and an image that would slowly be revealed (round 3). Images and concepts
centered on equine nutrition.
Scatter horses Scattegories (Hasbro) Small groups formed and students given game cards. On each card were 10 concepts. Students pulled a
letter from an envelope and within 2 min wrote down a word starting with the letter they pulled that associ­
ated with each concept.
Balder horses Balderdash (Mattel) Small groups formed and students given game cards. On each card was a word or acronym. Students had to
write down what they thought the definition was or what acronym meant. Group then voted on best answer.
Focus was on equine health and disease.

5. Mortensen and Nicholson3726
per session and with each session lasting 2 h. Previous
live lecture PowerPoint presentations were converted
into 40 online lectures, with a total running time of 7.5
h. The average running time per lecture was 11.17 min.
The goal was to keep each lecture less than 20 min. If the
material appeared to exceed 20 min, presentations were
restructured into 2 distinct lectures. Only on 3 occasions
over the semester were students required to view 2 sepa­
rate video lectures before scheduled class time.
Student Performance
Of the students (n = 130) enrolled in the flipped
format of the Introduction to Equine Science course,
88 were Animal Science majors, 29 were Biology
majors or in a related field, and 13 were classified as
Other. Additionally, 79 were freshman, 10 were soph­
omores, 22 were juniors, and 19 were seniors.
Attendance did not differ significantly between stu­
dents instructed in the flipped format compared to the
traditional format nor between major and year in school.
Attendance rate was calculated as students present on 20
randomized days throughout the semester and was 85.3 ±
0.1% for students in the flipped format compared to
83.2 ± 0.1% instructed in the traditional format (P = 0.21).
When evaluating the number of times a lecture was
viewed in the flipped format, a correlation (r = 0.50;
P < 0.05) was found with students viewing longer
lectures more frequently compared to shorter lectures
(Fig. 2). The most viewed lecture was the first lecture,
“History of the Horse” (running time: 1,138 s or 18
min 58 s), with a frequency of 1.9 views per student,
followed by the second lecture “Scope of the Horse
Industry” (running time: 760 s or 12 min and 40 s).
The least viewed lecture was the final lecture, “Coat
Color Genetics” (running time: 576 s or 9 min 36 s)
with a frequency of 0.91 views per student. However,
no trends were found with regard to frequency of
views decreasing as the semester progressed. In the
final module of the course focused on equine health,
a spike in viewership was seen with the “Parasites of
the Horse” (running time: 813 s or 13 min 33 s) lecture
viewed 1.45 times per student and “Diseases of the
Horse” (running time: 933 s or 15 min 33 s) viewed
1.38 times per student. The overall average viewership
of each lecture was 1.22 per student.
There were no differences in exam scores between
students enrolled in the specified format of the course;
therefore, data were combined for analysis. Students
enrolled in the flipped format of the course scored high­
er on all 3 exams (P < 0.05) when compared to students
taught in a traditional lecture-style format (Table 3).
Differences were not noted with regard to major or year
in school. However, regardless of format (flipped or tra­
ditional), a gender difference was noted with females (n
= 267) scoring higher (P < 0.05) with mean exam scores
of 87.1 ± 0.01 compared to males (n = 36) with mean
exam score of 83.8 ± 0.01. A retrospective analysis of
ACT scores demonstrated no difference in intellectual
capacity of students enrolled in the flipped format of
the course (mean ACT score of 26.8 ± 0.36; n = 73)
compared to students enrolled in the traditional course
(mean ACT score of 27.3 ± 0.39; n = 125). A weak posi­
tive correlation (r = 0.31) was found with regard toACT
score and average exam scores for all students.
No differences were found with regard to the
number of times a student accessed any online mate­
rial and exam scores (Fig. 3). Additionally, a correla­
tion (r = 0.21) could not be established with the mean
number of times a video was viewed or exam scores.
The mean for students accessing any online material
was 4,369 ± 120 times per semester per student in the
flipped format. In the traditional format of the course,
the mean was 47.3 ± 2.0 times per semester per stu­
dent. Quiz scores did not differ significantly between
the years that the courses were taught in the flipped
format, with an average score of 9.31 ± 0.17.
Figure 2. Scatterplot of lecture duration (s) and frequency of stu­
dents viewing the online lecture in the flipped format of an Introduction to
Equine Course (r = 0.50; P < 0.05)
Table 3. Exam scores for students taught in a traditional
lecture format (n = 173) compared to students taught in
a flipped course format (n = 130) for an Introduction
to Equine Science course taught at the University of
Florida. Mean (±SEM) scores are depicted
Format
Exam scores
1 2 3
Traditional lecture 84.6 ± 0.9 86.9 ± 0.7 84.5 ± 0.8
Flipped course 89.4 ± 0.8 90.5 ± 0.7 87.8 ± 0.7
P value 0.001 0.0005 0.002

6. Flipped classroom stimulates greater learning 3727
There were no significant differences in over­
all CCTT scores in either the pretest or posttest be­
tween students taught in the flipped format in 2013
or 2014; therefore, data were combined for analysis.
Students instructed in the flipped format scored high­
er on the CCTT from the pretest to the posttest (P <
0.01; Table 4). Students enrolled in the Senior Seminar
course CCTT scores did not change from the pretest to
the posttest. No differences were found with regard to
major or gender. However, when evaluating freshman
compared to juniors and seniors, a trend (P = 0.09)
was noticed with freshman scoring slightly higher in
the pretest with a score of 51.2 ± 0.7 compared to 49.6
± 0.5 for upperclassman. However, this difference did
not appear in the posttest.
Answers to the survey are depicted in Table 5. Out
of the 12 questions, students agreed or strongly agreed
with 11 out of 12 statements. The students’ responses re­
mained neutral for only the 1 question asking if students
had viewed individual online lectures more than once.
Of the 105 responses to the anonymous survey, only 3
(0.03%) students’responses averaged below a 3 (neutral).
When evaluating formal course evaluations, students’ re­
sponses from the flipped version of the course positively
increased (P < 0.05) in 3 categories: availability to assist
students in or out of class; encouragement of indepen­
dent, creative, and critical thinking; and amount learned
(Table 6). No differences were found in any other ques­
tion between the 2 course formats.
DISCUSSION
In the last 100 yr, little has changed in the way educa­
tion is structured, and today in-class lectures continue to
prevail in the majority of classrooms around the country
(McLaughlin et al., 2014). Put simply, this system is out­
dated (Mitra, 2013) and fails to address students’ needs
going forward in the 21st century. While the current stu­
dent generation is termed the Millennials, a more appro­
priate definition for them, and the generations following
behind, is to call them Digital Natives. Prensky (2001)
described Digital Natives as the generation of students
who grew up in the technological age and are no lon­
ger the people our educational system was designed to
teach. He goes on to state that Digital Natives’ thinking
patterns and the way they process information is com­
pletely differently from earlier generations and may po­
tentially be due to different brain development (Prensky,
2001). Conversely, the older generation, termed Digital
Immigrants, speaks an outdated language to the natives.
Digital Immigrants assume that learners are the same
as they always have been and the same methods that
worked for them will work for this new generation of
students. Yet, Digital Immigrants continue to struggle
to teach a new population that thinks and speaks differ­
ently (Prensky, 2001). Despite the evidence that educa­
tors are faced with a new kind of student, the traditional
lecture still persists in higher education and adoption of
new pedagogies is slow (Watson and Reigeluth, 2008;
McLaughlin et al., 2014; Roach, 2014).
The rapid infusion of technology across college
campuses has helped facilitate the flipped classroom.
While the flipped classroom method of teaching is still
in its infancy, it is gaining traction in higher education
across disciplines. In this study, the flipped classroom
proved to be a positive pedagogical approach to engag­
ing and enhancing the educational experience for today’s
animal sciences students. Results demonstrated that stu­
dents taught in a flipped format not only excelled above
their peers taught in a more traditional lecture format,
but they also developed greater critical thinking skills
when challenged with various exercises throughout the
semester. When student intellectual capacity was com­
pared between the 2 groups, no differences were found
in ACT scores. When students were asked to evaluate
their experiences in the flipped course, they responded
overwhelmingly positively to the course survey, and
similarly, formal course evaluations went up on ques­
Table 4. Scores of the Cornell Critical Thinking Test
(level X) of students (n = 128) enrolled in a flipped for­
mat of the Introduction to Equine Science course com­
pared to traditional course Senior Seminar students (n =
30) taught at the University of Florida. Mean (±SEM)
scores and total number of students are depicted
Pretest Posttest P-value
Flipped course 50.8 ± 0.57 54.3 ± 0.58 0.0001
Traditional 46.4 ± 0.76 46.7 ± 1.2 0.45
Figure 3. Scatterplot of student average exam scores compared to to­
tal times students accessed online material via the course management sys­
tem in the flipped format of the Introduction to Equine Science course. No
significant correlations were found. The total number of students was 130.

7. Mortensen and Nicholson3728
tions about instructor availability, amount learned, and
stimulation of critical and creative thinking.
Our results are in agreement with other studies
that demonstrated improved student learning when
courses were taught in the flipped format (Day and
Foley, 2006; Zappe et al., 2009; Moravec et al., 2010;
Missildine et al., 2013; Tune et al., 2013; McLaughlin
et al., 2014; Roach, 2014). Bishop and Verleger (2013)
stated that the benefit of the flipped classroom is that
it combines a set of learning theories once thought
incompatible, active learning, problem-based learn­
ing rooted on constructivist ideology, and instruc­
tional lectures derived from direct instruction meth­
ods founded on behaviorist principles. The flipped
classroom can also facilitate experiential learning by
providing students a concrete experience that can be
enriched by reflection, give meaning by thinking, and
be transformed by action to develop the new learner
schema that will be more broad and rich (Kolb and
Kolb, 2012). While our data applied to an introductory,
elective-type course, other courses in the animal sci­
ences with perceived greater rigor such as animal nu­
trition, genetics, and reproduction can benefit from the
flipped approach to teaching. The flipped format has
been shown to increase student learning in other rigor­
ous courses, such as a large enrollment biology course
(Moravec et al., 2010) and an introductory engineer­
ing course (Zappe et al., 2009), and to include medical
students studying physiology (Tune et al., 2013) and
pharmaceutics (McLaughlin et al., 2014).
A well-designed flipped course can also address
the many learning styles of today’s students. An up­
date of learning styles of animal sciences students was
recently published using 2 learning style evaluators,
Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and Gregorc
Style Delineator (GSD). In the study, Mortensen et
al. (2015) reported with the GEFT that 63% of animal
sciences students indicated a preference for a field-
independent learning style compared to 19% prefer­
ring a field-dependent style or 18% indicating they
were neutral. Field-independent learners are identified
as viewing the world more analytically, are problem
solvers, favor independent study, and can be perceived
as better suited for the flipped classroom format when
compared to field-dependent learners who prefer a pas­
sive approach to education. Further, Mortensen et al.
(2015) reported with the GSD that 49% of animal sci­
ences students indicated a concrete-sequential learning
preference, 21% indicated concrete-random, 15% in­
dicated abstract-random, and 15% indicated abstract-
sequential. In their description of the GSD, Hawk and
Shah (2007) described the abstract-sequential learner
as one that prefers lectures, lengthy reading, term pa­
pers, and other typical pedagogical approaches to tra­
ditional teaching strategies found throughout college
campuses. Therefore, it can be argued that today’s ani­
mal sciences curriculum, with traditional lectures and
assigned readings among other passive learning strate­
gies, only supports a small portion of the animal scienc­
es student population’s preferred learning style. This
is troublesome, as research has clearly demonstrated
that when students were taught to their preferred learn­
ing style, student achievement increased (Dyer and
Osborne, 1996; Thomas et al., 2002; Dobson, 2009).
This has also been documented in the animal science
discipline (Garton et al., 1999). We argue that a major
benefit of the flipped classroom is the focus on the stu­
dent, and with a student-centric strategy a wider variety
of learning styles can be addressed facilitating greater
student success.
Table 5. Responses to end of course survey given to students taught in an Introduction to Equine Science course
taught in the flipped format in 2013 (n = 55) and 2014 (n = 50). Students were asked to rank their responses based
on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neutral), 4 (agree), and 5(strongly agree). Data
are reported as mean ± SEM
Statement
Year
P-value2013 2014
The flipped classroom has been an enjoyable experience 4.53 ± 0.10 4.30 ± 0.12 0.07
The flipped classroom is an effective teaching strategy compared to traditional lecture 4.25 ± 0.11 4.18 ± 0.12 0.34
In-class assignments have helped me better understand the lecture material 4.18 ± 0.13 4.29 ± 0.11 0.24
Games have helped me better prepare for the exams 4.18 ± 0.11 4.44 ± 0.13 0.06
I would prefer to watch lectures online and do learning activities during class time 4.44 ± 0.12 4.14 ± 0.15 0.06
Game days are a wise use of class time 4.44 ± 0.10 4.38 ± 0.14 0.37
I viewed all the lectures before taking the online quiz 4.65 ± 0.09 4.22 ± 0.14 0.01
I watch the online lectures in full 4.69 ± 0.10 4.60 ± 0.08 0.25
I have viewed individual online lectures more than once 3.09 ± 0.18 3.10 ± 0.17 0.49
I am learning about proper horse management through the course project 4.15 ± 0.13 4.05 ± 0.13 0.22
This course encourages independent, creative, and critical thinking 4.45 ± 0.10 4.32 ± 0.11 0.16
I would recommend this course to a friend 4.67 ± 0.08 4.78 ± 0.09 0.19

8. Flipped classroom stimulates greater learning 3729
The most surprising data to come from this study
is the improvement in critical thinking skills. Over
the 2 semesters in this study, students improved al­
most 10% in their critical thinking from the pretest to
the posttest. A concern of ours was that student scores
only improved due to taking the test a second time,
despite it being 15 wk later. This proved not to be true
when another class, Senior Seminar, was administered
the CCTT at the beginning and end of the semester.
Their scores remained unchanged. The mean scores
reported here for the CCTT (level X) are similar to
what has been reported for other undergraduate stu­
dents (mean 52.2 ± 6.5 SD), and posttest scores for our
students were similar to means reported for graduate
students (55.5 ± 3.6 SD; Ennis et al., 2005).
The Association of American Colleges and
Universities (2005) identified critical thinking as a key
area to promote in higher education after reporting only
6% of college seniors were proficient in critical think­
ing. Again this is troublesome, as McLaughlin et al.
(2014) stated college graduates with smaller gains in
critical thinking skills have higher unemployment rates,
report lower lifestyle satisfaction, and amass higher
credit card debt. The authors argue today’s students
are not learning the critical thinking, written commu­
nication, and complex reasoning skills thought to be
at the core of higher education. In this flipped course,
students were consistently challenged throughout the
semester to use the information given to them through
video lectures to complete assignments that challenged
them to reach the higher learning levels of Bloom’s
taxonomy. These results are similar to other reports of
gains in student learning in an active-learning environ­
ment (Prince, 2004; Watson and Reigeluth, 2008; Roehl
et al., 2013; Freeman et al., 2014). While our results
appear to be the first study to document critical thinking
gains in a flipped classroom, many studies have already
demonstrated that active learning strategies utilized in
the classroom can enhance critical thinking (Gokhale,
1995; McInerney and Fink, 2003; Tiwari et al., 2006;
Ozturk et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2013).
Since universities were first founded in Western
Europe over 900 yr ago, the traditional lecture has been
the format of choice for information delivery from in­
structor to student (Brockliss, 1996; Freeman et al.,
2014). Burgan (2006) in her defense of the traditional
lecture format stated she believes students benefit from
seeing education embodied in a master learner who
teaches what she (or he) has learned. She goes on to give
examples of clearly talented lecturers and their ability to
capture their audiences and stated lectures offer students
the thrill of being together at an extraordinary event, the
public display of daring and dazzling intellectual exper­
tise (Burgan, 2006). While we argue that this “sage on
the stage” approach to learning is outdated, we do rec­
ognize that there has to be a medium for a transfer of
information from teacher to student. In the flipped format,
video lectures replaced the traditional lecture and served
the purpose of transforming only the most critical of in­
formation to the student. In addition, other activities such
as assigned readings or, in our case, online quizzes and
online games with deadlines, are required of the students
outside of scheduled class times. Coupled with a brief
reflection assignment, these activities enforced online
viewing of the lectures and addressed concerns raised
by others about student preparedness in a flipped format
(Burgan, 2006; Roach, 2014). Our data would also sug­
gest that despite a majority of the information being sup­
plied in an online format, attendance rate did not decline.
Furthermore, when students attend class in the flipped
format the learning shifts to be student centered and the
instructor acts as a facilitator, a “sage on the side.”
Table 6. Response of students to the University of Florida faculty evaluation when taught by the same instructor in an
Introduction to Equine Science course offered in a traditional format in 2010 to 2012 (n = 136) and the flipped format
in 2013 to 2014 (n = 97). Students were asked to rank their responses based on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (poor or low),
2 (below average), 3 (average), 4 (above average), and 5 (excellent or high). Data are reported as mean ± SEM
Statement
Class type
P-valueTraditional (n = 136) Flipped (n = 97)
Description of course objectives and assignments 4.73 ± 0.05 4.75 ± 0.05 0.41
Communication of ideas and information 4.78 ± 0.04 4.78 ± 0.05 0.48
Expression of expectations for performance in this class 4.74 ± 0.05 4.77 ± 0.04 0.34
Availability to assist students in or out of class 4.64 ± 0.05 4.77 ± 0.05 0.01
Respect and concern for students 4.87 ± 0.03 4.92 ± 0.03 0.15
Stimulation of interest in the course 4.84 ± 0.04 4.87 ± 0.03 0.18
Facilitation of learning 4.78 ± 0.04 4.78 ± 0.06 0.48
Enthusiasm for the subject 4.89 ± 0.03 4.94 ± 0.03 0.18
Encouragement of independent, creative, and critical thinking 4.65 ± 0.06 4.81 ± 0.04 0.02
Amount learned 4.44 ± 0.05 4.56 ± 0.04 0.01
Overall rating of the instructor 4.85 ± 0.04 4.87 ± 0.04 0.40

9. Mortensen and Nicholson3730
In his description of Digital Natives and Immigrants,
Prensky (2001) stated that Digital Immigrants think that
learning ca not or should not be fun. In our experience,
gamification enhanced student retention of the material
covered and also enhanced the student experience in the
flipped course. Students rated games as a wise use of
class time and agreed that they helped them better pre­
pare for exams. Our results are in agreement with some
studies showing a positive improvement in student
learning and motivation with gamification in the class­
room (Prensky, 2001; Hamari et al., 2014). However,
Hanus and Fox (2015) recently reported students in a
gamified course had less motivation and lower final
exam scores. We found that restricting gaming activ­
ity to only select scheduled meeting times and using
the gaming elements as described here, particularly as
exam review, enhanced the student learning experience.
When evaluating student use of the online material
in the flipped classroom, students’ interactions with
the course management system, Sakai in this study,
increased dramatically. Previous use of the course
management system for this course was restricted to
reminders and for posting of grades. In the flipped
course, students had access to lectures, supplemental
information, online quizzes, online games, discussion
boards, and other useful information. The increase
from the traditional lecture course of a mean of 47
times per student per semester to a mean of 4,369
times per student per semester in the flipped version of
the course suggests greater engagement in the course
material outside of scheduled lecture times. During
scheduled lecture times, we observed that in-class
activities dramatically increased the level of individ­
ual student engagement, oftentimes forcing passive
students to actively participate. This is important, as
Carini et al. (2006) stated student engagement is gen­
erally considered to be a better predictor of learning
and personal development. Furthermore, the authors
stated that the more students study or practice a sub­
ject, the more they learn about it. In their review of the
2008 National Survey of Student Engagement, Pike et
al. (2012) reported survey results demonstrated that
the level of student engagement in a particular disci­
pline was significantly related to learning outcomes.
That is, when students are engaged at a higher level,
learning increases. This is in agreement with Carini
et al. (2006). Clearly, results from this study demon­
strated that the flipped classroom increased student
engagement in and outside the classroom and can help
explain the greater learning we report here.
In our review of lectures viewed, on average stu­
dents viewed individual lectures 1.22 times. While the
highest viewership was seen in our first 2 lectures, this
may be more related to students adapting to the learn­
ing environment than content. We found no correla­
tions with viewership of lectures, or a group of lec­
tures, and exam scores. Yet, it is interesting from our
results that a correlation was found in the length of a
video lecture and the number of times that lecture was
viewed. This could mean that students only watched
part of the lecture, saving time later to finish watching
and thus recording in our system as another view, or
students had to watch the lecture again to absorb the
material presented. Research has shown the average
attention spans of today’s students range from 10 to
15 min (McLaughlin et al., 2014) and was one rea­
son we kept recorded lectures less than 20 min. Our
average lecture length was approximately 11 min. It
is possible that longer recorded lectures may result
in students having to watch them again to master the
material. However, from our survey results, students
indicated that they rarely watched lectures more than
1 time, and thus we recognize the need for further ex­
ploration of students lecture viewing habits.
In conclusion, the flipped classroom is one mod­
ern approach to adapt to our rapidly changing soci­
ety in the Information Age. Observed increased exam
scores, increased critical thinking, and positive opin­
ions of the course all suggest the flipped classroom
is one new approach to teaching that Animal Science
students embrace. While flipping any course takes
careful planning and considerable time, the benefits to
the students more than justify these efforts.
LITERATURE CITED
Association of American Colleges and Universities. 2005. Liberal
education outcomes: A preliminary report on student achieve­
ment in college. AAC&U, Washington, DC.
Bishop, J. L., and M. A. Verleger. 2013. The flipped classroom: A
survey of the research. In: ASEE Natl. Conf. Proc., Atlanta,
GA. ASEE, Washington, DC.
Brockliss, L. 1996. A history of the university in Europe. Vol. II.
Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.
Burgan, M. 2006. In defense of lecturing. Change 38:30–34.
Carini, R. M., G. D. Kuh, and S. P. Klein. 2006. Student engage­
ment and student learning: Testing the linkages. Res. Higher
Educ. 47:1–32.
Day, J., and J. Foley. 2006. Evaluating web lectures: A case study
from HCI. In: Proc. CHI, Montreal, Canada. ACM, New
York. p. 195–200.
DeBard, R. 2004. Millennials coming to college. New directions
for student services. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. p. 33–45.
Dobson, J. L. 2009. Learning style preferences and course perfor­
mance in an undergraduate physiology class. Adv. Physiol.
Educ. 33:308–314.
Dyer, J. E., and E. Osborne. 1996. Effects of teaching approach on
achievement in agricultural education students with varying
learning styles. J. Agric. Educ. 37:43–51.
Ennis, R. H., J. Millman, and T. N. Tomko. 2005. Cornell critical
thinking tests. 5th ed. The Critical Thinking Co., Seaside, CA.

10. Flipped classroom stimulates greater learning 3731
Freeman,S.,S.L.Eddy,M.McDonough,M.K.Smith,N.Okoroafor,
H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth. 2014.Active learning increases
student performance in science, engineering and mathematics.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 111:8410–8415.
Garton, B. L., J. N. Spain, W. R. Lamberson, and D. E. Spiers.
1999. Learning styles, teaching performance, and student
achievement: A relational study. J. Agric. Educ. 40:11–20.
doi:10.5032/jae.1999.03011.
Gokhale, A. A. 1995. Collaborative learning enhances critical
thinking. J. Tech. Educ. 7:22–30.
Hamari, J., J. Koivisto, and H. Sarsa. 2014. Does gamification
work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamifica­
tion. In: Proc. 47th Hawaii Intern. Conf. Syst. Sci., Hilton
Waikoloa, Big Island, HI. p. 3025–3034.
Hanus, M. D., and J. Fox. 2015. Assessing the effect of gamifica­
tion in the classroom: Longitudinal study on intrinsic moti­
vation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort and academic
performance. Comp. Educ. 80:152–161.
Hawk, T. F., and A. J. Shah. 2007. Using learning style instru­
ments to enhance student learning. J. Innov. Educ. 5:1–19.
Kim, K., P. Sharma, S. M. Land, and K. P. Furlong. 2013. Effects of
active learning on enhancing student critical thinking in an under­
graduate general science course. Innov. High. Educ. 38:223–235.
Kolb, A. Y., and D. A. Kolb. 2012. Experiential learning theory.
Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. Springer, New
York. p. 1215–1219.
McInerney, M. J., and L. D. Fink. 2003. Team-based learning enhanc­
es long-term retention and critical thinking in an undergraduate
microbial physiology course. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 4:3–12.
McLaughlin, J. E., M. T. Roth, D. M. Glatt, N. Gharkholonarehe,
C. A. Davidson, L. M. Griffin, D. A. Esserman, and R. J.
Mumper. 2014. The flipped classroom: A course redesign
to foster learning and engagement in a health professions
school. Acad. Med. 89:236–243.
Missildine, K., R. Fountain, L. Summers, and K. Gosselin. 2013.
Flipping the classroom to improve student performance and
satisfaction. J. Nurs. Educ. 52:597–599.
Mitra, S. 2013. Build a school in the cloud. In: Proc. TED Conf.
2013, Long Beach, CA.
Moravec, M., A. Williams, N. Aguilar-Roca, and D. K. O’Dowd.
2010. Learn before lecture: A strategy that improves learning
outcomes in a large introductory biology class. CBE Life Sci.
Educ. 9:473–481.
Mortensen, C. J., A. C. Thoron, and J. K. Miot. 2015. Current
learning styles of undergraduate animal-studies students in a
2-year and 4-year degree program. NACTA 59:75–80.
Ozturk, C., G. K. Muslu, and A. Dicle. 2008. A comparison of
problem-based and traditional education on nursing students’
critical thinking dispositions. Nurse Educ. Today 28:627–632.
Pike, G. R., J. C. Smart, and A. Ethington. 2012. The mediating
effects of student engagement on the relationships between
academic disciplines and learning outcomes: An extension of
Holland’s theory. Res. Higher Educ. 53:550–575.
Prensky, M. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On
Horiz. 9:1–6.
Prince, M. 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the re­
search. J. Eng. Educ. 93:223–231.
Roach, T. 2014. Student perceptions toward flipped learning: New
methods to increase interaction and active learning in eco­
nomics. Int. Rev. Econ. Educ. 17:74–84.
Roehl, A., S. L. Reddy, and G. J. Shannon. 2013. The flipped class­
room: An opportunity to engage millennial students through
active learning strategies. J. Fam. Consum. Sci. 105:44–49.
Seddon, G. M. 1978. The properties of Bloom’s taxonomy of edu­
cational objectives for the cognitive domain. Rev. Educ. Res.
48:303–323.
Thomas, L., M. Ratcliffe, J. Woodburry, and E. Jarman. 2002.
Learning style performance in the introductory programming
sequence. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 34:33–37.
Tiwari, A., P. Lai, M. So, and K. Yuen. 2006. A comparison of the
effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the devel­
opment of students’critical thinking. Med. Educ. 40:547–554.
Tune, J. D., M. Sturek, and D. P. Basile. 2013. Flipped classroom model
improves graduate student performance in cardiovascular, respira­
tory and renal physiology.Adv. Physiol. Educ. 37:316–320.
Watson, S. L., and C. M. Reigeluth. 2008. The learner-centered
paradigm of education. Educ. Technol. 48:42–48.
Zappe, S., R. Leicht, J. Messner, T. Litzinger, and H. Lee. 2009.
Flipping the classroom to explore active learning in a large
undergraduate course. Proc. 2009 Amer. Soc. Engin. Educ.
Annu.Conf., Austin, TX.