Online instruction is a growing field, but there are concerns about lack of student engagement with mastery of content. Researchers at a small, private, southern university were concerned about increasing student engagement with online course content. A synchronous interactive online tool (SIOT) was added to six sections of online graduate education courses. Data was collected and analyzed from the university administered end of the course survey questions asking students to rate their course learning. Student survey responses were compared from courses without a SIOT, courses where a SIOT was used for office hours, and courses where a SIOT was used for assignments. The differences in the question means from end of the course survey without the SIOT and those where the SIOT was used for office hours were not significant. However, when the SIOT was used to provide instruction related to student assignments, the data from the question responses were significantly more positive. Students 1) became more confident; 2) gained an excellent understanding of the concepts; 3) gained significant knowledge; 4) learned to analyze and critically evaluate; and 5) learned to apply course concepts to solve problems. Consequently it became evident that the implementation of the SIOT did not have a significant effect. The important component that impacted students’ perception of their content understanding was the way in which the SIOT was used within the online course.
Cite this paper
Carver, L. , Todd, C. , Hahn, K. & Mukherjee, K. (2013). Students’ Perceptions of the Effect of Flipping Online Classes Using a Synchronous Interactive Online Tool. Creative Education, 4, 126-129. doi: 10.4236/ce.2013.47A2015.
 Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
 Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2006). Making the grade: Online education in the United States, 2006. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
 Beard, L., & Harper, C. (2002). Student perceptions of online versus on campus instruction. Education, 122, 658-663.
 Beesley, A., & Apthorp, H. (2010). Classroom instruction that works (2nd Ed). Denver, CO: McRel.
 Goodman, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Evidence on flipped classrooms is still coming in. Educational Leadership, 70, 78-80.
 Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.
 Hirumi, A. (2002). The design and sequencing of E-learning interactions: A grounded approach. International Journal on E-learning, 1, 19-27.
 Ho, C., & Swan, K. (2007). Evaluating online conversation in an asyn chronous learning environment: An application of Grice’s coopera tive principle. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 3-14.
 Kester, L., Kirschner, P., & Corbalan, G. (2006). Designing support of facilitate learning in powerful electronic learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1047-1054.
 Murray, M., Perez, J., Geist, D., & Hedrick, A. (2012). Student interaction with online course content: Build it and they might come. Jour nal of Information Technology Education, 11, 125-140.
 Onweugbuzie, A., Witcher, A., Collins, K., Filer, J. Wiednaier, C., & Moore, C. (2007). Students’ perceptions of characteristics of effec tive college teachers: A validity study of a teaching evaluation form using a mixed-method analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 113-160. doi:10.3102/0002831206298169
 Sams, A., & Bergmann, J. (2013). Flip your students’ learning. Educational Leadership, 7, 16-20.
 Schwartzman, R. (2007). Electronifying oral communication: Refining the conceptual framework for online instruction. College Student Jour nal, 41, 37-49.
 Wanstreet, C. (2006). Interaction in online learning environments: A re view of the literature. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7, 399-411.
 Ward, M. E., Peters, G., & Shelley, K. (2010). Student and faculty per ceptions of the quality of online learning experiences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11, 57-77.