The Flipped Classroom Optimized Through Gamification and Team-Based Learning

1.1 The Flipped Classroom as a Means of Merging Active Teaching Methodologies

The FC is an active teaching and learning methodology, within the scope of b-learning, which has in all its techniques, a series of procedures that were implemented gradually and empirically over time (Moran & Milsom, 2015) from 1990, through the implementation of specific and dispersed practices, which even at the time had other names such as inverted classroom.

Therefore, in this period, there was not exactly a defined model of FC, but a set of active teaching techniques involving digital and classroom and distance teaching that aimed in some way to optimize students’ learning, not only in the presence of the professor in the classroom but also at the time of homework and individual study of students.

However, from the year 2006, Bergmann and Sams (2012), two professors of K12 in the United States, began the process of implementation of FC, consolidating the active techniques of inverted classroom with digital, forming a new active methodology under the name of FC that eventually gained relevance in the academic environment, resulting in a reference book, which we present in Table 1, an example of the applicability of FC compared to the traditional classroom model of teaching.

When analysing Table 1, we can verify a significant change in the dynamics of the classes, the most notorious of which in the F2F class is the elimination of the presentation of the contents of the subject by the professor who begins to concentrate F2F classes on practical and/or laboratory activities that direct learning in the sense of knowing-how. In this context, the presentation of the content is directed to the asynchronous e-learning study, in which the student studies the contents of the subject, performs previous activities, and assists in his home or elsewhere that has a computer with Internet access, to the videos recorded and made available by the professor in VLE, before the meeting in F2F class (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Bergmann, Overmyer, & Wilie, 2013; Lopes et al., 2019).

The implementation of FC will require students to increase their role in the teaching and learning process because the effectiveness in implementing the methodology will depend on the initiative of the students to study and is prepared in advance for the F2F class that will take place later, at risk of invalidating the application of FC by the professor, if the students are not mature enough to realize the importance of preparation in the e-learning study (Singh, Jacob-John, Nagpal, & Inglis, 2021).

On the other hand, the motivation of students for e-learning studies involves not only issues related to digital literacy but also by the attractiveness of the content available in VLE, so that students feel instigated to study, and this aspect is related to professor’s ability to prepare diverse contents such as videos, texts, and games (Sailer & Sailer, 2021). Within the context of e-learning, the use of techniques derived from the active gamification methodology may be a way to make the contents more interesting and appealing to students, and in this context, we can already observe the first opportunity to merge active teaching techniques of different methodologies, seeking to increase the efficiency of the teaching and learning process.

Morais et al. (2021b) conducted a case study with students, which demonstrated that the use of educational games promotes a greater interest of students in studying the contents of the subject, in addition to making the educational process more dynamic by being connected with the use of digital tools, e.g., Kahoot!, Quizizz, Nearpod, and Socrative, that can be implemented in e-learning and F2F classes.

However, it is not enough to implement digital tools if there is no prior planning of the classes, such as a conscious division of the contents (Lopes et al., 2019), so that the level of difficulty and the guiding thread of the themes are properly balanced and strategically divided, so that in FC, students can comply with the proposed activities in e-learning regime and consequently continue in the F2F class. Therefore, this activity of responsibility of the professor will require this strategic planning and in some cases the study and learning of various digital resources, which can be a demotivating aspect for some professors with a lower degree of digital literacy.

Lopes, Gouveia, and da Cunha Reis (2020) propose a new implementation model called “MaCAIES,” which presents some guiding phases of the e-learning and F2F class preparation process that can facilitate the strategic process of dividing the contents of the subject, division of times, level of requirement in e-learning and F2F classes and types of activities, involving the problem-based learning (PBL) and TBL methodology, among other techniques, organized in four phases called: (i) preparation; (ii) pre-class e-learning; (iii) classroom class; and (iv) classroom post-class, being possible to observe in the model the proposal of use of techniques derived from various methodologies, which can be a starting point and a facilitator in the FC implementation process, with techniques departing from other active teaching and learning methodologies.

Despite the implementation of the active FC methodology in conjunction with the PBL, TBL, and gamification, boosting the involvement of students in their own teaching and learning process, challenges can occur in the implementation, and we observe a popularization of the active methodology in university education (Jung, Park, Kim, & Park, 2022; Luong, Falkenberg, & Rahimian, 2021), and many students tend to feel more comfortable with traditional classes made by lectures in which students adopt a more passive posture.

However, it is observed in experiments carried out with the implementation of FC that from the moment students assimilate the FC processes, in many cases, they come to like the methodology, reporting that they feel more prepared for evaluations because they were taking advantage of the time of the F2F classes to practice more intensely with laboratory activities and practices (Mason & Gayton, 2022).

The implementation of FC mixed with other active methodologies occurs in all scientific areas, e.g., in the health area, more specifically in psychopathology, in which Van Beek (2021) presents us with a study conducted with psychology students, who demonstrate to have obtained a better understanding of the contents and objectives intended with their learning in the classes in which the professor used FC and TBL. The students reported that the fact that there was greater interactivity with the professor and classmates increased the level of understanding and managed to have better efficiency and effectiveness in their learning process.

In the scientific literature, we can verify that the implementation of FC, either individually or in conjunction with other active methodologies, has been increasing in popularity, especially in high school and higher education (Galindo-Dominguez, 2021), demonstrating a greater engagement of students, with increased motivation, cooperation between students, and a feeling of self-efficacy.

However, active methodologies are highly dependent on the level of maturity of students and the commitment of professors to plan and develop correctly sized content, either in quantity or in complexity, which will require a curve of professor learning, planning, and experimentation within the scientific area in which they teach, in view of the feedback of students in the performance demonstrated (Cho, Zhao, Lee, Runshe, & Krousgrill, 2021).

The FC, together with the active teaching methodologies, tends to improve the performance of students in their learning process (Lopes, Gouveia, & Reis, 2021; Torres-Martín, Acal, El-Homrani, & Mingorance-Estrada, 2022), but it is highly dependent on the level of maturity and the engagement of students and professors to achieve pedagogical objectives, requiring a learning curve and change of academic culture and practice.

1.2 The Gamification in Online Classes

Gamification is a concept known for more than 10 years that started to be around in social media and research papers in 2010 (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017). The concept was defined by Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, and Nacke (2011) as “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts.” Game design elements like points, badges, leaderboards, rewards systems, levels, or progressive disclosure of contents can be used in contexts not related to games to get participants to achieve the same levels of engagement and motivation found in videogame players. Gamification research focused on how game features can be employed in nongame contexts to reach these goals (Chans & Castro, 2021).

Education is a main nongame context where gamification has been applied with a significant potential for further research, especially regarding its impact on learners’ motivation and enjoyment (Sailer & Homner, 2020; Trinidad, Ruiz & Calderón, 2021). Students’ engagement is considered an essential attribute to influence students’ achievement (Raju, Bhat, Bhat, D’Souza, & Singh, 2021). This importance was early highlighted by Lee and Hammer (2011) who introduced gamification as an alternative approach to game-based learning and a way to improve students’ motivation and engagement. Gamification in learning environments mainly has the support of digital platforms and tools and became a strategy used in online learning (Chans & Castro, 2021). It is also possible to find education-specific gamification platforms (Dicheva, Irwin, & Dichev, 2017).

Gamification in educational contexts is not the same as game-based learning or serious games. Game-based learning is the use, for educational purposes, of videogames, built without any pedagogical or learning objectives, and serious games are games built with a learning purpose. Whatever the context, gamification just uses elements and techniques extracted from games but not fully fledged games.

Although some authors claim for more empirical research (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Dicheva, Dichev, Agre, & Angelova, 2015; Khalil, Wong, de Koning, Ebner, & Paas, 2018; Manzano-León et al., 2021) and for improved methodological rigor (Rapp, Hopfgartner, Hamari, Linehan, & Cena, 2019; Sailer & Homner, 2020; Sailer & Sailer, 2021), positive results concerning students’ motivation and engagement have been found (Dicheva et al., 2017). A meta-analysis conducted by Sailer and Homner (2020) showed that gamification can be an effective approach in learning contexts. Manzano-León et al. (2021) showed, by a systematic literature review, that gamification can be a valid learning strategy at different educational levels, affecting students’ performance, engagement, and motivation.

Also, Trinidad et al. (2021) pointed to an increase in the number of literature reviews summarizing the knowledge in gamification. These literature reviews showed that gamification has been applied at different educational levels, from primary school to higher education. More recently, Chen and Liang (2022) built a theoretical model to evaluate how gamification influences students’ study engagement. They applied questionnaire surveys to 187 university-level students in China to find that gamification influences students’ study engagement through the indirect effects of enjoyment and self-efficacy.

Online classes, far from being a novelty, were massively used in the late years due to the COVID-19 pandemic involving from younger students to higher education students. COVID-19 brought new challenges to education without professors and schools being prepared for it. With most face-to-face classes being replaced by online classes, almost all around the world, these challenges also created opportunities. Although now schools are mostly returning to a learning set prior to the pandemic, the advantages of online classes were noted by professors and schools’ staff.

The number of classes being shifted online is increasing regarding the pre-pandemic situation. But, as Raju et al. (2021) pointed, dealing with students’ engagement and motivation is a critical factor in online classes that needs to be considered. Online learning is still regarded as being less engaging than face-to-face classes (Bai, Hew, Gonda, Huang, & Liang, 2022). Most learners and instructors experienced stress while transitioning from face-to-face classes to online classes (Park & Kim, 2021).

To deal with these drawbacks, simple issues like motivating students to turn on their video cameras during online classes and why that is important have been addressed and strategies have been proposed (Castelli & Sarvary, 2021). Duggal, Singh, and Gupta (2021), during the COVID-19 pandemic, also found that online activities required more engagement, self-regulation, and interest from students. Technology powered by gamification strategies can improve motivation and engagement in online education.

Chans and Castro (2021) conducted a gamification experience with engineering students in online classes that showed that their autonomy and engagement was reinforced. Miškov (2021) presented preliminary research focused on the possibilities of implementing game elements into e-learning at university. Students were asked about the potential of using game elements in e-learning and about what motivates them to study online. Game elements were mentioned by 51.1% of the students as a driver for their motivation to attend online classes.

A study conducted by Raju et al. (2021) during COVID-19 lockdown used Google Classroom, social media tools like WhatsApp and Telegram, and online meeting platforms like Zoom, to allow a group of 56 post-graduate students to attend online classes. Their research showed that students were more motivated using a game-based learning platform, bringing competition among the students.

Portela (2022) presents the results of an experience with the TeachTeach paradigm that uses blended-learning, gamification, soft-skills, quiz and surveys, FC, and project base learning to create a learning environment for students. A case study was performed in a programming course online classes in the 2020/2021 academic year. In this study, 85% of the students classified the gamification approach as good or excellent. Regarding online classes, 60% of the students said they liked to attend these classes. They also considered TeachTeach ready or adapted to classes 100% online. Almost all students (98.15%) completed the course successfully. According to its author, one of the main contributions of this study was a detailed explanation of how gamification can be used and applied in online classes.

Bai et al. (2022) found that, by introducing the element of fantasy, students’ engagement can be increased. Their study aimed to enhance student behavioural engagement in online discussion forums in a gamified learning experience (at the university level in the 2020/2021 academic year, within COVID-19 pandemic). As students gradually lost interest and their participation in online discussions dropped after a few weeks, the new element, fantasy, was introduced into the original model. This new approach could better promote students’ engagement.

Fantasy can be seen as an environment that “evokes mental images of physical or social situations not actually present” (Malone & Lepper, cited by Bai et al., 2022). These authors also suggested that “embedding educational activities into a fantasy context enhances students learning motivation and engagement.” Bai et al. (2022) concluded that the inclusion of fantasy into gamification promotes student learning and improves the quality of online interaction.

The effect that gamified online learning has been investigated not only at the university level but also with younger students. Park and Kim (2021) conducted a study with 140 elementary and middle school students who suggested that gamified online learning has a positive impact on learner motivation and learning outcomes. Science Level, a platform used by public institutions in South Korea that offers gamified learning programs for science education for elementary, middle, and university students, was used in this study. It concludes that the platform affected positively learners’ motivation, self-efficacy, self-determination, career motivation, grade motivation, and understanding.

Several models and frameworks have been proposed to deal with gamification in online learning scenarios. The Octalysis framework (Chou, 2015) defines a set of eight fundamental behavioural motivators (core drives) that influence human activities. These core drives, presented in the form of an octagonal graph, can be drawn with an online tool (https://yukaichou.com/octalysis-tool/).

From this set of motivators, game elements that best enhance these motivators can be identified. The framework can, for a given application or system, identify the strongest and weakest behaviour motivators giving hints for the designers to act on them. Marisa et al. (2020) used the Octalysis framework to measure and evaluate students’ core drives in an online learning system.

This study, taken during COVID-19 pandemic, provided recommendations to optimize the development of online learning systems. Diena, Dian, Yana, Novian, and Muhammad (2021) also applied the Octalysis framework in Kahoot!, a game-based application, considered in this study as a gamified learning platform. The study involved lecturers using Kahoot! in university courses. The Octalysis audit method applied to Kahoot! showed that this platform has a balance between positive and negative motivation and between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The study allowed the authors to state some recommendations regarding an optimized use of the platform. This shows that Octalysis can be a relevant tool for auditing gamified learning applications.

As recent research shows, gamification can improve students’ engagement and motivation in online classes. This is a relevant result since online classes are becoming more usual and hybrid learning is now a part of the learning set. This new reality made student engagement even more complex than before (Raju et al., 2021) forcing professors to find and use new approaches to deal with this issue.

Concerning the use of games and gamification within the FC approach, Smith, Legaki, and Hamari (2022) conducted a systematic review of the subject (including publications from 2015 to 2021) to conclude that games and gamification can have a positive effect on FC, with impact in academic achievement. Their study also reveals that gamification is more common in the FC in-class component compared to the out-of-class component.

The combination of the FC and TBL approaches with gamification can make an important contribution to rich and immersive online learning environments. It can also have a positive impact on students’ motivation and engagement with online classes. The FC approach, by itself, can even outperform gamified online classes, as the study by Ng and Lo (2022) reveals (the study was applied in adult education courses for business management during the pandemic). Therefore, it is expected that FC and gamification combined with TBL can impact online classes even more, leading to an increase in academic achievement.

1.3 Enhancing Face-to-Face Classes with the TBL Methodology

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic situation and the use of digital media that enabled non-F2F teaching, approaches were already being sought in teaching methodologies that could contribute to circumventing some of the rigidity of traditional teaching models that are based on the expository role to be played by the higher education professor, with students assuming a predominantly passive role in the pedagogical process (Oliveira, Lima, Rodrigues, & Pereira Júnior, 2018), and the term active methodologies appear in studies associated with concepts such as TBL, FC, and gamification (Lopes & Simões, 2022; Lopes et al., 2019, 2020).

In recent years, the search for active methodologies has intensified or is at least more active and capable of involving students in the teaching-learning process to make the process and transmission and acquisition of knowledge contained in the curricula more efficient. The set of methodological options goes in the direction of centring the teaching and learning processes on the student, and increasing their involvement (Becker & Lucas, 2021; Lourenço et al., 2022a,b; Morais et al., 2020, 2021c,d, 2022; Sá, Morais, & Almeida, 2021; Lopes & Simões, 2022), with the student himself/herself understood as a determining element in the whole process, on which he/she has a critical view, i.e. on which he/she can intervene (Espey, 2018).

The TBL is a collaborative approach to learning built-in groups, with the professor acting as a mediator in the whole process of transmission and creation of knowledge that is a sharing and a joint construction (Espinosa, Araujo, & Veit, 2019), which promotes students’ performance and self-efficacy (Zha, Wu, & Estis, 2021). Some allusions and studies refer to TBL as a community of practice, alluding to the notion of sharing, of shared construction of knowledge, a vision that is very appealing, for example in medical education (Burgess et al., 2019, Wu, Zha, Estis, & Li, 2022). TBL is a methodology that transforms small groups into “teams” (Burgess & Matar, 2020).

This approach can be used in a variety of settings, one of them being that of student adaptations to new challenges and is seen as a methodology for dealing with new and possibly more challenging situations by students, privileging small group teaching in a large group setting, as are the settings of classes with many students (Najdanovic-Visak, 2017).

We have already presented some contents that can bring us closer to understand what TBL is and that we can systematize as a specific structure of course design cut out seeking to promote active and collaborative learning, which combines individual involvement in team problem solving, improving students’ academic performance and self-efficacy. It is a special form of learning in which small groups are formed, and a specific sequence of individual work and group work is applied. Prompt feedback should be given to students to create a motivational framework, as students increasingly hold each other accountable for coming to class prepared and able to engage in an active role as contributors to the discussion of the content covered (Parrish, Guffey, Williams, Estis, & Lewis, 2021).

This active methodology implies that the course content is divided into specific sequenced elements, and students are assigned to permanent and diverse teams of five to seven students during the planned course, although later the number of teams may be contingent on the number of students in the course. TBL comprises a preparation phase in which students prepare autonomously by reading, watching videos, or doing activities, similar to what happens in FC. Then follows the preparation and readiness assurance process (RAP) including an assessment aligned to the preparation material and first taken as an individual (individual readiness assurance test [iRAT]).

Then this iRAT is repeated as a team (readiness assurance test [tRAT]), which must be followed by immediate feedback, appeals, and mini lecture conducted by an instructor. Students now have the basis set for engaging in the module to go through the application activities. These should be guided by a 4 S framework, i.e. focused on a meaningful problem; all teams are given the same problem; teams must make a specific choice to solve the problem; and team responses are revealed simultaneously Parrish et al., 2021.

A final phase of the learning process is application-oriented activities, which provide students with group application problem (GAP) tasks to deepen their understanding and to use the concepts to solve the problem(s) for discussion within the team and debate between teams (Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008). It is a characteristic of this active methodology that it allows students to apply knowledge to both individual and teamwork. Several studies prove that TBL is effective in higher education, reinforcing the growing movement towards the adoption of this methodology (Duffy, McCormack, O’Hanlon, & Seery, 2022) (Table 2).

Benefits of TBL methodology (Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008; Reimschisel, Herring, Huang, & Minor, 2017): application of knowledge; engaging students; developing thinking skills; enriching learning; fostering teamwork, driving learning behaviours. TBL is primarily delivered F2F, and some questions may arise regarding synchronous and asynchronous interactions, reiterating the role of the professor/instructor as a mediator of interactions, discussions, and clarifications of doubts. According to the existing literature, TBL online can be an effective alternative to F2F, although adjusting to the technology is time consuming (Parrish et al., 2021).

TBL has been used incrementally in medical school courses, but its use is typically limited to certain courses or parts of courses, highlighting some limitations of this methodology (Rajalingam, et al., 2018), specifically if we want to implement TBL on a large scale, across different courses and disciplines, as the next logical step.

The approach of TBL methodology to e-Learning or B-Learning concepts is seen by some studies as a modified TBL methodology (Albarrak, Zakaria, Almulhem, Khan, & Karim, 2021), warning about some technological limitations in human interaction and consequently in teaching and learning processes.

To be successful in terms of achieving objectives, the TBL methodology must be accompanied by determining factors, including “team-centeredness” learning spaces, to foster active, collaborative learning, include the existence of an e-learning ecosystem, accordingly integrated to support all phases of the TBL process, and mandatory, include teaching teams in which experts in pedagogical process – TBL facilitators – co-teach with experts in subject matter – content experts (Rajalingam et al., 2018). The facilitation of the discussions during the application sessions can be very challenging, concerning ensuring conciseness and depth in the contents addressed (Huijbregts et al, 2022). Studies show a positive influence on learning outcomes using TBL if instructional modules with contents concerning this methodology are shared with students involved in the process (Wu et al., 2022).