1

1 Article
2 The Effect of the Flipped Learning Approach on
3 Engineering Students' Technology Acceptance and
4 Self-Directed Learning Perception
5 Blerta Prevalla Etemi1*, Huseyin Uzunboylu 2, 3
*, Shpetim Latifi4 and Ulzharkyn
6 Аbdigapbarova3

7 1
Department of Computing and Information Technologies, Rochester Institute of Technology, Kosovo, Prishtina, Republic of
8 Kosovo
9 2
Higher Education Planning, Supervision, Accreditation and Coordination Board, Lefkosa, Turkey
10 3
Abai KazNPU, Almaty, Kazakhstan
11 4
Faculty of Computer Science, AAB College, Prishtina, Republic of Kosovo
12 * Correspondence: [email protected], [email protected]

13 Abstract: The contemporary landscape of education is witnessing a paradigm shift

14 towards innovative instructional methods, with the flipped learning approach gaining
15 considerable attention. The purpose of this research was to investigate the impact of
16 the flipped learning approach on students' perception and acceptance throughout an
17 entire semester in the 'Introduction to Programming with Java' course. The research
18 utilized a research design with a quantitative approach, ultimately aiming to inform
19 educational practice and advance our knowledge of innovative teaching methods in
20 higher education. This study was conducted at a university with 174 students
21 involved, divided into two groups, 87 students in the experimental group and 87
22 students in the control group. The data collected through the scales were analyzed
23 by using descriptive and inferential statistical analysis techniques in statistical
24 software. At the end of the measurements, the technology acceptance level and self-
25 directed learning perceptions of engineering students who received education with
26 Citation: To be added by flipped learning were high. The results suggest that educators should consider
27 editorial staff during students' readiness for self-directed learning when implementing the flipped learning
28 production. approach and focus on creating an environment that supports their autonomy and
29 Academic Editor: Firstname
engagement. This research offers valuable guidance for instructors, curriculum
30 Lastname designers, and educational policymakers seeking to enhance the effectiveness of
31 flipped learning in higher education courses.
Received: date
Revised: date
32 Keywords: Flipped learning; Self-Directed Learning; Engineering Education; Scale;
Accepted: date
33 Java; Perception
Published: date
34

Copyright: © 2023 by the

authors. Submitted for possible
open access publication under
the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/li
censes/by/4.0/).
2
3 Sustainability 2023, 15, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
 4 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 31
5

35 1. Introduction
36 In the realm of contemporary education, the rapid integration of
37 technology and the evolving landscape of online learning have catalyzed a
38 profound shift in pedagogical approaches fostering critical thinking,
39 adaptability, and lifelong learning skills essential for navigating an
40 increasingly dynamic and interconnected world [1]. Developing technology
41 has made information more accessible and has necessitated the delivery of
42 increasing quantities of information in accord with individuals’ learning
43 needs [2]. Besides this, the development of adaptive systems like flipped
44 learning that are shaped in time with the needs of individuals has gained
45 speed [3]. Flipped learning is a form of blended learning that has become a
46 prominent new instructional strategy and trend within the last ten years [5].
47 In the ever-evolving landscape of education, instructors and institutions
48 continually seek innovative pedagogical approaches that can engage and
49 empower students, fostering their academic growth and autonomy. Among
50 these approaches, the flipped learning model has emerged as a promising
51 strategy. The Flipped Learning approach, characterized by the inversion of
52 traditional classroom activities, offers students the opportunity to engage
53 with course content prior to class, enabling in-class time to be dedicated to
54 active learning, collaborative discussions, and problem-solving.
55 In a flipped setting, students learn new material outside the class via
56 online video lectures and make notes of questions or concerns they may
57 have, meaning, studying at home and the traditional ‘homework’ normally
58 done at home is then completed in the next class session where professors
59 can provide students with more collaboration, customized guidance, and
60 opportunities to apply what they learned in their homework [46]. However,
61 empowering and using flipped learning is not an easy job that can be simply
62 achieved through a combination of online learning and face-to-face problem-
63 solving activities. It requires a more sophisticated comprehension of
64 effective teaching methods to deal with the shift from traditional to flipped
65 learning and the ideal adjustment of technology as a feature of this change
66 [6].
67 The concept of Flipped Learning was popularized by Jonathan Bergmann
68 and Aaron Sams in their pioneering work with K-12 students [49]. It has
69 since garnered attention in higher education due to its potential to enhance
70 student engagement, improve learning outcomes, and foster self-directed
71 learning [54]. Flipped Learning hinges on the idea that students can benefit
72 from pre-class exposure to course materials, typically in the form of video
73 lectures or readings, allowing them to arrive in class better prepared to
74 explore, discuss, and apply these concepts [55].
75 Flipped classrooms help two-way communications between professors
76 and students. It improves the interpersonal and intrapersonal skills of the
77 students [42]. Utilizing the latest digital technology allows them to learn in
78 an improved way by having all the materials in their hands whenever and
79 wherever they want [4]. Methods that enable progressively active learning
80 for students are flipped classroom, think pair share, and peer instruction.
 6 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 31
7

81 Professors teaching engineering face the challenge of balancing

82 fundamental engineering theory with the knowledge of the tools needed to
83 perform these tasks. They are forced to teach the latest and greatest
84 software but never sacrifice the fundamentals and to increase class
85 enrollment and grow these programs, but growing programs lead to reduced
86 contact time between professor and students [11,13].
87 Flipped learning appears to be particularly well suited to engineering
88 education. Using different strategies like think – pair – share, peer –
89 instruction can be used to get the most from this approach considering
90 student perceptions towards technology. It can also be used to improve
91 teaching methodology and meet learning objectives more easily [14,15].
92 Engineering education faces the challenge of preparing students for a
93 rapidly evolving professional landscape that demands not only theoretical
94 knowledge but also practical skills and innovative thinking. It demands a
95 paradigm shift, necessitating an approach that fosters active learning,
96 critical thinking, and hands-on skills. Engineering involves applying
97 theoretical concepts to real-world challenges. By familiarizing themselves
98 with theoretical content beforehand, students are better prepared to delve
99 deeper into practical applications during class. This approach emphasizes
100 the relevance of theory to real engineering problems, fostering a deeper
101 understanding. The flipped learning model mimics the self-directed learning
102 and teamwork prevalent in the engineering workplace. Embracing this
103 approach equips students with the self-learning abilities and collaborative
104 skills they will require in their future careers.
105 Numerous schools and universities adopted the flipped learning model
106 as it provides opportunities for expanded peer communication and deeper
107 engagement with the material. Therefore, it is time to analyze and
108 synthesize research findings to describe the current state of knowledge and
109 inform future research and development efforts [16,17]. This method has
110 proven to be a compelling methodology that improves critical thinking skills
111 and has a positive impact on the performance of students in higher
112 education.
113 The concept of ‘flipping the classroom’ was initially presented using
114 web-based learning management tools; and around the same time, Lage,
115 Platt, and Treglia [18] highlighted the negative impacts of the presumed gap
116 between existing teaching and students’ learning styles. Flipped learning
117 gained its popularity when Bergmann and Sams [19], habitually cited as the
118 pioneers of the application of the idea of flipped learning, began to apply this
119 reversed classroom by recording live classes, lectures, demonstrations, and
120 presentations with annotated slides, so students would not miss any lecture
121 and had their ultimate success.
122 Even though the concept of the flipped classroom is not new, there have
123 been few research and publications in recent years that support this study
124 [21]. In many studies related to flipped learning, there is no clear conclusion
125 that flipped learning outperforms traditional learning. Even though some
126 positive results favor flipped learning over traditional learning, there are still
 8 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 31
9

127 many factors that should be taken into consideration to make this conclusion
128 definitive.
129 Over the last few years, the psychosocial aspect of the classroom has
130 gained significant attention focusing on the importance of creating a positive
131 classroom environment for the cognitive and affective development of
132 students [20].
133 Therefore, it is imperative to conduct research on the psychosocial
134 aspects of classroom environments in both flipped learning and traditional
135 classroom settings. This investigation aims to comprehensively grasp the
136 perceptions of students, instructors, and instructional design, allowing for a
137 more thorough understanding and effective design of educational
138 experiences. [22,23].
139 As expressed in the literature flipped learning is an instructional
140 methodology that creates a dynamic and interactive learning environment. It
141 has been utilized in courses to provide students more time for doing their
142 work under instructor supervision during in-class learning [24,25]. The
143 outcomes show that this approach has a positive impact on students'
144 understanding and practical skills [26]. Moreover, data demonstrated that
145 while students reported a high level of commitment with the video
146 recordings and believed that they supported their learning, opinions were
147 divided as to whether a flipped learning classroom was favored over
148 traditional lectures.
149 Furthermore, our reflections on how students engaged with the dynamic
150 learning strategies revealed that significant time was required at the
151 beginning of class to review key concepts, as students seemed hesitant to
152 connect independently with the planned activities–especially those that
153 included more challenging science concepts [27]. Taking these findings into
154 consideration, Tomas [26], proposed a flipped learning continuum that
155 encourages different levels of student-focused learning and autonomy, upon
156 students’ learning needs and their preparation for a flipped learning
157 approach.
158 According to the authors who have published more articles on this topic,
159 for example, here are three possible directions for future investigations of
160 this instructional methodology, including: longitudinal examinations,
161 studying its impact on different learning objectives, and incorporating
162 gamification into the flipped classroom [28]. A descriptive framework for
163 flipped classroom interventions is then proposed, comprising of four
164 dimensions: research background, course design, course exercises, and
165 result of interventions [29].
166 In summary, flipped learning represents a pivotal departure from
167 traditional educational methodologies, offering a transformative paradigm
168 that not only adapts to the evolving technological landscape but also fosters
169 a more engaged, participatory, and personalized learning experience for
170 students in higher education.
171
172 1.1 Flipped Learning and Technology Acceptance
 10 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 31
11

173 The acceptance and integration of technology play a pivotal role in the
174 success of Flipped Learning in higher education. Researchers have adapted
175 technology acceptance models to study how students perceive and embrace
176 the technological aspects of the Flipped Learning approach. One such model
177 is the Flipped Learning Technology Acceptance Model (FLTAM) (51). FLTAM
178 posits that students' perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of
179 technology impact their behavioral intention to use it, ultimately influencing
180 their acceptance of the Flipped Learning approach. Empirical studies have
181 validated FLTAM's relevance in understanding students' technology
182 acceptance in the context of Flipped Learning [48].
183 The FLTAM scale, which stands for Facilitating Conditions, Learning,
184 Teaching, Administration, and Management, is an adaptation of Davis's 1989
185 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Five fundamental elements that are
186 thought to affect students' acceptance of technology in the classroom are
187 included in the FLTAM scale. These elements are: 1. Perceived Ease of Use,
188 2. Perceived Usefulness, 3. Attitude Toward Usage, 4. Behavioral Intention,
189 and 5. Job Relevance. Users' acceptance and usage of technology in learning
190 environments is largely determined by each of these aspects [72]. For
191 instance, people are more likely to see technology favorably and plan to use
192 it in the future if they believe it is user-friendly and will improve their
193 performance. However, users are less likely to have a good attitude about
194 using technology and to plan to use it in the future if they believe it is hard to
195 use and irrelevant to their line of work.
196 Using an extension of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM2), Doo &
197 Bonk examined the effects of social influence mechanisms (i.e., subjective
198 norm, image, and voluntariness) on students' perceptions of the value of
199 flipped learning and their desire to enroll in it. A total of 306 undergraduates
200 who were enrolled in flipped courses participated in the study. The main
201 research findings indicated that perceived utility and the intention to enroll
202 in flipped classes were influenced by the subjective norm. However,
203 perception of usefulness and intention to enroll in flipped classes were not
204 affected by image [57]. Additionally, the TAM questionnaire, in line with
205 Makruf et al.'s research [58], revealed that a majority of students
206 appreciated the instructional activities in the flipped learning environment
207 and held a favorable opinion of Google Classroom as an online language
208 learning tool. In conclusion, it is important to note that using Google
209 Classroom for flipped learning has proven to be a successful strategy for
210 enhancing the pragmatic ability of English language learners. Using the
211 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as their research methodology,
212 Khlaisang et al. investigated the variables influencing university students'
213 intentions to utilize smart applications in flipped learning (FL) within
214 Thailand's flipped classrooms (FC). Their study presented results that both
215 aligned with and contradicted earlier research, thus contributing to the
216 existing body of knowledge on technology acceptance theories. This research
217 has enhanced our understanding of FC/FL in the Thai context and may offer
218 valuable ifnsights to educators and policymakers at the national and local
 12 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 31
13

219 levels regarding university students' perceptions of the technological

220 advancements used in higher education [59].
221 According to Do et al.'s [60] investigation, students' perceived utility and
222 intention to use flipped learning were found to be influenced by cognitive
223 instrumental processes, specifically relevance for learning, quality of
224 learning outcomes, and result demonstrability. In this study, an adapted
225 version of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM2) was employed. Notably,
226 neither the intention to adopt flipped learning nor the perceived utility were
227 affected by the demonstrability of the results. According to Hsieh et al. [61],
228 there is a lack of research on mobile-based inverted temperature in
229 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) sections that describe various
230 proficiency levels in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) setting. Their
231 study aimed to provide critical analyses of the dynamics associated with the
232 adoption of technology by English language learners. While they observed
233 differences in the construct relationships among students of varying
234 proficiency levels, the results demonstrated that the mobile-based flipped
235 instruction approach had a positive impact compared to the traditional
236 lecture-based approach. Furthermore, they found that learners' subsequent
237 behavioral intention to accept the integration of such technology in language
238 learning was influenced by their attitude towards the use of LINE.
239 Galatsopoulou et al. [62] conducted a study with the goal of assessing
240 students' feelings about the usage of videos in their classes. Videos have
241 been utilized by students in various learning contexts, including flipped
242 learning, blended learning, and independent, self-paced learning settings. To
243 establish causal relationships, the researchers examined perceptions using
244 an expanded version of the Technology Acceptance Model, which includes
245 additional factors such as self-efficacy, perceived enjoyment, satisfaction,
246 attitude, and intention to use. The results indicated that students held
247 favorable opinions about the use of videos, and there was a significant
248 correlation between all the mentioned characteristics and the intention to
249 use.
250 Dianati et al. [63] employed the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to
251 assess three distinct web-based tools with the aim of gaining insights into
252 how university students perceived the use of technology in flipped
253 classrooms. These tools encompassed an annotation tool (Cirrus), a live
254 polling platform (Kahoot!), and a collaborative canvas tool (Padlet). Based on
255 the findings from focus group interviews, the majority of students expressed
256 positive opinions regarding these three technological tools under
257 investigation. Nevertheless, the results indicated that students' perceptions
258 of these tools were inconsistent when assessed through the TAM model,
259 which relies on two indices: perceived ease of use and utility. At the end of
260 his research, As a result of his research, Alyoussef [76] suggested that
261 students in higher education should be educated about the various benefits
262 of technology use and encouraged to use flipped classrooms by providing
263 them with course materials or other learning objectives related to the
264 sustainability of long-term education.
265
 14 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 31
15

266 1.2 Self-Directed Learning in Flipped Learning

267 The current theories of learning acknowledge that the learner plays a
268 role in the process of acquiring new knowledge and abilities. The student
269 interacts with his surroundings to gain information and skills [73]. They use
270 their skills for self-directed learning to carry out this process. A study
271 revealed that the sustainability of self-directed learning skills is questionable
272 if students' beliefs in the approach do not support the activities used during
273 the teaching and learning process [77]. Therefore, to ensure sustainability,
274 the application of new technological approaches such as flipped learning in
275 teaching and learning processes can make significant contributions.
276 A fundamental principle of Flipped Learning is the promotion of self-
277 directed learning (SDL), where students take responsibility for their own
278 learning [49]. SDL is closely associated with learners' readiness to engage in
279 autonomous learning activities. Various tools have been employed to assess
280 students' readiness for SDL [52]. Studies indicate that students with higher
281 SDL readiness are more likely to adapt readily to Flipped Learning. They
282 possess the intrinsic motivation and self-discipline necessary for pre-class
283 preparation and active participation during in-class activities [50], [54].
284 Chry et al. investigated the impact of flipped learning (FL) and online
285 academic help-seeking (OAHS) on students' participation, self-efficacy, and
286 capacity for self-directed learning. The study revealed that students'
287 development in terms of participation, self-efficacy, and self-directed
288 learning could benefit from the use of flipped learning alone. However,
289 students who received traditional instruction in a blended learning
290 environment did not exhibit significant growth in terms of engagement, self-
291 efficacy, or self-directed learning. The authors recommended further
292 discussions regarding the implications for academics, educators, and
293 institutions utilizing online learning [65].
294 Hoa gathered students' opinions on flipped classrooms and assessed
295 their level of preparedness. Surveys were administered in two flipped
296 classrooms with the same teacher after implementing the flipped learning
297 approach for an entire semester. Students specifically favored the "Bring
298 Your Own Device" and "Instant Response System" aspects of the flipped
299 classroom. While only 39% of respondents believed that flipped classrooms
300 completely matched their learning needs, over 60% expressed agreement
301 with the concept of flipped classrooms. It's worth noting that male and junior
302 students felt more prepared for flipped learning compared to freshmen, with
303 their preparation ratings for this teaching method being slightly above
304 average [66].
305 In this study, Koh et al. investigated whether flipped learning, which
306 combines in-class activities with self-directed pre-class learning, could
307 address these instructional challenges. Flipped learning provides students
308 with more real-world opportunities to develop intercultural communication
309 skills. These educational opportunities serve as a model for how students can
310 independently manage their cultural competency development throughout
311 their careers [67].
 16 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 31
17

312 Numerous research studies in the field of health sciences education have
313 emerged as a result of searches for "flipped learning" and "self-directed
314 learning" on the Web of Science platform. Here are a few condensed
315 summaries of these studies:
316 One study examined how flipped learning impacted self-directed learning
317 and blood pressure knowledge among first-year nursing students. The
318 posttest scores for self-directed learning and its subscales, including "self-
319 monitoring," "motivation," and "self-confidence," were significantly higher
320 than the pretest scores [64].
321 Cho and Kim's study aimed to compare the outcomes and key variables
322 related to the instruction of nursing students in clinical nursing practicums
323 in Korea, using flipped learning approaches. The results indicated that the
324 teacher-student interactions in the flipped-mastery classroom model group
325 were significantly higher both before and after the intervention. However,
326 self-directed learning preparedness decreased after the intervention,
327 although it declined less in the group using the flipped mastery classroom
328 paradigm [68].
329 In addition to the aforementioned research, other investigations have
330 also been conducted, including "Flipped Learning in Disaster Triage:
331 Polarizing Medical Student Attainment" by Monaghan et al. [69], as well as
332 studies by Gu et al. [70] and Zhong et al. [71] titled "Combination of Flipped
333 Learning Format and Virtual Simulation to Enhance Emergency Response
334 Ability for Newly Registered Nurses: A Quasi-Experimental Design" and
335 "Factors Affecting the Academic Achievement of Nursing College Students in
336 a Flipped Learning Simulation Practice."
337 When summarizing the evolution of new educational technologies, it
338 becomes evident that they often take the form of technology-intensive
339 applications such as "artificial intelligence," "gamification," "blended
340 learning," "online learning," and "Chat GPT." These applications are believed
341 to be effective when integrated with the flipped learning approach in
342 educational and training practices. However, the self-directed learning and
343 technology acceptance models of students who engage with flipped learning
344 play a crucial role. While the theoretical foundations of Flipped Learning
345 hold promise, understanding its practical implications and how students
346 perceive and embrace this approach is essential for its successful
347 implementation in higher education settings. Furthermore, the outcomes of
348 applying the flipped learning approach in teaching and learning processes
349 across various disciplines, particularly in engineering education, remain
350 incompletely understood. Further research is needed to gain a more
351 comprehensive understanding of the impacts of the flipped learning
352 approach in different academic fields.
353 A search on the Web of Science platform using the keywords "Flipped
354 Learning," "Technology Acceptance Model," and "Self-Directed Learning"
355 yielded no results for any of these terms. This underscores the evident gap in
356 research covering these three critical areas. In light of this, it is imperative
357 to consider the trio of "Flipped Learning," "Technology Acceptance Model,"
358 and "Self-Directed Learning" as a unified research problem. Exploring their
 18 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 31
19

359 combined effects on student perceptions is essential to address this gap and
360 advance our understanding in the field.
361
362 1.3 Purpose of the study
363 The purpose of this research is to assess the technology acceptance and
364 self-directed learning perceptions of students who receive engineering
365 education through both flipped learning and traditional methods.
366 To achieve this objective, the study addressed the following research
367 questions:
368 1) Is there a significant difference in the pretest and posttest of the
369 experimental group in terms of Flipped Learning Technology Acceptance?
370 2) Is there a significant difference in the perceptions of Self-Directed
371 Learning between students in the experimental and control groups?

372 2. Materials and Methods

373 This section provides an overview of the study's model, participants,
374 data collection methods, and data analysis. The research aims to compare
375 the educational effectiveness and perceptions of flipped classroom
376 instruction, which includes in-class activities and video lectures, with
377 traditional classroom instruction in a university-level Introduction to
378 Programming course for engineers.
379
380 2.1. Research model
381 In this research, an experimental model approach is used to assess and
382 compare the perspectives of students taking an Introduction to
383 Programming with Java course based on flipped learning. This method
384 involves the collection, analysis, and synthesis of quantitative data. The
385 study follows the explanatory pattern design as described by Creswell and
386 Clark [75].
387
388 2.2. Participants
389 The research participants include students from the software
390 engineering program enrolled in the 'Introduction to Programming with
391 Java' course. The students were randomly divided into two equal groups,
392 resulting in a total of 174 participants. Notably, the majority (approximately
393 94%) of the participants are under 25 years old, indicating a focus on a
394 relatively young cohort of learners. About 3% of participants are aged
395 between 25 and 30, demonstrating diversity in age within the sample.
396 Furthermore, a significant portion (over 77%) of the participants had
397 little to no prior exposure to the Flipped Learning approach. This highlights
398 the potential for substantial variations in students' perceptions and
399 experiences as they encounter Flipped Learning for the first time in the
400 'Introduction to Programming with Java' course.
401 In this study, the researcher gathered quantitative data to assess
402 students' perceptions in both the experimental group, which underwent
403 flipped learning, and the control group, which experienced traditional
 20 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 31
21

404 learning methods. Both groups underwent pre-tests. and post-tests, while
405 the experimental group provided opinions before and after the study The
406 experimental model involved the researcher defining the research area and
407 generating data to observe specific variables under controlled conditions to
408 explore cause-effect relationships. Pre-tests and post-tests are commonly
409 used in experimental designs within the social sciences. Initially, subjects
410 are randomly assigned to groups within the university that are considered
411 suitable for the experiment. Subsequently, subjects in the experimental
412 groups undergo measurements of the dependent variable before the
413 experiment begins. During the application phase, the experimental process,
414 whose effect is being tested, is applied to the experimental groups. Finally,
415 measurements of the dependent variable are obtained from the subjects in
416 the groups using the same instrument or questionnaire [36].
417 The experimental research model was created as stated in Table 1.
418
419 Table 1 Experimental Research Model
420
421 Experimental De-
Group Pretest Post-test
sign
Experimental Group T1, T2 Flipped Learning T1, T2
Control Group T2 Traditional Learning T2
422 T1: Flipped learning technology acceptance scale (FLTAM).
423 T2: Self-directed learning readiness scale.
424
425 There was no statistically significant difference between the pre-test
426 results of the experimental (flipped learning) and control (traditional
427 learning) groups in terms of Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale [t (174)
428 = 0.403, p > .05]. Therefore, it can be concluded that both groups are
429 equivalent, as indicated in Table 2.
430
431 Table 2 Independent samples t-test results for pre-test scores of the
432 experimental and control groups
Group N M SD Df t P
Experimental Group 87 3.73 .440 172 .403 0.897
Control Group 87 3.72 .569
433
434 2.3. Data Collection
435 Tools

436 2.3.1. Flipped Learning TAM Scale (FLTAM)

437 As a result of the literature review, no specific tool has been found to
438 measure engineering students' perceptions of the 'technology acceptance
439 model' when they receive education through the flipped learning model. For
 22 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 31
23

440 this reason, researchers developed the FLTAM scale based on Davis's
441 technology acceptance model (Davis). This model consists of five
442 fundamental factors, which are also components of the technology
443 acceptance model: Perceived Ease of Use (PEU), Perceived Usefulness (PU),
444 Attitude Toward Usage (ATU), Behavioral Intensity (BIU), and Job Relevance
445 (JR).
446 The five core factors of the FLTAM scale, derived from Davis's TAM,
447 provide a comprehensive framework for understanding technology
448 acceptance. Users are more likely to accept and adopt technology when they
449 perceive it as easy to use, useful for their tasks, hold a positive attitude
450 toward its usage, exhibit a strong intention to use it, and recognize its
451 relevance to their job. These factors collectively influence individuals'
452 decisions to embrace technology in various contexts, including education
453 and professional settings.
454 In the pool of substances created by the researchers, there were 7 items
455 in the first factor, 6 items in the second factor, 3 items in the third factor, 2
456 items in the fourth factor, and 2 items in the fifth factor. A questionnaire in a
457 5-point Likert-type format was chosen, with responses graded as follows:
458 'absolutely agree' (5), 'agree' (4), 'undecided' (3), 'disagree' (2), and
459 'absolutely disagree' (1). Validity and reliability studies were conducted
460 following these procedures.

461 2.3.1.1. Development of the Scale

462 For "To develop the FLTAM scale, we initiated with an extensive
463 literature review. Subsequently, we created a pool of 20 items grounded in
464 theoretical foundations. To assess the scale's scope and face validity, we
465 consulted with five subject-area experts and one language expert.
466 Next, a questionnaire was developed for the pilot study, and necessary
467 adjustments were made. The pilot study on the scale's validity and reliability
468 included 270 students (240 females and 30 males) enrolled in the
469 'Introduction to Programming with Java' course. We excluded incorrectly or
470 incompletely filled questionnaires from our analysis.
471 For evaluating the scale's validity and reliability, all analyses were
472 conducted using the SPSS 24 software, with a significance level of 0.05. We
473 conducted construct validity analysis, including exploratory factor analysis
474 (EFA), to examine the structure of the scale items within the selected study
475 group. Prior to EFA, we assessed the KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) and
476 Bartlett's Sphericity test values in SPSS.
477 We also examined common factor variance and factor load values. To
478 gauge the scale's reliability, we calculated Cronbach Alpha's internal
479 consistency reliability coefficient. Based on the data obtained, we concluded
480 that the scale possessed a single-factor structure comprising 20 items.
481 Validity of FLTAM Scale
482 To assess the validity of the FLTAM acceptance scale, we conducted
483 examinations for face, content, and construct validity. For face and content
484 validity, we consulted with 5 subject-area experts and 1 language expert.
 24 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 31
25

485 We performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to analyze construct

486 validity. The EFA results revealed a 5-factor structure consisting of 20 items,
487 with eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining 44.945% of the total variance. It
488 is considered sufficient when the variance explained in single-factor designs
489 exceeds 30%.
490 2.3.1.2. EFA and Reliability Analysis of FLTAM
491 In factor analysis, the KMO value should exceed 0.60, and the Bartlett
492 test should yield a significant result. When selecting scale items, we used a
493 factor loading criterion of at least 0.30.
494 According to statistical experts in the field, reliability coefficients should
495 exceed 0.80 for improved reliability, with values over 1 indicating even
496 better reliability [37].
497
498 Table 3 Kmo And Bartlett's Tests Results

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Mea-
sure of Sampling Adequacy 0.828
Approx. Chi-Square 1153.284
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 190
Sig. (P) .000
499 As depicted in Table 3, the KMO value was determined as 0.828. Based
500 on Bartlett's test (χ2 = 1153.284, df = 190, p <0.01)) it is seen that it is
501 significant. Thus, we can say that the data are suitable for exploratory factor
502 analysis.
503 2.3.1.3. Construct Validity of FLTAM SCALE
504 Finally, to explain the construct validity of the 20-item scale, the number
505 of factors and the total variance were determined. 20 items of the scale were
506 taken into factor analysis and varimax axis rotation was performed. The
507 tabular representation for this process and related findings is given below:
508 Table 4 Factor Analysis Results

Rotation Sums of Squared Extraction Sums of Squared

Loadings Loadings Initial Eigenvalues Component
% of
Cumulative Vari- Cumulative % of Vari- Cumulative % of Vari-
% ance Total % ance Total % ance Total
16.012 16.012 3.202 24.806 24.806 4.961 24.806 24.806 4.961 1
30.040 14.028 2.806 38.327 13.521 2.704 38.327 13.521 2.704 2
 26 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 31
27

39.604 9.564 1.913 44.616 6.290 1.258 44.616 6.290 1.258 3

47.803 8.199 1.640 50.270 5.654 1.131 50.270 5.654 1.131 4
55.170 7.367 1.473 55.170 4.900 1.000 55.170 4.900 1.000 5
60.006 4.836 .967 6
64.502 4.496 .899 7
68.501 3.999 .800 8
72.330 3.828 .766 9
75.857 3.527 .705 10
79.221 3.364 .673 11
82.282 3.061 .612 12
85.108 2.826 .565 13
87.867 2.759 .552 14
90.433 2.566 .513 15
92.747 2.314 .463 16
94.959 2.212 .442 17
96.830 1.871 .374 18
98.506 1.676 .335 19
100.000 1.494 .299 20
509 When table 4 is examined, it is seen that the FLTAM Scale consists of a
510 five-factor structure. The factor in the scale explains 55.170% of the total
511 variance. The values of the items under five factors and the total variance
512 explained to show that the Flipped Learning Technology Acceptance Scale
513 has a good explanation of students' perceptions. Screen Plot also supports
514 the five-factor structure. Based on these results, it was decided that the
515 Flipped Learning Technology Acceptance Scale should be five-dimensional.
 28 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 31
29

517 Figure 1. FLTAM’s Scree Plot Graphic

518 The developed FLTAM Scale was administered to both the

519 experimental and control group students. The factor load values for the items
520 of the FLTAM Scale are presented in Table 5.
521
522 Table 5 Scale
Rotated Fac-
523 Items and Rotated Items and Factors
tor Loads
524 Factor Loadings Perceived Ease of Use (PEU)
525 1 I feel that using Flipped Learning would be easy for me .752
526 The items of
I feel that my interaction with FL would be clear and under- .708
527 the FLTAM scale 2 standable
528 and the rotated
529 factor load values 3 I feel that it would be easy to become skillful at using FL .665
530 of each item are
4 I would find FL to be flexible to interact with .663
531 given in Table 5.
532 Accordingly, the 5 Learning to operate FL would be easy for me .632
533 rotated factor load it would be easy for me to get FL to do what I want to do .583
534 values calculated 6
535 in 20 items are I feel that my ability to determine FL ease of use is limited by .459
536 between 0,407 7 my lack of experience
537 and 0,865. As a Perceived Usefulness (PU)
538 result, it can be
539 said that Flipped
Using FL in my job would enable me to accomplish tasks more .715
540 Learning 8
quickly
541 Technology 9 Using FL would improve my job performance .670
542 Acceptance Scale Using FL in my job would increase my productivity .630
543 is a valid and 10
544 reliable scale, and Using FL would enhance my effectiveness on the job. .599
11
545 it will contribute
546 to the literature. 12 Using FL would make it easier to do my job .525
547 The Last version I would find FL useful in my job .448
548 of the scale is 13
549 given Supplement Attitude Toward Usage (ATU)
550 1.
I believe it is a good idea to use Flipped Learning .784
14
I like the idea of Flipped Learning in engineering education .770
15
courses
Using Flipped Learning in engineering education is a positive .407
16
idea

Behavioural Intention to Use (BIU)

I plan to use Flipped Learning in the future .745

17
Assuming that I have access to FL, I intend to use it .725
18

Job Relevance (BIU)

In my job, the usage of Flipped Learning is important .865

19
In my job, the usage of Flipped Learning is relevant .664
20
 30 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 31
31

551 2.3.2. Self-directed learning readiness scale

552 In this study, we employed the 'Self-directed learning readiness scale,'
553 originally developed by Fisher, King, and Tague [37], as our data collection
554 tool. This scale was created to address the need for a valid and reliable
555 instrument to measure students' readiness for self-directed learning [38]. It
556 enables students to assess their attitudes, abilities, and personality traits
557 relevant to their learning situations. Additionally, it assists instructors in
558 identifying students' learning needs and tailoring teaching strategies
559 accordingly.
560 The internal consistency of each component was assessed using
561 Cronbach's coefficient alpha. The computed values of Cronbach's coefficient
562 alpha for the total item pool (n = 40), self-management subscale (n = 13),
563 desire for learning subscale (n = 12), and self-control subscale (n = 15) were
564 0.924, 0.857, 0.847, and 0.830, respectively. A reliability coefficient of .70 or
565 higher is generally considered sufficient for test score reliability.
566 The scale employs a 5-Likert type response format, ranging from
567 'Strongly Agree' (5) to 'Strongly Disagree' (1). You can find the latest version
568 of the scale in Supplement 2.
569
570 2.4. Materials and Procedures
571 2.4.1. Research Context
572 The research study was conducted during the fall semester of the
573 2018/19 school year at a university. The choice of this specific timeframe is
574 relevant, as the fall semester typically marks the beginning of the academic
575 year, making it a suitable period to introduce and study a new instructional
576 approach. It is important to note that the research context, including the
577 university and the academic calendar, may have influenced the participants'
578 prior experiences and expectations regarding teaching methods, adding to
579 the complexity of their perceptions of Flipped Learning.
580 The "Introduction to Programming with Java" course within the context
581 of software engineering education serves as an ideal setting for this
582 research. Given the course's foundational role in computer science and
583 programming education, it presents a unique opportunity to explore the
584 potential benefits and challenges of Flipped Learning in a discipline that
585 demands problem-solving skills, coding proficiency, and logical thinking.
586 By considering the characteristics of the participants and the specific
587 research context, this study aims to provide nuanced insights into how
588 software engineering students with varying levels of prior exposure to
589 Flipped Learning perceive and accept this innovative pedagogical approach.
590 2.4.2. Video materials
591 In accordance with best practices in online education, the video lectures
592 employed in this study adhered to a concise format, with each lecture lasting
593 approximately 15 minutes. The decision to keep the video duration relatively
 32 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 31
33

594 short aligns with students' preferences for shorter instructional videos [34].
595 This approach aims to optimize engagement and retention of course content
596 by minimizing cognitive load associated with lengthy presentations.
597 The video lectures were meticulously crafted using the Screencast-o-
598 Matic platform, a popular choice for recording instructional materials in
599 various educational settings. This platform allows for the creation of
600 screencasts, providing a dynamic means of presenting content, including
601 software demonstrations, visual aids, and narrations.
602 To ensure the quality and effectiveness of the video materials, a
603 comprehensive validation process was undertaken. Five expert opinions
604 were sought to assess and refine the content and delivery of these
605 instructional resources. These experts encompassed two distinct categories:
606 Content Experts: Three experts with in-depth knowledge and experience
607 in the field of numerical methods were engaged to critically evaluate the
608 content of the video lectures. Their expertise ensured that the instructional
609 materials accurately conveyed the requisite subject matter, maintaining
610 academic rigor and relevance.
611 Educational Technologist Experts: Two experts in the field of
612 educational technology were consulted to assess the format and delivery of
613 the videos. Their insights were instrumental in refining the pedagogical
614 aspects of the video materials, including considerations such as instructional
615 design, visual appeal, and accessibility.
616 This dual-pronged approach to validation, involving both content experts
617 and educational technologists, aimed to address multifaceted aspects of
618 instructional quality. By consolidating the feedback and recommendations of
619 these experts, the video materials were refined to optimize their educational
620 value and alignment with the goals of the Flipped Learning approach.
621 The meticulous development and validation of the video materials
622 ensure that they serve as effective tools for delivering course content in the
623 context of the Flipped Learning model. This approach is expected to
624 enhance students' engagement and comprehension while aligning with their
625 preferences for concise and focused instructional content.
626
627 2.4.3. Measurements

628 The pre-test and post-test measurements were crucial in exploring

629 cause-effect relationships in the context of the study. Here's how they were
630 designed to do so effectively:
631 Pre-test: Before implementing the flipped learning approach (the
632 independent variable), all participants, both in the experimental and control
633 groups, were assessed using the FLTAM scale and the Self-directed
634 Learning Readiness Scale. The pre-test served as the baseline measurement
635 of students' perception and readiness.
636 Experimental Intervention: After the pre-test, the experimental group
637 received the flipped learning approach, consisting of online and in-class
 34 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 31
35

638 activities and video lectures. This intervention represented the independent
639 variable being tested.
640 Control Group: The control group, in contrast, received traditional
641 classroom instruction, representing the control condition without the flipped
642 learning approach.
643 Post-test: After the intervention, both the experimental and control
644 groups were assessed again using the FLTAM scale and the Self-directed
645 Learning Readiness Scale. The post-test measurements allowed the
646 researcher to determine whether there were any significant changes in
647 students' perception and readiness as a result of the applied intervention.
648 2.5. Analysis of the Data

649 By comparing the pre-test and post-test scores within each group and
650 between the experimental and control groups, the researcher could analyze
651 whether there were statistically significant differences in students'
652 perception and readiness. Any significant improvements in the experimental
653 group compared to the control group would suggest that the flipped learning
654 approach had a positive impact on students' perception and readiness.
655 In this way, the combination of pre-test and post-test measurements
656 allowed for the exploration of cause-effect relationships by comparing
657 students' perceptions before and after exposure to the flipped learning
658 approach. The design aimed to provide empirical evidence of the impact of
659 the intervention on students' acceptance and readiness for self-directed
660 learning.
661 SPSS version 24 was used to evaluate the data obtained from the study
662 and to create tables. Percentage (%), mean M, frequency (f), and standard
663 deviation (Sd) were used for the analysis of the data collected to answer the
664 sub-objectives. In the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test conducted before the
665 comparison of the experimental groups and the control group according to
666 the scores before and after the training, it was accepted that the data
667 showed a normal distribution as p>0.05 was obtained. Because the data
668 show normal distribution then independent samples t-test, paired t-test, and
669 multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests were used in this
670 research.
671 In all statistical analyses, p= 0.05 was accepted as the level of
672 significance. The mean and standard deviation values of the items for the
673 evaluation of the responses of the students to the scale and questionnaires
674 were determined with the help of tables.

675 3. Results
676 The findings aligned with the stated objectives and sub-objectives in this
677 section are presented.

678 3.1. Comparison of Pre – Test Post – Test FLTAM Scores of Experimental
679 Group
 36 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 31
37

680 T To compare the pre-test and post-test FLTAM scores of the

681 experimental group, we employed the paired samples t-test. This test is
682 utilized to assess differences between two measurement results obtained
683 from the same data source.
684 In this study, we examined whether a significant difference existed
685 within the experimental group based on FLTAM pre-test and post-test scores
686 (Table 6).
687
688 Table 6 Comparison of FLTAM pre-test and post-test scores of Experimental
689 Group Students
P T Df Sd M N Group
0.545 4.20 87 Pre-test
0.01 -4.324 86
0.366 4.38 87 Post-test
690
691 The paired samples t-test results, as presented in Table 6, indicate that
692 the average FLTAM scores in the post-test were significantly higher than
693 those in the pre-test (t(87) = -4.324, p < 0.05, η² = 0.463). Consequently, it
694 can be concluded that students' FLTAM scores increased following the
695 intervention.
696
697 4.2. Evaluation of the Pre – Test and Post-Test Self-directed learning readi-
698 ness scale of The Experimental Group and Control Group

699 After administering the 'Self-directed learning readiness scale' as a

700 pretest to both groups, the same pretest was applied once more at the end
701 of the instruction as a posttest. Subsequently, we utilized a two-factor re-
702 peated measures ANOVA test to assess whether there was a significant dif-
703 ference between the posttest 'Self-directed learning readiness scale' scores
704 of the experimental and control group students. The analysis revealed a
705 significant difference between the two groups [F (1.172) = 4.644, p < 0.05,
706 η2 = 0.026]. Thus, we can say that the “Self-directed learning readiness
707 scale” scores of the experimental group students were higher (M = 4.25)
708 than the control group (M = 4. 13) according to the post-test, the pre-test of
709 both groups was pretty much the same.
710
711 Table 7 Experiment and control group Self-directed learning readiness results

N SD M
 38 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 31
39

Group
87 .440 3.73 Experiment
8s7 .569 3.72 Control Pre-test
174 .507 3.72 Total
87 .430 4.25 Experiment

87 .308 4.02 Control Post-test

174 .390 4.13 Total

712
713 Figure 2. Comparison of Pre-test - Post-test Scores for the Self-directed learning readiness scale
714 results of the Experimental and Control group
715
716 As evident in the graph above, a significant difference emerged in the
717 average scores of the 'Self-directed learning readiness scale' between the
718 experimental and control groups. This suggests that the post-test scores
719 “Self-directed learning readiness scale” of the experimental group students
 40 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 31
41

720 were significantly higher than their pre-test “Self-directed learning

721 readiness scale” scores.
722

723 4. Discussion
724 In discussing the application of flipped learning in an engineering
725 course, several key elements stand out as integral to its success. The pre-
726 class preparation phase plays a crucial role, offering students access to
727 diverse online resources, including video lectures, interactive simulations,
728 and curated readings [78]. These materials are intentionally designed to
729 foster active learning, allowing students the flexibility to engage with
730 content at their own pace and revisit challenging topics when necessary.
731 This approach aligns with the core principle of flipped learning, emphasizing
732 self-paced learning and preparation before in-person sessions.
733 During face-to-face classes, the instructional focus shifts towards
734 collaborative problem-solving and interactive activities [79]. Small group
735 work is instrumental, as students engage in analyzing and designing
736 structures using software simulations or physical models. Moreover,
737 discussions on real-world structural engineering case studies are
738 incorporated, facilitating the application of theoretical concepts learned
739 beforehand to practical scenarios [49]. The instructor's role transitions from
740 a traditional lecturer to a facilitator, guiding discussions, addressing
741 queries, and providing constructive feedback as students actively participate
742 in problem-solving exercises.
743
744 The assessment and feedback mechanisms are multifaceted,
745 encompassing both individual and group-based evaluations [19]. Quizzes on
746 pre-class materials, group projects evaluating structural designs, and
747 presentations showcasing problem-solving approaches are implemented.
748 These methods not only gauge student understanding but also encourage
749 active participation and collaboration. Regular feedback sessions are
750 integrated, allowing students to reflect on their progress and providing
751 opportunities for improvement, reinforcing the iterative learning process.
752 So, based on the results, we observe that the 'Self-Directed Learning
753 Readiness Scale' scores for the experimental group students were higher
754 than those of the control group in the post-test, while the pre-test scores for
755 both groups were similar. This section of the study focused on various
756 aspects of students' learning skills, management abilities, learning goals,
757 readiness for new ideas, openness to new learning opportunities, confidence
758 in their information retrieval skills, organizational abilities, and their
759 willingness to accept challenges.
760 The 'Introduction to Programming with Java' course provided an ideal
761 context for investigating the impact of the Flipped Learning approach in
762 computer science education. Furthermore, in a study conducted by Etemi &
763 Uzunboylu (2020) to evaluate the effects of the flipped learning method on
764 students' perception and learning of Java programming, where course
 42 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 31
43

765 content was delivered using both flipped and traditional methods to two
766 separate groups of students (experimental and control), the findings
767 revealed that the flipped classroom outperformed the traditional classroom,
768 and students' perception of flipped learning became more positive [47].
769 According to Guzdial, programming courses often involve complex
770 problem-solving and coding tasks that can benefit from the active learning
771 and collaborative aspects of the Flipped Learning model [53]. Empirical
772 studies in computer science education conducted by Missildine et al. [51]
773 and Betihavas et al. [56] have highlighted the effectiveness of the Flipped
774 Learning model in improving students' coding skills, problem-solving
775 abilities, and overall performance. An important result of this study is that
776 the Flipped Learning approach has a positive impact on all the
777 aforementioned criteria, fostering student responsibility, time management,
778 personalized learning paths, and greater control over their studies.
779 In support of an ideal software engineering education, Lin [29]
780 implemented a flipped learning approach to investigate a learner-centered
781 learning environment in a software engineering course. The proposed
782 methodology notably enhanced students' learning performance, motivation,
783 and learning behavior. This framework also serves as a valuable tool for
784 professors and students in terms of perception and learning readiness, as
785 appropriate learning and assessment activities significantly influence
786 learning outcomes in a flipped classroom [31].
787 According to the results, the average FLTAM scores in the post-test
788 were significantly higher than those in the pre-test. Consequently, it can be
789 concluded that students' FLTAM scores increased after the application,
790 indicating their recognition of the benefits of integrating technology into the
791 learning process. During interviews, many students expressed that having
792 online lectures made their studies more manageable, allowing them to learn
793 at their own pace and rewind videos as needed [43]. The technology-based
794 flipped learning approach demonstrated superior learning outcomes
795 compared to the conventional lecture-based approach, highlighting the
796 critical role of students' attitudes towards technology acceptance and their
797 behavioral intention to use it [41].
798 Flipped learning has a positive impact on the perceived ease of using
799 technology and the perceived usefulness of technology in the classroom,
800 influencing students' intention to use technology [44]. Similarly, students'
801 perceptions of the teaching method significantly affect their performance
802 [45]. The integration of technology in education, along with the use of video
803 and online materials, has been shown to enhance students' memory skills,
804 creativity, and critical thinking abilities. It also fosters an interactive and
805 engaging learning environment [39] while promoting higher-order thinking
806 skills among students in higher education [40].

807 5. Conclusions
808 In this comprehensive study, we sought to examine the impact of the
809 Flipped Learning approach on students' self-directed learning readiness and
 44 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 31
45

810 their acceptance of technology, as measured by the Flipped Learning

811 Technology Acceptance Model (FLTAM). Our research, conducted in the
812 context of an "Introduction to Programming" course for engineering
813 students, provided valuable insights into the educational effectiveness of this
814 innovative pedagogical approach.
815 Our findings revealed a significant positive effect of the Flipped
816 Learning approach on students' self-directed learning readiness. The
817 experimental group, which underwent Flipped Learning, demonstrated
818 notable improvements in various facets of SDLR, including their ability to
819 manage learning, set learning goals, seek new knowledge, and exhibit
820 confidence in their learning abilities. This approach empowered students,
821 making them more responsible for their learning and better equipped to
822 manage their time effectively. The interactive and engaging nature of
823 Flipped Learning fostered creativity and critical thinking skills, contributing
824 to a holistic educational experience.
825 Our research also investigated students' acceptance of technology
826 within the context of Flipped Learning. The results indicated a substantial
827 increase in FLTAM scores post-implementation, reflecting a positive shift in
828 students' attitudes towards technology. The tangible benefits students
829 experienced when technology was integrated into their learning process,
830 such as easy access to online lectures and the ability to learn at their own
831 pace, significantly influenced their technology acceptance. This aligns with
832 previous research highlighting the superior learning outcomes of
833 technology-based Flipped Learning compared to traditional lecture-based
834 approaches. Additionally, the teaching method itself played a pivotal role in
835 reshaping students' beliefs about their learning experiences.
836 The findings from this research hold significant implications for
837 educational practice in higher education. The adoption of the Flipped
838 Learning approach has the potential to enhance students' SDLR and foster a
839 more positive attitude towards technology. The combination of active
840 learning, technology integration, and student-centered pedagogy creates a
841 dynamic and engaging learning environment that aligns with students'
842 preferences and positively influences their academic performance.

843 5.1. Future Directions

844 While this study provides valuable information, further research is

845 needed to investigate the long-term effects of Flipped Learning on students'
846 SDLR and technology acceptance. Additionally, investigating the impact of
847 Flipped Learning across different academic disciplines and institutions could
848 provide valuable comparative data.
849 Ultimately, the research underscores the transformative potential of the
850 Flipped Learning approach in higher education. Students can be helped to
851 become more self-directed learners while encouraging positive acceptance
852 of technology. These results are in line with the evolving needs of the
 46 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 31
47

853 modern educational environment, where technology and active learning play
854 important roles in shaping effective pedagogy and student engagement.
855 Finally, for sustainability purposes, research in this direction should be
856 ongoing to continually acquire updated information.

857 6. Limitations of the Study

858 Sample Size and Generalizability: The study was conducted with software
859 engineering students in a specific "Introduction to Programming with Java"
860 course. The relatively small sample size and the specific course context may
861 limit the generalizability of the findings to a broader student population and
862 different academic disciplines.
863 Single-Semester Study: The research was conducted over a single semester,
864 which may not capture the long-term effects of Flipped Learning on SDLR
865 and technology acceptance. Future research should consider longitudinal
866 studies to assess the sustainability of the observed improvements.
867 Self-Reported Data: Some data, such as students' perceptions and attitudes,
868 were collected through self-reporting methods. This may introduce social
869 desirability bias, where participants may provide responses, they believe are
870 expected rather than reflecting their true experiences.
871 Contextual Influence: The study was conducted in a specific course context.
872 Unexpected contextual factors, such as the course content and students'
873 prior experiences, could have influenced the results. Acknowledging these
874 contextual influences adds depth to the interpretation of the findings.
875 Additionally, related research was conducted on the Web of Science
876 platform. As is known, journals with high impact factors are indexed in the
877 Web of Science database. It was observed that the sources found during this
878 search were also included in other scientific indexes.
879 Lack of Control Over External Variables: The study acknowledges the use of
880 random assignment, but external variables that could affect SDLR and
881 technology acceptance, such as students' prior experiences and exposure to
882 technology, were not fully controlled for and may have influenced the
883 results.
884 Possible Instructor Effect: The effectiveness of the Flipped Learning
885 approach may vary based on the instructor's teaching style, delivery, and
886 content preparation. This study did not explore potential instructor effects,
887 which could be considered in future research.
888 Subjective Measures: While quantitative measures were used, some aspects
889 of SDLR and technology acceptance may have been better captured through
890 qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews or focus groups, to provide
891 richer insights into students' experiences.
892 Limited Exploration of Technology Tools: The study mentions the use of
893 video lectures but does not delve deeply into the specific technology tools or
 48 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 31
49

894 platforms used. Future research could explore the impact of different
895 technological tools on student outcomes.
896 Potential Bias in Student Selection: The study mentions that students were
897 randomly assigned to groups, but any potential bias or differences in
898 characteristics between the groups should be considered and discussed.

899 7. Declarations

900 Acknowledge: This article was expanded and written a part of a doctoral
901 thesis titled "The effects flipped learning method on Students perception and
902 academic achievement in engineering education", done by Blerta Prevalla
903 Etemi under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Uzunboylu at Near East
904 University, Institute of Educational Sciences.
905 Author contribution statement: The authors made contributions at different
906 stages in the preparation of the article.
907 Funding statement: No funding
908 Data availability statement: Data will be made available on request.
909 Additional information: No additional information is available for this paper.
910 Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they have no
911 known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could
912 have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
913 Ethics statement: This research was approved by the Near East University
914 Scientific Research Ethics Committee, project number YDU/EB/2018/283
915 dated 04/March/ 2019.
916 Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

917 References
918 [1]Cetinkaya, C.; Cetinkaya, C. Scale Development: Assessment of Gifted Pre-schoolers. Int. J. Spec. Educ. Inf.
919 Technol, 2020, 6, 61-71. https://doi.org/10.18844/jeset.v6i1.5818
920 [2]Wannapiroon, P.; Nilsook, P...; Jitsupa, J.; Chaiyarak, S. Technology acceptance of online instruction for
921 vocational instructors in new normal education. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues,
922 2021, 3, 635–650. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v13i4.6234
923 [3]Ceker, E.; Ozdamli, F. Features and Characteristics of Problem Based Learning. Cypriot Journal of Educa-
924 tional Sciences, 2016, 11, 195-202. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v11i4.1296
925 [4]Halapa, M.; Djuranovic, M. Children and digital media. Global Journal of Sociology: Current Issues, 2021,
926 11, 71–78. https://doi.org/10.18844/gjs.v11i2.5481
 50 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 31
51

927 [5]Aqqal, A.; Elhannani, A.; Haidine, A.; Dahbi, A. mproving the Teaching of ICT Engineering using Flipped
928 Learning: a personalized model and a case study. Production, 2017, 27. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-
929 6513.227416
930 [6]Uzunboylu, H.; Karagozlu D. Flipped classroom: A review of recent literature. World Journal on Educational
931 Technology: Current Issues, 2015, 7, 142-147. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v7i2.46
932 [7]Coskun, M.; Edward, G. G. Waste management education: A driven concern for academic community.
933 World Journal of Environmental Research, 2020, 10, 17–36. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjer.v10i2.5343
934 [8]Ahmadian, M.; Ferdosipour, A. Investigating the relationship between social networks and social health of
935 students. International Journal of Emerging Trends in Health Sciences, 2021, 5.2: 25–31.
936 https://doi.org/10.18844/ijeths.v5i2.5467
937 [9]Al-Khatib, O. An interactive and blended learning model for engineering education. Journal of Computers in
938 Education, 2018, 5, 19-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0097-x
939 [10] Bagriyanik, S.; Karahoca, A. Personal learning environments: a big data perspective. Global Journal of
940 Computer Sciences: Theory and Research, 2016, 6, 36–46.
941 [11] Mahasneh, O. M.; Al-kreimeen, R. A.; Alrammana, A. A.; Murad, O. S. Distance Education amid the
942 COVID-19 Pandemic from the Students’ point of view. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current
943 Issues, 2021, 13, 589–601. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v13i4.6229
944 [12] Moghadamizad, Z.; Mowlaie, B.; Rahimi, A. An inquiry on publishers criteria for recruitment of trans -
945 lators. International Journal of New Trends in Social Sciences, 2020, 4, 77–93.
946 https://doi.org/10.18844/ijntss.v4i2.5127
947 [13] Uzunboylu, H.; Karagozlu, D. The emerging trend of the flipped classroom: A content analysis of pub -
948 lished articles between 2010 and 2015. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 2017, 54. From:
949 https://revistas.um.es/red/article/view/298821
950 [14] Carraro, K.; Trinder, R. Technology in formal and informal learning environments: Student perspec-
951 tives. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2021, 11, 39–50.
952 https://doi.org/10.18844/gjflt.v11i1.5219
953 [15] Karabulut – Ilgu, A.; Cherrez, N. J.; Jahren, C. T. A systematic review of research on the flipped learn-
954 ing method in engineering education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2017.
955 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0097-x10.1111/bjet.12548
956 [16] Yeboah, E.; Kyeremeh, R. G. An overview of employment generation in the sectors of GHANA’S econ -
957 omy: Foreign direct investment perspective. Global Journal of Business, Economics, and Management:
958 Current Issues, 2021, 11, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.18844/gjbem.v11i1.5088
 52 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 31
53

959 [17] Priyaadharshini, M.; Vinayaga Sundaram, B. Evaluation of higher‐order thinking skills using learning
960 style in undergraduate engineering in a flipped classroom. Computer Applications in Engineering Educa-
961 tion, 2018, 26, 2237-2254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0097-x10.1002/cae.22035
962 [18] Lage, M. J.; Platt, G. J.; Treglia, M. Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learn -
963 ing Environment. The journal of economic education, 2000, 31, 30-43. https://doi.org/10.2307/1183338
964 [19] Bergmann, J.; Sams, A. Flip your classroom: reach every student in every class every day. Washington,
965 DC: International Society for Technology in Education, 2012, 120 – 190.
966 [20] Prevalla, B.; Uzunboylu, H. Flipped learning in engineering education. TEM Journal, 2019, 2, 656-661.
967 https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM82-46
968 [21] Muhle, T. C. Single-parenting influence on child’s academic performances at MutareJunior School,
969 Zimbabwe. Global Journal of Psychology Research: New Trends and Issues, 2020, 10, 233–246.
970 https://doi.org/10.18844/gjpr.v10i2.4835
971 [22] Abdullah, M. A. Predictors of quality of distance education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cypriot
972 Journal of Educational Sciences, 2022, 17, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v17i1.6685
973 [23] Dirgahayu, T. Student Perceptions towards Flipped Learning in Software Engineering Course, Pro-
974 ceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Education, Science, And Technology, 2017, 149, 130 –
975 132.
976 [24] Vasic, B. Modern forms of professional education modernization of rural youth. New Trends and Is-
977 sues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 2021, 8, 216–227.
978 https://doi.org/10.18844/prosoc.v8i3.6413
979 [25] Sarcam, H. ; Deveci, M. ; Ahmetoglu, E. The Examination of hope, intolerance of uncertainty, and re-
980 silience levels in parents having disabled children. Global Journal of Psychology Research: New Trends
981 and Issues, 2020, 10, 118–131. https://doi.org/10.18844/gjpr.v10i1.4398
982 [26] Tomas, L.; Evan, N.; Doyle, T.; Skamp, K. Are first year students ready for a flipped classroom? A case
983 for a flipped learning continuum. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education,
984 2019, 16, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0135-4
985 [27] Utemissova, G. U. ; Danna, S. ; Nikolaevna, V. N. Cyberbullying during the COVID-19 pandemic.
986 Global Journal of Guidance and Counseling in Schools: Current Perspectives, 2021, 11, 77–87.
987 https://doi.org/10.18844/gjgc.v11i2.5471
988 [28] Wang, F. H. An exploration of online behaviour engagement and achievement in flipped classroom
989 supported by learning management system. Computers & Education, 2017, 114, 79-91.
990 https://doi.org//10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.012
 54 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 27 of 31
55

991 [29] Lin, Y.T. Impacts of a flipped classroom with a smart learning diagnosis system on students' learning
992 performance, perception, and problem-solving ability in a software engineering course. Computers in Hu-
993 man Behavior. 2019, 95, 1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.036
994 [30] Mola, S. Improving female students’ participation and their academic performance: Ethiopian Techni-
995 cal University. Global Journal of Guidance and Counseling in Schools: Current Perspectives, 2021, 11,
996 110–118. https://doi.org/10.18844/gjgc.v11i2.5852
997 [31] Hasanov, N.; Akbulaev, N. Innovative development of key sectors of economy based on the creation of
998 technological parks in the Republic of Azerbaijan. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Advances in
999 Pure and Applied Sciences, 2020, 12, 44–56. https://doi.org/10.18844/gjpaas.v0i12.4986
1000 [32] Creswell, J.; Plano Clark, V. L. Designing and conducting mixed method research (2nd ed). 2011,
1001 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
1002 [33] Lee, L.; Lim, C.; Kim, H. Development of an instructional design model for flipped learning in higher
1003 education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2017, 65, 427–453.
1004 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9502-1
1005 [34] Kaw, A.; Garapati, S. Development and assessment of digital audiovisual YouTube lectures for an engi-
1006 neering course in numerical methods. Computers in Education Journal, 2011, 212, 89-97. Available at:
1007 http://works.bepress.com/autar-kaw/72/
1008 [35] Karasar, N. Bilimsel Arastirma Yontemi. 2005, Ankara: Nobel Yayincilik.
1009 [36] Fraenkel, J. R.; Wallen, N. E. How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). 2009, New
1010 York: McGraw Hill.
1011 [37] Fisher, M.; King, J.; Tague, G. Development of a self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing edu -
1012 cation. Nurse Education Today, 2001, 21, 516-525.
1013 [38] Mason, G.; Shuman, T.R.; Cook, K.E. Inverting (flipping) classrooms–Advantages and challenges. Pro-
1014 ceedings of the 120th ASEE annual conference and exposition, 2013, Atlanta.
1015 [39] Tune, J.D.; Sturek, M.; Basile, D.P. Flipped classroom model improves graduate student performance
1016 in cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal physiology, Advances in Physiology Education. 2013, 37, 316–
1017 320.
1018 [40] Hsieh, J. S. C.; Huang, Y. M.; Wu, W. C. V. Technological acceptance of LINE in flipped EFL oral train-
1019 ing. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016, 70, 178–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.066
1020 [41] Klasnic, I.; Duranovic, M.; Vidic, T. Flipped learning – Pedagogic dilemmas. Contemporary Educational
1021 Research Journal, 2021, 11, 138–146. https://doi.org/10.18844/cerj.v11i4.5463
 56 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 28 of 31
57

1022 [42] Zhang, K. Research on key influencing factors of university students’ digital competence in blended
1023 teaching. Contemporary Educational Research Journal, 2021, 114, 210–224.
1024 https://doi.org/10.18844/cerj.v11i4.5974
1025 [43] Joo, Y. J.; Park, S.; Lim, E. Factors Influencing Preservice Teachers’ Intention to Use Technology:
1026 TPACK, Teacher Self-efficacy, and Technology Acceptance Model. Educational Technology & Society,
1027 2018, 21, 48–59.
1028 [44] Ireti, H.A.; Iahad, N.A.; Ahmad, N.; Yusof, A.F. A proposed conceptual model for flipped learning. Jour-
1029 nal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 2017, 24, 7049 – 7057.
1030 [45] Opeifa, O.; Adelana, O. P.; Atolagbe, O. D. Teaching oral English through technology: Perceptions of
1031 teachers in Nigerian secondary schools. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 2021, 14, 55–68.
1032 https://doi.org/10.18844/ijlt.v14i1.6434
1033 [46] Kovacs, G. Online language teacher training – Challenges and new perspectives. International Journal
1034 of Innovative Research in Education, 2020, 7, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.18844/ijire.v7i2.5470
1035 [47] Etemi, B., P. ; Uzunboylu, H. The Effects of Flipped Learning Method on Student’s Perception and
1036 Learning of Java Programming. International Journal of Engineering Education 2020, 36, 1372–1382.
1037 [48] Zainuddin, Z.; Perera C.J. Exploring students’ competence, autonomy, and relatedness in the flipped
1038 classroom pedagogical model. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 2019, 43, 115-126.
1039 [49] Hamdan, N.; McKnight, P.; McKnight, K.; Arfstrom, K. M. A Review of Flipped Learning. 2013.
1040 http://www.flippedlearning.org/review
1041 [50] Strayer, J.F. How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation, and task orien-
1042 tation. Learning Environments Research, 2012, 15, 171-193.
1043 [51] Missildine, K.; Fountain, R.; Summers, L.; Gosselin, K. Flipping the Classroom to Improve Student
1044 Performance and Satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Education, 2013, 52, 597-599.
1045 https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20130919-03
1046 [52] Guglielmino, P. J. Development of the self-directed readiness scale (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
1047 tion). University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 1977.
1048 [53] Guzdial, M. Learner-Centered Design of Computing Education: Research on Computing for Everyone.
1049 Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 2015, 8, 1-165.
1050 [54] Bishop, J.; Verlegher, M. The flipped classroom: a survey of the research. Proceedings of 120 ASEE
1051 Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia: American Society for Engineering Education, 2013.
1052 [55] Abeysekera, L.; Dawson, P. Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition, rationale
1053 and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 2015, 34, 1-14.
 58 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 29 of 31
59

1054 [56] Betihavas, V.; Bridgman, H.; Kornhaber, R.; Cross, M. The evidence for 'flipping out': A systematic
1055 review of the flipped classroom in nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 2016, 38, 15-21
1056 [57] Doo, M.Y. An investigation of the social influence processes of flipped class students: An application of
1057 the extension of the technology acceptance model. Educ Inf Technol. 2023.
1058 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11878-3
1059 [58] Makruf, I.; Putra P., H. R.; Choiriyah, S.; Nugroho, A. Flipped learning and communicative compe -
1060 tence: An experimental study of English learners. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Sci-
1061 ence, and Technology (IJEMST), 2021, 9, 571-584. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1960
1062 [59] Khlaisang, J. ; Teo, T. ; Huang, F. Acceptance of a flipped smart application for learning: a study
1063 among Thai university students, Interactive Learning Environments, 2021, 29, 772-789,
1064 https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1612447
1065 [60] Doo, M. Y.; Bonk, C. J. Cognitive Instrumental Processes of Flipped Learners: Effects of Relevance for
1066 Learning, Quality of Learning Outcomes, and Result Demonstrability. Journal of Educational Computing
1067 Research, 2021, 59, 1093–1113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121989128
1068 [61] Hsieh, JSC.; Huang, Y.; Wu, WV.; Technological acceptance of LINE in flipped EFL oral training, Com-
1069 puters in Human Behavior, 2017, 70, 178-190, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.066
1070 [62] Galatsopoulou, F.; Kenterelidou, C.; Kotsakis, R.; Matsiola, M. Examining Students’ Perceptions to-
1071 wards Video-Based and Video-Assisted Active Learning Scenarios in Journalism and Communication Cour-
1072 ses. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020074
1073 [63] Dianati, S.; Nguyen, M.; Dao, P.; Iwashita, N.; Vasquez, C. Student perceptions of technological tools
1074 for flipped instruction: The case of Padlet, Kahoot! and Cirrus. Journal of University Teaching & Learning
1075 Practice, 2020, 17, https://doi.org/10.53761/1.17.5.4
1076 [64] Bayram, S. B.; Gulnar, E.; Ozveren, H.; & Caliskan, N. The effect of flipped learning on blood pressure
1077 knowledge and self-directed learning skills of first-year nursing students: A randomized controlled trial.
1078 Nurse Education in Practice, 2023, 67, 103557, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103557
1079 [65] Chyr, W.-L.; Shen, P.-D.; Chiang, Y.-C.; Lin, J.-B.; Tsia, C.-W. Exploring the Effects of Online Academic
1080 Help-Seeking and Flipped Learning on Improving Students’ Learning. Educational Technology & Society,
1081 2017, 20, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.201707_20(3).0002
1082 [66] Hao, Y. Exploring undergraduates' perspectives and flipped learning readiness in their flipped class-
1083 rooms. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016, 59, 82-92, https://doi.org./10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.032
 60 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 30 of 31
61

1084 [67] Koh, J.K.; Lucas, A.; Kataoka, M.; MacDonell, S. Developing Dietetic Students’ Confidence in Multicul-
1085 tural Communication through Flipped Learning, Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 2021, 33, 67-77,
1086 https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2020.1794880
1087 [68] Cho, M. K.; Kim, M. Y. Outcomes and influential factors applying flipped learning methods in a clinical
1088 adult nursing practicum. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 2019, 25, e12724,
1089 https://doi.org./10.1111/ijn.12724
1090 [69] Monaghan, A.; Hudson, J.; Alexopoulos, A. “Flipped Learning” in Disaster Triage: Polarizing Medical
1091 Student Attainment? Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 2022, 16, 421-422.
1092 https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.423
1093 [70] Gu, M.; Sok, S. Factors Affecting the Academic Achievement of Nursing College Students in a Flipped
1094 Learning Simulation Practice. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021,
1095 18, 5970. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115970
1096 [71] Zhong, M.; Jiang, J.; Zhang, H.; Duan, X. Combination of flipped learning format and virtual simulation
1097 to enhance emergency response ability for newly registered nurses: a quasi-experimental design, Interac-
1098 tive Learning Environments, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1998138
1099 [72] Davis, F. D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technol-
1100 ogy. MIS Quarterly, 1989, 13, 318–339
1101 [73] Tepe, A.; Kurnaz, A.; Bural, B. Perceptions of gifted students on their levels of creativity. International
1102 Journal of Special Education and Information Technologies, 2022, 8, 31–41.
1103 https://doi.org/10.18844/jeset.v8i1.8439
1104 [74] AL-Momani, M. O.; Rababa, E. M. Requirements for the use of E-learning in university educa-
1105 tion. Global Journal of Information Technology: Emerging Technologies, 2022, 12, 89–109.
1106 https://doi.org/10.18844/gjit.v12i2.7867
1107 [75] Creswell, JW.; Clark, VL. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (Third Edition), 2017,
1108 SAGE Publications. USA
1109 [76] Alyoussef, I.Y. Acceptance of a flipped classroom to improve university students’ learning: An empiri-
1110 cal study on the TAM model and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT), Heliyon,
1111 2022, 8(12), e12529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12529
1112 [77] Malan, S. B., Ndlovu, M., & Engelbrecht, P. Introducing problem-based learning (PBL) into a foundation
1113 programme to develop self-directed learning skills. South African Journal of Education, 2014, 34(1), 1–16.
1114 https://doi.org/10.15700/201412120928
 62 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 31 of 31
63

1115 [78] Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2020). NMC Horizon Report: 2020 Higher
1116 Education Edition. EDUCAUSE.
1117 [79] Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82-83.

1118