• Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336.
• Bates, S. P., Galloway, R. K., & McBride, K. L. (2012). Student-generated content: Using PeerWise to enhance engagement and outcomes in introductory physics courses. In N. S. Rebello, P. V. Engelhardt, & C. Singh (Eds.), AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1413, pp. 123–126). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3680009.
• Beatty, I. D. (2005). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research, 2004(3), 1–13.
• Berg, C. A. R. (2005). Factors related to attitude change toward learning chemistry among university students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1039/B4RP90001D.
• Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day: International Society for Technology in Education (1st ed.). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
• Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2014). Flipped learning: Gateway to student engagement (1st ed.). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
• Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013, June). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. Paper presented at the 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, GA.
• Brewer, C. A. (2004). Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding in biology courses. BioScience, 54(11), 1034–1039. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1034:NRAOSL]2.0.CO;2.
• Briggs, L. (2006, November). Response devices keep FSU students focused. Campus Technology, 19. Retrived from https://campustechnology.com/articles/2006/11/response-devices-keep-fsu-students-focused.aspx.
• Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (2005). The art of problem posing (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Bruff, D. (2009). Teaching with classroom response systems: Creating active learning environments (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Bullock, D., LaBella, V., Clingan, T., Ding, Z., Stewart, G., & Thibado, P. (2002). Enhancing the student‐instructor interaction frequency. The Physics Teacher, 40(9), 535–541. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1534821.
• Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205.
• Campbell, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). Questioning as an instructional method: Does it affect learning from lectures? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(6), 747–759. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1513.
• Chang, C.-Y. (2016). The marriage of interdisciplinary research: The old, the new, the borrowed, and the blue. Journal of Science and Innovation, 6(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.6654/JSI.2016.0601.05.
• Chang, R.-C., Chung, L.-Y., & Huang, Y.-M. (2016). Developing an interactive augmented reality system as a complement to plant education and comparing its effectiveness with video learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1245–1264. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.982131.
• Chao, C.-Y., Chen, Y.-T., & Chuang, K.-Y. (2015). Exploring students’ learning attitude and achievement in flipped learning supported computer aided design curriculum: A study in high school engineering education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 23(4), 514–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21622.
• Chen Hsieh, J. S., Huang, Y.-M., & Wu, W.-C. V. (2017). Technological acceptance of LINE in flipped EFL oral training. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 178–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.066.
• Chen, C.-H., Chiu, C.-H., & Wu, C.-Y. (2012). Effects of shared note-taking and questioning review in elementary school computer classes. Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly, 20(2), 47–91. https://doi.org/10.6151/CERQ.2012.2002.02.
• Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Kinshuk, & Chen, N.-S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers & Education, 79, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.004.
• Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active‐constructive‐interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x.
• Chien, Y.-T., Chang, C.-Y. (2015). Supporting socio-scientific argumentation in the classroom through automatic group formation based on students’ real-time responses. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Science education in East Asia (pp. 549–563). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16390-1_22.
• Chien, Y.-T., Lee, Y.-H., Li, T.-Y., & Chang, C.-Y. (2015). Examining the effects of displaying clicker voting results on high school students’ voting behaviors, discussion processes, and learning outcomes. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 1089–1104. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1414a.
• Chin, C. & Kayalvizhi, G. (2005). What do pupils think of open science investigations? A study of Singaporean primary 6 pupils. Educational Research, 47(1), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188042000337596.
• Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning deeply in science: An analysis and reintegration of deep approaches in two case studies of grade 8 students. Research in Science Education, 30(2), 173–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461627.
• Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110095249.
• Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260701828101.
• Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least square. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small-sample research (pp. 307–341). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Coley, K., Hantla, B., & Cobb, C. (2013, October). Best practices for beginning a flipped classroom in the humanities. Paper presented at the 2013 NAPCE Annual Conference, Rosemont, IL.
• Cubric, M., & Jefferies, A. (2015). The benefits and challenges of large-scale deployment of electronic voting systems: University student views from across different subject groups. Computers & Education, 87, 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.004.
• Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research & Development, 61(4), 563–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6.
• De Jesus, H. P., Teixeira-Dias, J. J., & Watts, M. (2003). Questions of chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 1015–1034. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305022.
• Donaldson, M. (1987). Children’s minds (New ed.). New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
• Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question-posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199904)36:4<411::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-E.
• Drake, J. M., & Barlow, A. T. (2007). Assessing students’ levels of understanding multiplication through problem writing. Teaching Children Mathematics, 14(5), 272–277.
• El-Rady, J. (2006). To click or not to click: That’s the question. Innovate: Journal of online education, 2(4), Article 6.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.
• Gilboy, M. B., Heinerichs, S., & Pazzaglia, G. (2015). Enhancing student engagement using the flipped classroom. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 47(1), 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.08.008.
• Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Hair, J. F., Jr., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K. M. (2013). The flipped learning model: A white paper based on the literature review titled a review of flipped learning. Arlington, VA: Flipped Learning Network. Retrieved from https://flippedlearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/WhitePaper_FlippedLearning.pdf.
• Han, J. H., & Finkelstein, A. (2013). Understanding the effects of professors’ pedagogical development with Clicker Assessment and Feedback technologies and the impact on students’ engagement and learning in higher education. Computers & Education, 65, 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.002.
• Harlen, W., Elstgeest, J., & Jelly, S. (2001). Primary science: Taking the plunge (2nd ed.). London, England: Heinemann.
• Heiner, C. E., Banet, A. I., & Wieman, C. (2014). Preparing students for class: How to get 80% of students reading the textbook before class. American Journal of Physics, 82(10), 989–996. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4895008.
• Hung, H.-T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.967701.
• Hwang, G.-J., Lai, C.-L., & Wang, S.-Y. (2015). Seamless flipped learning: A mobile technology-enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(4), 449–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0043-0.
• Ikuta, J., & Maruno, S. (2005). Student question generation in the classroom: A review. Kyushu University Psychological Research, 6, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.15017/15680.
• Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., & Godoy, P. D. d. M. (2015). Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0129.
• Kay, R. H., & Lesage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001.
• Kennedy, G., Cutts, Q., & Draper, S. W. (2006). Evaluating electronic voting systems in lectures: Two innovative methods. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience response rystems in higher education. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-947-2.ch011.
• Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.003.
• Koballa, T. R., Jr. (1988). Attitude and related concepts in science education. Science Education, 72(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730720202.
• Lai, C.-Y., & Wu, C.-C. (2006). Using handhelds in a Jigsaw cooperative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(4), 284–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00176.x.
• Lantz, M. E. (2010). The use of ‘Clickers’ in the classroom: Teaching innovation or merely an amusing novelty? Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 556–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.014.
• Latessa, R., & Mouw, D. (2005). Use of an audience response system to augment interactive learning. Family Medicine, 37(1), 12–14.
• Lee, B. (2017). TELL us ESP in a flipped classroom. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 4995–5007. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00978a.
• Lin, P.-C., & Chen, H.-M. (2016). The effects of flipped classroom on learning effectiveness: using learning satisfaction as the mediator. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 14(2), 231–244.
• Madsen, H. S. (1983). Techniques in Testing (1st ed.) New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Maskill, R., & Pedrosa de Jesus, H. (1997a). Asking model questions. Education in Chemistry, 34(5), 132–134.
• Maskill, R., & Pedrosa de Jesus, H. (1997b). Pupils’ questions, alternative frameworks and the design of science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19(7), 781–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190704.
• Mok, M. M. C. (2005, December). A conceptual framework for the design of web-based self-directed learning curriculum. Paper presented at the 2005 International Conference on Education and Information Technology, Keelung, Taiwan.
• Moredich, C., & Moore, E. (2007). Engaging students through the use of classroom response systems. Nurse Educator, 32(3), 113–116. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NNE.0000270225.76661.74.
• Murphy, B., & Smark, C. J. (2006). Convergence of learning experiences for first year tertiary commerce students–Are personal response systems the meeting point? The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 10(1), 186–191.
• Ogden, L., & Shambaugh, N. (2016). Best teaching and technology practices for the hybrid flipped college classroom. In P. Vu, S. Fredrickson, & C. Moore (Eds.), Handbook of research on innovative pedagogies and technologies for online learning in higher education (pp. 281–303). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-1851-8.ch013.
• Pedrosa de Jesus, H., Neri de Souza, F., Teixeira‐Dias, J. J. C., & Watts, M. (2005). Organising the chemistry of question‐based learning: A case study. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140500266419.
• Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K., Masyn, K., & Crawford, V. M. (2007). Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(4), 315–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9023-4.
• Perez, J. A. (1986). Effects of student-generated problems on problem solving performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.
• Pierce, R., & Fox, J. (2012). Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom” model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(10), Article 196. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7610196.
• Pizzini, E. L., & Shepardson, D. P. (1991). Student questioning in the presence of the teacher during problem solving in science. School Science and Mathematics, 91(8), 348–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1991.tb12118.x.
• Preszler, R. W., Dawe, A., Shuster, C. B., & Shuster, M. (2007). Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-09-0190.
• Rifai, N. A. (2010). Attitude, motivation, and difficulties involved in learning the English language and factors that affect motivation in learning it. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5216–5227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.849.
• Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066002181.
• Sabri, M., Khalid, F. K., & Li, L. K. (2016). Assessing students engagement in an online student question-generation activity towards their learning motivation. International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, 2(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.18178/IJLLL.2016.2.1.62.
• Saulnier, B. (2015). The flipped classroom in systems analysis & design: Leveraging technology to increase student engagement. Information Systems Education Journal, 13(4), 33–40.
• Simpson, V., & Oliver, M. (2007). Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1264.
• Sohrabi, B., & Iraj, H. (2016). Implementing flipped classroom using digital media: A comparison of two demographically different groups perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 514–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.056.
• Song, D., Oh, E. Y., & Glazewski, K. (2017). Student-generated questioning activity in second language courses using a customized personal response system: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(6), 1425–1449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9520-7.
• Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4), 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280701700391.
• Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4.
• Trees, A. R., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university‐level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880601141179.
• Tu, K., & Conover, G. (2010, January). Student participation in question generation. Poster session presented at the 2010 Health Professions Educational Research Symposium, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
• van Dijk, L. A., van der Berg, G. C., & van Keulen, H. (2001). Interactive lectures in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 26(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790123124.
• Volet, S. (2001). Understanding learning and motivation in context: A multi-dimensional and multi-level cognitive-situative perspective. In S. Volet & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp. 57–82). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
• Wang, F. H. (2017). An exploration of online behaviour engagement and achievement in flipped classroom supported by learning management system. Computers & Education, 114, 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.012.
• Watts, M., Gould, G., & Alsop, S. (1997). Questions of understanding: Categorising pupils’ questions in science. School Science Review, 79(286), 57–63.
• Wei, C.-W., Lin, Y.-C., & Lin, Y.-T. (2016). An interactive diagnosis approach for supporting clinical nursing courses. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(8), 1795–1811. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1057741.
• Yang, C. C. R. (2017). An investigation of the use of the ‘flipped classroom’ pedagogy in secondary English language classrooms. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.28945/3635.
• Yilmaz, R. (2017). Exploring the role of e-learning readiness on student satisfaction and motivation in flipped classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.085.
• Yu, F.-Y. (2005). Promoting metacognitive strategy development through online question-generation instructional approach. In C.-K. Looi, D. Jonassen, & M. Ikeda (Eds.), Towards sustainable and scalable educational innovations informed by the learning sciences (pp. 564–571). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
• Yu, F.-Y. (2009). Scaffolding student-generated questions: Design and development of a customizable online learning system. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1129–1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.05.002.
• Yu, F.-Y. (2011). Multiple peer-assessment modes to augment online student question-generation processes. Computers & Education, 56(2), 484–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.025.
• Yu, F.-Y., & Hung, C.-C. (2006). An empirical analysis of online multiple-choice question-generation learning activity for the enhancement of students’ cognitive strategy development while learning science. In T. Simos & G. Maroulis (Series Eds.), Lecture Series on Computer and Computational Sciences: Vol. 7A. Recent progress in computational sciences and engineering (pp. 585–588). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
• Yu, F.-Y., & Liu, Y.-H. (2008). The comparative effects of student question-posing and question-answering strategies on promoting college students’ academic achievement, cognitive and metacognitive strategies use. Journal of Education & Psychology, 31(3), 25–52.
• Yu, F.-Y., & Wu, C.-P. (2012). Student question-generation: The learning processes involved and their relationships with students’ perceived value. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 57(4), 135–162. https://doi.org/10.3966/2073753X2012125704005.
• Yu, F.-Y., Chang, Y.-L., & Wu, H.-L. (2015). The effects of an online student question-generation strategy on elementary school student English learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 10(1), Article 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-015-0023-z.
• Yu, F.-Y., Tsai, H.-C., & Wu, H.-L. (2013). Effects of online procedural scaffolds and the timing of scaffolding provision on elementary Taiwanese students’ question-generation in a science class. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3), 416–433. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.197.

APA

Su, C.-Y., & Chen, C.-H. (2018). Investigating the Effects of Flipped Learning, Student Question Generation, and Instant Response Technologies on Students’ Learning Motivation, Attitudes, and Engagement: A Structural Equation Modeling. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2453-2466. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89938

Vancouver

Su CY, Chen CH. Investigating the Effects of Flipped Learning, Student Question Generation, and Instant Response Technologies on Students’ Learning Motivation, Attitudes, and Engagement: A Structural Equation Modeling. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2018;14(6):2453-66. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89938

AMA

Su CY, Chen CH. Investigating the Effects of Flipped Learning, Student Question Generation, and Instant Response Technologies on Students’ Learning Motivation, Attitudes, and Engagement: A Structural Equation Modeling. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2018;14(6), 2453-2466. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89938

Chicago

Su, Chien-Yuan, and Cheng-Huan Chen. "Investigating the Effects of Flipped Learning, Student Question Generation, and Instant Response Technologies on Students’ Learning Motivation, Attitudes, and Engagement: A Structural Equation Modeling". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2018 14 no. 6 (2018): 2453-2466. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89938

Harvard

Su, C.-Y., and Chen, C.-H. (2018). Investigating the Effects of Flipped Learning, Student Question Generation, and Instant Response Technologies on Students’ Learning Motivation, Attitudes, and Engagement: A Structural Equation Modeling. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), pp. 2453-2466. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89938

MLA

Su, Chien-Yuan et al. "Investigating the Effects of Flipped Learning, Student Question Generation, and Instant Response Technologies on Students’ Learning Motivation, Attitudes, and Engagement: A Structural Equation Modeling". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 14, no. 6, 2018, pp. 2453-2466. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89938