Does flipping the classroom really affect the way students perceive their learning environment, and if so, is this a good or bad thing? A number of previous studies have examined whether students prefer the flipped classroom over a traditional lecture class (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Deslauriers, Schelew, & Wieman, 2011; Hamdan, McKnight, McKnight, & Artfstrom, 2013b; O'Flaherty & Phillips, 2015; Strayer, 2012), but the overwhelming majority of these studies have examined this question in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses. Very few studies conducted on this topic, especially in higher educational settings, have examined the effectiveness of the flipped classroom in humanities settings (for example, see Chapters 2-4 and Chapter 16 of Bretzmann et al. (2013), Chapter 9 of Ostashewski, Martin, and Brennan (2014), and Ebbeler (2013)). Additionally, as Abeysekera and Dawson (2014) and Hantla (2014) note, very little research overall has been conducted on the efficacy of the teaching method, despite its popularity with faculty and students (Faculty Focus, 2015; Moussa-Inaty, 2017). At its core, flipped learning is a blended learning model in which professors leverage technology to more actively engage students in the learning process than in traditional seminars and lecture-based courses (Allen, Seaman, & Garrett, 2007). The blended model has a longer history of being implemented in a wide variety of courses and in a wide variety of ways (Naismith, Sharples, Vavoula, & Lonsdale, 2004). Notably, blended learning can take place either synchronously, asynchronously, or both; but flipped learning has been most frequently executed in a synchronous manner (Hamdan, McKnight, McKnight, & Artfstrom, 2013a). The blended aspects of this teaching method have shown to increase learner engagement and deepen learning (Ebbeler, 2013; Greenfield & Hibbert, 2017), especially when instructors design their courses to include active learning techniques (ALTs) (McCredden, Reidsema, & Kavanagh, 2017).