To flip or not to flip? Analysis of a flipped classroom pedagogy in a general biology course9/25/2016 In this study conducted by William H. Heyborne and Jamis J. Perrett of Utah State University, the flipped classroom model is compared to the traditional lecture format in an introductory biology course for science majors. The study was inconclusive but did suggest that there may be something to the flipped classroom improving student performance. Analysis of the study showed that student perception of the course was improved in the flipped classroom, and student achievement was relatively equal.
The article begins by introducing the concept of the flipped classroom, which has already been established on this blog. However, two things stood out to me in introducing the concept. First, the flipped classroom model was referred to as an inverted classroom, which was the first time I had heard that. Additionally, the text suggests that "successful implementation request hat students truly engage with the lecture material outside of class. To some degree the development of textbooks represented a flip, as the teacher was no longer the sole source of information. However, anyone who has taught knows the challenge associated with convincing students to spend worthwhile time with a textbook" (Heyborne, 2016). I found this to be an interesting point against the flipped classroom. The study looked at two sections of the general biology course taught concurrently. The first, a class of 71 students, was taught using a lecture format, three days a week, at 8 a.m.. The second, a class of 68 students, was taught using the flipped classroom model at 2 p.m. on the same days. The lecture format was taught using PowerPoint slides in class that were made available to students outside of class. The flipped classroom also had access to these PowerPoints in addition to narrated and animated slides that were not available to the lecture format sections of the course, and both course utilized electronic clickers, homework sets, chapter quizzes, and exams. Student achievement was analyzes based on a pretest and several exam scores. Five of the six exams taken after the pretest showed that the mean scores for the flipped classroom were greater than the mean scores of the lecture format, however only one of those exams was considered significantly greater for the flipped classroom. Thus, it cannot be said that the flipped classroom was better than the lecture format. Interestingly, the course evaluations suggested a more positive attitude towards the flipped classroom than the lecture format with 19 wholly positive responses, 13 wholly negative responses, and 10 mixed responses on course evaluations. Students seemed to like the lectures available outside of class but often thought that class time was wasted due to lack of participation among students in the classroom. Of the eight responses that were specifically about the lectures for the lecture-based course, 3 were wholly positive and 5 were wholly negative. Two of the students who responded wholly negative wanted access to the lectures available to the students in the flipped classroom. The results of the course evaluations suggest that students have a better attitude towards the flipped classroom than the lecture-based classroom. In the conclusion, the authors of the study suggest that more research is necessary on a larger scale, and that there is no conclusive literature on the topic to this point despite a lot of interest in the topic. The reasons that larger scale research has not been done, suggest the authors, is because there are to many restraints on schools and teachers to do so. However, such research would be welcomed. My Thoughts I find it interesting that class time in the flipped classroom was viewed as a waste of time by many students. I am curious whether those students feel that that issue was attributed to the instructor, the activities chosen for class time, or unwillingness to work together by peers. This is the first study I have looked at in the college setting, and I know that college is a different animal than the middle or high school classroom. I wonder if the attitudes of college students, especially those who were science majors, hindered the ability for classes students to work together. I don't see the harm in having lectures available online, like in a flipped classroom, when classes are taught in a lecture format anyway. The only negatives, to me, seem to be that questions cannot be asked immediately and students may not access the lectures regularly, as the authors suggest. If class time had been more effective, I think the studies may have suggested an impact due to the flipped classroom. References Heyborne, W. H., & Perrett, J. J. (2016). To Flip or Not to Flip? Analysis of a Flipped Classroom Pedagogy in a General Biology Course. Journal Of College Science Teaching, 45(4), 31-37.
3 Comments
In this study conducted by Kaushal Kumar Bhagat, Cheng-Nan Chang, and Chun-Yen Chang, the flipped classroom model is put under the microscope context of high school trigonometry courses. The paper begins by explaining that the study included 82 high school students and analyzed its effects on different groups of students based on ability. One group of 41 students was taught trigonometry using traditional teaching methods while the other used the flipped classroom model. The researchers used the Mathematics Achievement Tests (MAT) and the Course Interest Survey (CIS) to assess both student achievement and interest in the course. The findings of the research were that the flipped classroom did have a significantly positive impact on both learning and motivation in the flipped classroom, and had an especially significant positive impact on the low-achieving students. (Bhagat, 2016, pg. 134)
Next, the paper explains that the flipped classrooms in the study were designed according to some principles of the Mayer's cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML). Those principles were the multimedia principle, which says that students learn better from words and pictures than words alone, the modality principle, which says that students learn better from narration rather than on-screen text, and the individual differences principle, which says that all design principles have a greater impact on low-performing students (Mayer, 2001). The paper then explains the rationale and design of the study. It explains that the students were all high schoolers ages 14 to 15, and that the experimental and control groups were both 41 students in size. However, male and female distribution in these groups was not consistent. The experimental group had 28 males and 13 females, and the control group had 24 male and 17 females. The students were categorized, based on previous summative test scores, as high, average, and low performing students. Both groups were taught the same trigonometry concepts, and both groups were given a pretest and a posttest (Bhagat, 2016, pg. 136). Next, the paper explains the procedure of the study. The study was conducted in a timeframe of six weeks, which did not include the pretest being administered to the students two weeks prior. The units of study for the research were introduction to trigonometry, trigonometric identities, and trigonometric ratios. Students in the control group received instruction in the classroom in lecture format for thirty to forty minutes of a fifty-minute class period with the rest of the time being used for problem solving. Students in the control groups were then expected to complete homework problems from their textbooks before the next class. Students in the experimental group watched videos that were fifteen to twenty minutes in length and prerecorded and uploaded prior to the start of the week. The experimental group spent class time working on and discussing problems from the text. Students who needed remedial assistance were given face-to-face support. Following the six-week study, students were given the MAT and CIS to assess learning and motivation in the course (Bhagat, 2016, pg. 137). Finally, the results of the study are explore. The conclusion of the researchers was that high and low performing students did about the same in the control and experimental group. However, the lower-performing students had a significant increase in learning in the experimental group. The researchers suggest that this is due to more time with teachers than would have been received in the control group (Bhagat, 2016, pg. 140). My Thoughts This study applied very well to my current interests and position as a high school mathematics teacher. It is interesting that the high and average performing students had the same outcome in each group while low-performing students had significant gains. I can understand the reasoning the researchers used to explain this: more face-to-face time with the instructor. I don't think a six week timeframe is enough to make any decisive statements about flipped classrooms, and I don't think an experimental group of 41 students is enough to make conclusions either. However, the study does suggest that this model is at least worth more investigating in my position. The control group was taught using "traditional teaching methods," which could mean different things to different people. I am curious what the study's outcome would have been if the control group was taught using an inquiry-based approach because that is how the classes at my school are generally taught. References Bhagat, K. K., Chang, C. C., & Chang, C.Y. (2016). The Impact of the Flipped Classroom on Mathematics Concept Learning in High School. Educational Technology & Society, 19 (3), 134-142. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2017
Categories |