Flipped Classroom Model in High School Mathematics

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the flipped classroom model on 10th grade students’ mathematics achievement and mathematical attitudes. The research has as a pre test post test quasi-experimental design with a control group. The participants consisted of 67 tenth grade students in two groups as control (n=33) and experiment (n=34). A non-interventional, regular mathematics instruction (technology integrated face to face classroom model) currenlty being implemented by state schools was applied in the control group. Flipped classoom model was used in the experimental group. The data were collected by using the “Mathematics Achievement Test” and the “Attitudes towards Mathematics Instrument”. In the analysis of the data, a repeated samples t-test and independent samples t-test were used. The critical value was taken as .05 for all statistical tests. The findings of the study revealed that the experimental group students in flipped classroom model had statistically significantly higher scores on both mathematics achievement and mathematical attitudes than the control group students. Based on the findings of the current study, it was suggested that, flipped classroom model can be used in high school mathematics courses.

Keywords

• Flipped classroom,Mathematics achievement,Attitudes

References

1. Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research ve Development, 34(1), 1-14.
2. Akyüz, G., & Pala, N. M. (2010). PISA 2003 sonuçlarına göre öğrenci ve sınıf özelliklerinin matematik okuryazarlığına ve problem çözme becerilerine etkisi. İlköğretim Online, 9(2), 668-678.
3. Alkan, C. (1996). Uzaktan eğitimin tarihsel gelişimi. Türkiye, 1, 12-15.
4. Avcı, E., Coşkuntuncel, O., & İnandı, Y. (2011). Ortaöğretim on ikinci sınıf öğrencilerinin matematik dersine karşı tutumları. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 50-58.
5. Aybek, B. (2007). Konu ve beceri temelli eleştirel düşünme öğretiminin öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünme eğilimi ve düzeyine etkisi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(2), 43-60.
6. Aysan, F., Tanrıöğen G., & Tanrıöğren, A. (1996). Perceived causes of academic failure among the students at the faculty of education at Buca. US Departmant of Education, 4, 43-63.
7. Baker, W. J. (2000). The “classroom flip”: Using web course management tools to become the guide by the side. Cedarville University: Communication Faculty Publication, 9-17.
8. Baki, A. (2001). Bilişim teknolojisi ışığı altında matematik eğitiminin değerlendirilmesi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 149(1), 26-31.

9. Balaman, F., & Tüysüz, C. (2011). Harmanlanmış öğrenme modelinin 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen ve teknoloji dersindeki başarılarına, tutumlarına ve motivasyonlarına etkisinin incelenmesi. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(4), 75-90.
10. Başol, G. (2018). Eğitimde ölçme değerlendirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
11. Bates, S., & Galloway, R. (2012). The inverted classroom in a large enrolment introductory physics course: A case study. Web: https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~ rgallowa/Bates_Galloway .pdf. ET: 02/07/2017.
12. Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall, C. G., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC horizon report: 2017 higher education edition. The New Media Consortium,1-60,Web: https://www.learntechlib.org /p/174879/ report_174879 .pdf. ET: 04/05/2017.
13. Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies, and lessons learned. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
14. Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013, 23-26 June). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In American Society for Engineering Education National Conference proceedings, Atlanta.
15. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2015). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
16. Chen, W., & Looi, C. K. (2007). Incorporating online discussion in face to face classroom learning: A new blended learning approach. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 307-326.
17. Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1-62.
18. Çakmak, V., & Aktan, E. (2016). Öğretmen öğrenci iletişiminin çeşitli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 15(56), 83-97.
19. Delialioğlu, Ö., & Yıldırım, Z. (2007). Students’ perceptions on effective dimensions of ınteractive learning in a blended learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 10, 133-146.
20. Deschacht, N., & Goeman, K. (2015). The effect of blended learning on course persistence and performance of adult learners: A difference-in-differences analysis. Computers ve Education, 87, 83-89.
21. Din, F. S., & Calao, J. (2001). The effects of playing educational video games on kindergarten achievement. Child Study Journal, 31(2), 95-103.
22. Dursun, Ş., & Dede, Y. (2004). Öğrencilerin matematikte başarısını etkileyen faktörler matematik öğretmenlerinin görüşleri bakımından. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2), 217-230.
23. Filiz, O., & Kurt, A. A. (2015). Flipped learning: Misunderstandings and the truth. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 215-229. DOI: 10.12973/jesr. 2015.51.13.
24. Findlay-Thompson, S., & Mombourquette, P. (2014). Evaluation of a flipped classroom in an undergraduate business course. Business Education & Accreditation, 6(1). 63-71.
25. Fulton, K. (2012). The flipped classroom: Transforming education at Byron High School. T.H.E. Journal, 18-20.
26. Gençer, B. G., Gürbulak, N., & Adıgüzel, T. (2014, 5-7 Şubat). Eğitimde yeni bir süreç: Ters-yüz sınıf sistemi. Uluslararası Öğretmen Eğitimi Konferansı’nda sunuldu, Dubai, UAE.
27. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2008). Using SPSS for windows and macintosh (Analyzing and Understanding Data–Fifth Edition). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
28. Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58(6-7),466-474, DOI: 10.1037/ 0003066X. 58.6-7.466.
29. Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62-66.
30. Işman, A. (2011). Uzaktan eğitim. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
31. Kalem, S., & Fer, S. (2003). Aktif öğrenme modeliyle oluşturulan öğrenme ortamının öğrenme, öğretme ve iletişim sürecine etkisi. Educational Sciences: Theory ve Practice, 3(2), 433-461.
32. Karaca, C. (2016). Öğretim teknolojilerinde güncel bir yaklaşım: Tersyüz öğrenme. Ö. Demirel, S. Dinçer (Editör). Eğitim bilimlerinde yenilik ve nitelik arayışı, (s. 1161-1172). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
33. Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work to promote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(3), 203-235.
34. Kong, S. C. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers and Education, 78, 160-173.
35. Köseoğlu, P., Yılmaz, M., Gerçek, C., & Soran, H. (2007). Bilgisayar kursunun bilgisayara yönelik başarı, tutum ve öz-yeterlik inançları üzerine etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(33), 203-209.
36. Lage, M. J., & Platt, G. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30-43.
37. Lamb, S., & Fullarton, S. (2002). Classroom and school factors affecting mathematics achievement: A comparative study of Australia and the United States using TIMSS. Australian Journal of Education, 46(2), 154-171.
38. Lemmer, C. A. (2013). A view from the flip side: Using the inverted classroom to enhance the legal information literacy of the international LL. M. student. Law Library. Journal, 105, 461-491.
39. López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers and Education, 56(3), 818-826, DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.023.
40. Mata, M. D. L., Monteiro, V., & Peixoto, F. (2012). Attitudes towards mathematics: Effects of individual, motivational, and social support factors. Child Development Research, DOI: 10.1155/2012/876028.
41. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-47.
42. Milman, N. B. (2012). The flipped classroom strategy: What is it and how can it best be used? Distance Learning, 9(3), 85-87.
43. Moffett, J., & Mill, A. C. (2014). Evaluation of the flipped classroom approach in a veterinary professional skills course. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 5, 415- 425, DOI: 10.2147/AMEP.S70160.
44. O'Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85-95.
45. Oliver, M. , & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’be redeemed? E-learning and Digital Media, 2(1), 17-26.
46. Özer, Y., & Anıl, D. (2011). Öğrencilerin fen ve matematik başarılarını etkileyen faktörlerin yapısal eşitlik modeli ile incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41, 313-324.
47. Özsoy, G. (2014). Problem çözme becerisi ile matematik başarısı arasındaki ilişki. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(3), 179-190.
48. Öztürk, M. F., & Talas, M. (2015). Sosyal medya ve eğitim etkileşimi. Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken/Journal of World of Turks, 7(1), 101-120.
49. Peker, M., & Mirasyedioğlu, Ş. (2003). Lise 2.sınıf öğrencilerinin matematik dersine yönelik tutumları ve başarıları arasındaki ilişki. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14, 157-166.
50. 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), 196, DOI: 10.5688/ape7610196.
51. Polya, G. (2014). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
52. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1.On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
53. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.
54. Romiszowski, A. J. (1997). Web-based distance learning and teaching: Revolutionary invention or reaction to necessity. Khan, 62, 25-37.
55. Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), 1-17.
56. Savaş, E., Taş, S., & Duru, A. (2010). Matematikte öğrenci başarısını etkileyen faktörler. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 113-132.
57. Seaton, M., Parker, P., Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Yeung, A. S. (2014). The reciprocal relations between self-concept, motivation and achievement: juxtaposing academic self-concept and achievement goal orientations for mathematics success. Educational Psychology, 34(1), 49-72.
58. Sırakaya, D. A. (2017). Oyunlaştırılmış tersyüz sınıf modeline yönelik öğrenci görüşleri. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(1), 114-132, DOI: 10.7822/omuefd.327393.
59. Siegle, D. (2014). Technology: Differentiating instruction by flipping the classroom. Gifted Child Today, 37(1), 51-55.
60. Soylu, Y., & Soylu, C. (2006). Matematik derslerinde başariya giden yolda problem çözmenin rolü. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(11), 97-111.
61. Stafslien, C. (2001). Gender differences in achievement in mathematics. Web: http://www.math.wisc.edu/~weinberg/MathEd/Gender_Term_Paper.doc. ET: 15.09.2017.
62. Strayer, J. (2007). The effects of the classroom flip on the learning environment: A comparison of learning activity in a traditional classroom and a flip classroom that used an intelligent tutoring system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Ohio, USA.
63. Sun, Z., Xie, K., & Anderman, L. H. (2018). The role of self-regulated learning in students' success in flipped undergraduate math courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 36, 41-53.
64. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th Edition). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
65. Tabuk, M., & Hacıömeroğlu, G. (2015). Matematiğe ilişkin tutum ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlama çalışması. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 11, 245-260.
66. Tapia, M. (1996). The attitudes toward mathematics instrument. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Tuscaloosa, AL.
67. Tapia, M. ve Marsh, G.E. (2002). Confirmatory factor analysis of the attitudes toward mathematics inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
68. Taradi, S. K., Taradi, M., Radic, K., & Pokrajac, N. (2005). Blending problem-based learning with web technology positively impacts student learning outcomes in acid-base physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 29(1), 35-39.
69. Tuckman, B. W. (2002). Evaluating ADAPT: A hybrid instructional model combining web-based and classroom components. Computers ve Education, 39(3), 261-269.Turgut, M. F., & Baykul, Y. (2011). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
70. Ünal, M., & Özdemir, M. Ç. (2008). Eğitim fakültelerinde ortak ders olarak okutulan yabancı dil derslerinde öğrencilerin bilişsel hazırbulunuşluk düzeylerinin akademik başarıya etkisi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 13-22.
71. Yalın, H. İ. (2000). Öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal geliştirme. İstanbul: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
72. Yeşiltaş, E. (2017). Sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde interaktif ortam ve bilgisayar kullanımı. R. Sever, E. Koçoğlu (Editör). Sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde eğitim teknolojileri ve materyal tasarımı (s. 103-127). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
73. Yorgancı, S., & Terzioğlu, Ö. (2013). Matematik öğretiminde akıllı tahta kullanmanın başarıya ve matematiğe karşı tutuma etkisi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 21(3), 919-930.
74. Zan, R., & Di Martino, P. (2007). Attitude toward mathematics: Overcoming the positive/negative dichotomy. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 3, 157-168.