Flipped Learning in Physical Education Teacher Education - The Student Perspective

Abstract

During recent decades teacher education has experienced a digital revolution, where digital technology has become a ubiquitous part of the everyday life of both students and teacher educators. The purpose of this paper is to understand students’ perceptions of the use of flipped learning (FL), with special focus on their motivation and learning in physical education teacher education (PETE). 22 Norwegian PETE students were recruited from one university in the academic year 2016/2017. The data were generated using semi-structured interviews, which were reduced, analysed, and interpreted by constructivist grounded theory traditions through learning theory lenses. The analysis resulted in five main empirical themes in terms of how students experience the use of FL in PETE. The themes were “expectations”, “simple input”, “deep learning”, and “supportive learning environment”. We also present some challenges that were reported. A clearly positive perception of FL in PETE was expressed by the students. FL seems to facilitate both better motivation and deep learning in PETE. In addition, students reported that experiencing FL in PETE lays a good foundation for them to use this approach in future service in school PE.

Keywords

• physical education (PE)
• flipped learning (FL)
• flipped classroom
• motivation
• learning
• digital technologies
• physical education teacher education (PETE)

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 and Development, 34, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336
2. Allport, G. W. (1942). The use of personal documents in psychological science: Prepared for the Committee on Appraisal of Research. New York: Social Science Research Council.
3. Almås, A. G., & Krumsvik, R. (2007). Digitally literate teachers in leading edge schools in Norway. Journal of In-Service Education, 33(4), 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674580701687864
4. Armour, K. M., Casey, A., & Goodyear, V. A. (2017). A pedagogical cases approach to understanding digital technologies and learning in physical education. In A. Casey, V. A. Goodyear, & K. M. Armour (Eds.), Digital technologies and learning in physical education: Pedagogical cases (pp. 1-12). New York: Taylor & Francis.
5. Armour, K. M., Goodyear, V. A., & Sandford, R. (2020). The digital age challenge: Preparing physical and health educators to understand and support ‘online’ youth. In A. MacPhail & H. A. Lawson (Eds.), School physical education and teacher education: Collaborative redesign for the twenty-first century (pp. 92-102). New York, NY: Routledge.
6. Baek, J.-H., Jones, E., Bulger, S., & Taliaferro, A. (2018). Physical education teacher perceptions of technology-related learning experiences: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(2), 175-185. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0180
7. Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180105
8. Bing, Z. (2017). A survey analysis of the network flipped classroom model application in the optimization of the university physical education classroom system. Boletín Técnico, 55(19), 413-418

9. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
10. Brinkmann, S. (2013). Qualitative interviewing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
11. Calderón, A., Meroño, L., & MacPhail, A. (2020). A student-centred digital technology approach: The relationship between intrinsic motivation, learning climate and academic achievement of physical education pre-service teachers. European Physical Education Review, 26(1), 241-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X19850852
12. Carmichael, M., Reid, A.-K., & Karpicke, J. D. (2018). Assessing the impact of educational video on student engagement, critical thinking and learning: The current state of play (White Paper). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing, Inc.
13. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
14. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2 ed.). London: Sage.
15. Chiang, T. H.-C., Yang, S. J., & Yin, C. (2018). Effect of gender differences on 3-on-3 basketball games taught in a mobile flipped classroom. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1093-1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1495652
16. Colomo-Magaña, E., Soto-Varela, R., Ruiz-Palmero, J., & Gómez-García, M. (2020). University students’ perception of the usefulness of the flipped classroom methodology. Education Sciences, 10(275), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100275
17. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3-21
18. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4 ed.). Los Angeles, LA: Sage.
19. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher Technology Change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
20. Ferriz-Valero, A., Sebastià , S. A., & García , S. M. (2017). Clase invertida como elemento innovador en educación física: Efectos sobre la motivación y la adquisición de aprendizajes en primaria y bachillerato. In R. Roig-Vila (Ed.), Investigación en docencia universitaria. Diseñando el futuro a partir de la innovación educativa (pp. 211-222). Barcelona: Octaedro Editorial.
21. Gawrisch, D. P., Richards, K. A. R., & Killian, C. M. (2019). Integrating technology in physical education teacher education: A socialization perspective. Quest, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2019.1685554
22. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
23. Gómez-Carrasco, C.-J., Monteagudo-Fernández, J., Moreno-Vera, J.-R., & Sainz-Gómez, M. (2019). Effects of a Gamification and Flipped-Classroom Program for Teachers in Training on Motivation and Learning Perception. Education Sciences, 9(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040299
24. González-Calvo, G., Gerdin, G., Philpot, R., & Hortigüela-Alcalá, D. (2020). Wanting to become PE teachers in Spain: connections between previous experiences and particular beliefs about school physical education and the development of professional teacher identities. Sport, Education and Society, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1812563
25. Han, H., & Røkenes, F. M. (2020). Flipped classroom in teacher education: A scoping review. Frontiers in Education, 5(221), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.601593
26. Hartas, D. (2010). Evaluation research in education. In D. Hartas (Ed.), Educational research and inquiry: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (pp. 270-291). London: Continuum.
27. Hinojo, F. L., Mingorance, Á. E., Trujillo, J. M. T., Aznar, I. D., & Cáceres, M. R. (2018). Incidence of the flipped classroom in the physical education students’ academic performance in university contexts. Sustainability, 10(1334). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051334
28. Hwang, G. J., Chen, M. R. A., Sung, H. Y., & Lin, M. H. (2018). Effects of integrating a concept mapping‐based summarization strategy into flipped learning on students’ reading performances and perceptions in Chinese courses. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12708
29. Hyndman, B., & Harvey, S. (2020). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of Twitter for Health and Physical Education teacher education: A self-determination theoretical approach. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 39, 472-480. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2019-0278
30. Isidori, E., Chiva-Bartoll, O., Fazio, A., & Sandor, I. (2018). Flipped classroom in physical education: Pedagogical models and possible implementation through Web 2.0. Paper presented at the The International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education (eLSE), Bucharest, Romania.
31. Jones, E. M., Baek, J.-h., & Wyant, J. D. (2017). Exploring pre-service physical education teacher technology use during student teaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 36(2), 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2015-0176
32. Jumaat, N. F., & Tasir, Z. (2014). Instructional scaffolding in online learning environment: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the 2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering.
33. Kara, H. (2015). Creative research methods in the social sciences: A practical guide. Bristol: Policy Press.
34. Killian, C. M., Graber, K. C., & Woods, A. M. (2016). Flipped instructional model in physical education. In D. Novak, B. Antala, & D. Knjaz (Eds.), Physical education and new technologies (pp. 102-111). Zagreb: Croatian Kinesiology Association.
35. Killian, C. M., Trendowski, T. N., & Woods, A. M. (2016). Students' perceptions of flipped instruction in a university physical activity course. Paper presented at the 2016 AIESEP International Conference, Laramie, WY, USA.
36. Killian, C. M., & Woods, A. M. (2018). Expanding learning opportunities in kinesiology through the use of flipped instruction. Kinesiology Review, 7(4), 332-338. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2018-0046
37. Koekoek, J., & van Hilvoorde, I. (2018). Digital technologies in physical education: Global perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
38. Krause, J. M. (2017). Physical education student teachers' technology integration self-efficacy. Physical Educator, 74(3), 476-496. https://doi.org/10.18666/TPE-2017-V74-I3-7329
39. Krause, J. M., & Lynch, B. M. (2018). Faculty and student perspectives of and experiences with TPACK in PETE. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education, 9(1), 58-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2018.1429146
40. Krause, J. M., O’Neil, K., & Jones, E. (2019). Technology in physical education teacher education: A call to action. Quest, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2019.1685553
41. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
42. Lagerstrom, L., Johanes, P., & Ponsukcharoen, M. U. (2015). The myth of the six minute rule: Student engagement with online videos. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, Seattle, WA.
43. Lawson, H. A. (2020). Learning to plan and planning to learn during turbulent times. In A. MacPhail & H. A. Lawson (Eds.), School physical education and teacher education (pp. 165-178). London: Routledge.
44. LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31-60. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052001031
45. Lina, Z. (2017). A improved method for teaching system innovation design of physical education major in colleges based on flipped classroom. Revista de la Facultad de Ingeniería, 32(9), 630-635
46. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
47. Long, T., Logan, J., & Waugh, M. (2016). Students' perceptions of the value of using videos as a pre-class learning experience in the flipped classroom. TechTrends, 60, 245-252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0045-4
48. MacPhail, A., & Lawson, H. A. (2020). Grand challenges as catalysts for the collaborative redesign of physical education, teacher education, and research and development. In A. MacPhail & H. A. Lawson (Eds.), School physical education and teacher education (pp. 1-10). London: Routledge.
49. Marqués-Molías, L., Palau, R., & Usart, M. (2019). The flipped classroom in the learning of korfball in fifth and sixth grade. Aloma, 37(2), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.51698/aloma.2019.37.2
50. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I—Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
51. Roth, K. (2014). Technology for tomorrow's teachers. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 85, 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2014.884420
52. Røkenes, F. M. (2018). Digital kompetanse i lærerutdanning og i høyere utdanning. In V. Frantzen & D. Schofield (Eds.), Mediepedagogikk og mediekompetanse: Danning og læring i en ny mediekultur (pp. 185-204): Fagbokforlaget.
53. Røkenes, F. M., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2016). Prepared to teach ESL with ICT? A study of digital competence in Norwegian teacher education. Computers & Education, 97, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.014
54. Sargent, J., & Casey, A. (2020). Flipped learning, pedagogy and digital technology: Establishing consistent practice to optimise lesson time. European Physical Education Review, 26, 70-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X19826603
55. Selander, S. (2021). Didaktiken efter Vygotskij: Design för lärande (2 ed.). Stockholm: Liber.
56. Sennett, R. (2004). Respect. London: Penguin.
57. Shin, M.-H. (2018). How to use artificial intelligence in the English language learning classroom. Indian Journal of Public Health Research Developmental Psychology, 9(9), 557-561. https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-5506.2018.01058.6
58. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2015). Motivasjon for læring: Teori og praksis. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
59. Stake, R. E., & Trumbull, D. (1982). Naturalistic generalizations. Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science, 7(1), 1-12
60. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
61. The Academy of Active Learning Arts and Sciences [AALAS]. (2018). AALAS International Standards. Retrieved from http://aalasinternational.org/
62. The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2019). Curriculum in physical education (KRO01-05).
63. Tjora, A. (2018). Qualitative research as stepwise-deductive induction: A stepwise-deductive inductive approach. London: Routledge.
64. Tochon, F. V. (2010). Deep education. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, 1, 1-12
65. Tondeur, J., Howard, S. K., & Yang, J. (2020). One-size does not fit all: Towards an adaptive model to develop preservice teachers’ digital competencies. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106659
66. van Hilvoorde, I., & Koekoek, J. (2018, 13.9.-19.9.2017). Digital technologies: A challenge for physical education. Paper presented at the 12th FIEP European Congress. Changes in Childhood and Adolescence: Current Challenges for Physical Education, Luxembourg.
67. Van Wyk, M. M. (2019). Flipping the economics class in a teacher education course. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24, 373-399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9377-9
68. Villalon, L., Sebastiá Amat, S., & Pueo, B. (2020). El modelo pedagógico flipped classroom en la adquisición de conocimientos. In J. A. M. Marín, G. G. García, M. R. Navas-Parejo, & M. N. C. Soto (Eds.), Inclusión, Tecnología y Sociedad: investigación e innovación en educación (pp. 574-584). Madrid: Dykinson.
69. Wertz, F. J., Charmaz, K., McMullen, L. M., Josselson, R., Anderson, R., & McSpadden, E. (2011). Five ways of doing qualitative analysis: Phenomenological psychology, grounded theory, discourse analysis, narrative research, and intuitive inquiry. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
70. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
71. Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers & Education, 48, 362-382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.01.010
72. Østerlie, O. (2016). Flipped learning in physical education: Why and how? In D. Novak, B. Antala, & D. Knjaz (Eds.), Physical education and new technologies (pp. 166-176). Zagreb: Croatian Kinesiology Association.
73. Østerlie, O. (2020). Flipped learning in physical education: A gateway to motivation and (deep) learning. (Doctoral thesis), Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2649972
74. Østerlie, O., & Kjelaas, I. (2019). The perception of adolescents’ encounter with a flipped learning intervention in Norwegian physical education. Frontiers in Education, 4(114), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00114
75. Østern, T. P., Dahl, T., Strømme, A., Petersen, J. A., Østern, A.-L., & Selander, S. (2019). Dybde//læring: En flerfaglig, relasjonell og skapende tilnærming. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget