The Human Limitations of Flipped Science Instruction: Exploring Students Learning and Perceptions of Flipped Teaching

Abstract

Flipped instruction—the replacement of traditional in-class lecture with at-home, multimedia instruction—continues to grow in popularity. The existing evidence to support its effectiveness in K-12 science classrooms lacks substantial quantitative data to warrant such an enthusiastic embrace. The objective of this study was to clarify the relationship between flipped instruction and student learning in a high school classroom context, as well as to understand the interactions between students and technological tools that took place during flipped instruction. This quasi-experimental mixed-methods study compared learning outcomes in high school Biology students (N= 303) who experienced a flipped lesson to those of peers who experienced a control, traditional lecture-based lesson on the same topic. Average gains from pre-test to post-test were significantly higher for flipped students. Flipped students' completion of the out-of-class online learning activity was particularly important. Interview data suggest that the multimedia nature of the online activity, as well as its convenience, contributed the significant gains of flipped students.

Keywords

• Flipped classrooms
• flipped instruction
• blended learning

Kaynakça

1. Alonso, F., Manrique, D., Martinez, L., & Vines, J. M. (2011). How blended learning reduces underachievement in higher education: An experience in teaching Computer Sciences. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(3), 471-478.
2. Arnold-Garza, S. (2014). The flipped classroom: Assessing an innovative teaching model for effective and engaging library instruction. College & Research Libraries News 75(1), 10-13.
3. Bliuc, A., Ellis, R., Goodyear, P., & Piggott, L. (2011). A blended learning Approach to teaching foreign policy: Student experiences of learning through face-to-face and online discussion and their relationship to academic performance. Computers & Education,56(3), 856-864. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.027
4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
5. Campbell, D. T., Stanley, J. C., & Gage, N. L. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton Mifflin Boston.
6. Carbonaro, M., King, S., Taylor, E., Satzinger, F., Snart, F., & Drummond, J. (2008). Integration of e-learning technologies in an interprofessional health science course. Medical Teacher, 30, 25-33.
7. Chandra, V., & Watters, J. (2012). Re-thinking physics teaching with web-based learning. Computers & Education, 58(1), 631-640.
8. Chen, C.C., Jones, K. T. (2007). Blended learning vs. traditional classroom settings: Assessing effectiveness and student perceptions in an MBA accounting course. Journals of Educators Online, 4(1) 1-15.

9. Cheng, K. K., Thacker, B. A., Cardenas, R. L., & Crouch, C. (2004). Using an online homework system enhances students’ learning of physics concepts in an introductory physics course. American Journal of Physics Am. J. Phys., 72(11), 1447.
10. Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145-182.
11. Coletta, V. P., Phillips, J. A., & Steinert, J. J. (2007). Interpreting force concept inventory scores: Normalized gain and SAT scores. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 3(1).
12. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., Newman, S.E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. Center for the Study of Reading, Technical Report, No. 403.
13. Dantas, A., & Kemm, R. (2008). A blended approach to active learning in a physiology laboratory-based subject facilitated by an e-learning component. Advances in Physiology Education, 32(1), 65-75.
14. Foldnes, N. (2016). The flipped classroom and cooperative learning: Evidence from a randomised experiment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 39-49.
15. Freire, P. (2000). Chapter 2. In Pedagogy of the oppressed (pp. 71-86). New York: Continuum.
16. 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.
17. Gross, D., Pietri, E. S., Anderson, G., Moyano-Camihort, K., & Graham, M. J. (2015). Increased preclass preparation underlies student outcome improvement in the flipped classroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar36.
18. Groves, M.M., & Zemel, P.C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 57.
19. Hoellwarth, C., & Moelter, M. J. (2011). The implications of a robust curriculum in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics Am. J. Phys., 79(5), 540.
20. Hoic-Bozic, N., Mornar, V., & Boticki, I. (2009). A blended learning approach to course design and implementation. IEEE Transactions on Education, 52(1), 19-30.
21. Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational technology, 34(4), 34-37.
22. 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.
23. Lage, M., Platt, G., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30-43.
24. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671-696.
25. Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2017). A critical review of flipped classroom challenges in K-12 education: Possible solutions and recommendations for future research. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 4.
26. Mason, G., Shuman, T., & Cook, K. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 430-435.
27. Mayer, R. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Rosenberg, T. (2013, October 9). In “Flipped” Classrooms, a Method for Mastery [news]. Retrieved July 10, 2015 from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/in-flipped-classrooms-a-method-for-mastery/?_r=0.
29. Roy, M., Chi, M.T.H. (2005). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
30. Sancho, P., Corral, R., Rivas, T., González, M., Chordi, A., & Tejedor, C. (2006). A blended learning experience for teaching microbiology. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(3), 120-120.
31. Straub, E.T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625-649.
32. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of educational research, 72(2), 131-175.
33. Zhao, Y., & Cziko, G.A. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: A perceptual control theory perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 5-30.