The Flipped College Classroom: Conceptualized and Re-Conceptualized

266 Pages·2017·5.02 MB·English

by  Lucy Santos Green, Jennifer R. Banas, Ross A. Perkins (eds.)

Educational Communications and Technology:
Issues and Innovations
Lucy Santos Green
Jennifer R. Banas
Ross A. Perkins Editors
The Flipped
College
Classroom
Conceptualized and Re-Conceptualized
Educational Communications and Technology:
Issues and Innovations
Series Editors
Michael Spector
M.J. Bishop
Dirk Ifenthaler
More information about this series at h ttp://www.springer.com/series/11824
Lucy Santos Green • Jennifer R. Banas
Ross A. Perkins
Editors
The Flipped College
Classroom
Conceptualized and Re-Conceptualized
Editors
Lucy Santos Green Jennifer R. Banas
Georgia Southern University Northeastern Illinois University
Statesboro , GA , USA Chicago , IL , USA
Ross A. Perkins
Boise State University
Boise , ID , USA
Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations
ISBN 978-3-319-41853-7 ISBN 978-3-319-41855-1 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41855-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016952543
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017
T his work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
T he use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
T he publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Prologue: A n Overview

Origin and Rationale of the Book
T his text builds upon the research and ideas that we and a group of colleagues1 pre-
sented at the 2014 Association for Educational Communications and Technology
Conference, “The Flipped Classroom: Flop, Fiction, Fabulous or Frightening?” We
conceived of this book as a way to provide higher education professionals with a
solid foundation for developing fl ipped classrooms, using real-life cases from as
many academic fi elds as possible. We scaffold the instructional considerations,
including the organization of curriculum, design of learning activities and assess-
ments in and outside the classroom, technology for course delivery and student
learning, and both the accommodations and modifi cations developed to meet learn-
ers’ needs. We also showcase how the fl ipped classroom presents new opportunities
for enhanced instruction that deepens critical thinking and creativity including
authentic, discovery, and problem-based learning; team-driven collaboration; in-
time assessment and real-time feedback; and personalized learning experiences.
F lipping a classroom, as can be seen throughout this text, is not limited to doing
simply one thing—it represents an ecosystem of technological and pedagogical
infl uences that are all focused around the ultimate goal of helping students learn at
a deeper level and, at the same time, emboldening instructors to engage with learn-
ers in a way that can be professionally very gratifying. There is no question that it is
a challenge for all involved, but those represented in this text would undoubtedly
submit that meeting the challenge of fl ipping the class brings about positive change.
T he ecosystem of the fl ipped classroom can integrate different approaches such
as distributed practice testing (Talley & Scherer, 2013), application of knowledge to
new settings (Enfi eld, 2013), case-based learning (Boucher, Robertson, Wainner, &
1 W e would like to thank Monica Sulecio de Alvarez (Virginia Tech), Dennis Beck (University of
Arkansas), Lee Daniels (East Tennessee State University), Bronne Dytoc (Kennesaw State
University), Charles Reigeluth (Indiana University), Stephanie Moore (University of Virginia),
and Drew Polly (University of North Carolina—Charlotte) for their input and expertise on that
presentation.
v
vi Prologue: An Overview
Sanders, 2013), and in-depth refl ection models (Lasry, Dugdale, & Charles, 2014).
Common themes in descriptions of fl ipped classes contain examples of recom-
mended pedagogical practice. For example, video lectures should contain interac-
tive components: note-taking devices, guided practice, or video responses (Enfi eld,
2013; Lasry et al., 2014; Pierce & Fox, 2012). Students should be able to share
questions and identify areas of struggle so the instructor can address these during
class. In-class activities should be student-centered, encourage in-depth exploration
of content, and allow for application of knowledge to new settings (Butt, 2014).
Finally, the process of independent student learning should be adequately scaf-
folded (Flumerfelt & Green, 2013; Talley & Scherer, 2013).
W e hold that fl ipping a class is a worthwhile approach for all subjects, but espe-
cially those that contain material or processes traditionally diffi cult for students to
grasp. Instructors who implement fl ipped methods can cover a broader topic list,
introduce students to complex material, and deliver hands-on, guided inquiry learn-
ing experiences. Thus far, research indicates greater student mastery of content as
demonstrated in course assessments (Boucher et al., 2013; Enfi eld, 2013; Lasry
et al., 2014). It must be made clear, however, that there is a paucity of research on
fl ipping in the tertiary education context. While some studies have been done and
others are on-going, we strongly encourage those reading this text to consider how
fl ipped instruction impacts student learning in both the near and far term.
The Structure of the Text
Part I, Chapters “The Flipped Classroom: A Brief, Brief History,” “Step by Step,
Slowly I Flip,” “Tools of the Trade: What Do You Need to Flip?,” and “Considerations
When Evaluating: The Classroom Flip Instructional Technique,” establishes a foun-
dation for fl ipped instruction. In the Chapter “The Flipped Classroom, A Brief,
Brief History,” Edward Bates examines a chronological perspective on the peda-
gogical practice of “fl ipping” a class, reminding all that this practice existed many
years before it was named. Bates also discusses the variations one sees of fl ipped
class models. He concludes by addressing some common concerns instructors have
with respect to the fl ipped classroom. In the Chapter “Step by Step, Slowly I Flip,”
Betina Hsieh covers the incremental steps of fl ipping an existing course. She also
provides direction on how to create a new fl ipped course. In the Chapter “Tools of
the Trade: What Do You Need to Flip?,” Steven Crawford and Jinnette Senecal
answer one of the big questions that instructors new to fl ipping content often have:
“What do I use to do this?” Though technologies are forever evolving, these authors
cover the “tools of the trade” and guide readers in deciding which tool characteris-
tics are best, be these low or high tech. Finally, because we sincerely believe that
any course design should have a strong formative evaluation piece, Sarah Zappe
and Thomas Litzinger, authors of the Chapter “Considerations When Evaluating:
The Classroom Flip Instructional Technique,” discuss evaluating the impact that
fl ipping has on teaching and student learning. Appropriately, they provide readers
Prologue: An Overview vii
with an overview of a research-based approach to evaluation and describe what
other sources of evidence might help one better understand the fl ipped classroom
implementation. A fi nal section, “Tips for Conducting Evaluation,” is a concise
summary of useful ideas and considerations, including ideas about making such
research publishable.
Part II gives readers a glimpse into the fl ipped classrooms of people teaching in
many different disciplines; it is certainly not a technique limited to courses in one
type of academic study. In this way, it is possible to either fi nd a case study about
a fl ipped classroom in a subject area similar to that which one teaches o r fi nd a
fl ipping technique that resonates with the reader’s style of teaching and level of
technology profi ciency. Case studies are all organized in the same way, which pro-
vides consistency and allows readers to quickly compare case elements should
they so desire.
E ach case study opens with the instructional context including a description of
the course, the learning goals, and the learners. Case study authors then provide a
rationale for fl ipping the classroom and identify the models, theories, and research
that guided their fl ipping. Following the instructional context, case study authors
describe the structure of the course and their method of implementation. This sec-
tion includes descriptions about how they prepared their students for fl ipping, what
in-class and out-of-class activities looked like, which tools they used to implement
the course, and how they assessed student learning. Finally, in the last section, les-
sons learned, authors share their evaluation of the fl ipping experience from both the
instructor and student perspectives.
The Theoretical Underpinnings of the Flipped Classroom
In our original conceptualization of the text, we set aside a chapter on the theoretical
underpinnings of the fl ipped classroom. As the text evolved, we thought another
approach might be more useful for our audience. Although examining theories in a
single chapter can be helpful, it is perhaps more important for practitioners to con-
sider theories in context. The discussion of theory and research is critical to validat-
ing the practices we present. Critical dialogue about these practices invites new
ideas while challenging beliefs about the purpose and effectiveness of fl ipping.
In Part I, the authors consider theories in context through a descriptive, progres-
sive narrative on the fl ipped classroom. For example, in the Chapter, “Step by Step,
Slowly I Flip,” Hsieh points out the need to consider cognitive load (Sweller, 1984)
when making curricular decisions about what to include and what to leave out. She
suggests a scaffolded approach to introduce complex topics, reminding of us
Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development. To design and sequence instruc-
tion, she references well-recognized instructional design models including Gagné,
Briggs and Wager’s (1992) nine events of instruction. Building off of the Chapter
“Step by Step, Slowly I Flip,” Crawford and Senecal, in the Chapter “Tools of the
Trade: What Do You Need to Flip?,” remind us to chunk content (Miller, 1956) into
viii Prologue: An Overview
manageable bites of information, using both low and high-tech tools. Though the
Chapter “Considerations When Evaluating: The Classroom Flip Instructional
Technique” does not describe the theories on which to base instructional decisions,
Zappe and Litzinger give a number of useful references for how to craft and imple-
ment evaluations (e.g., Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2006), and also refer to various
empirical studies, including those in which they have participated, that serve as
models for evaluating the fl ipped classroom design (e.g., Bishop & Verlerger, 2013;
Leicht, Zappe, Messner, & Litzinger, 2012).
Part II further enriches the discussion begun in Part I with fl ipped classroom case
studies of instructors whose course content ranges from the humanities, to educa-
tion, science, engineering, math, computing, health, music, and more. Each case
study incorporates theory and research in both unique and reinforcing ways.
In the Chapter “Flipping the Humanities,” case study authors Jennifer Black and
Stephanie Cox indicate their course design was infl uenced by Paulo Freire’s (2000)
concept of problem-posing teaching. Kevin Gannon praises the use of team-based
learning (Michaelson, Parmelee, McMahon, & Levine, 2008) as a means to shift
from merely providing content in a lecture-oriented classroom to designing and
managing a lab or workshop setting.
I n the Chapter “Flipping Education,” Xornam Apedoe uses the pre-training
principle (Mayer, 2005) when fl ipping Educational Psychology to help reduce
the cognitive overload that may be experienced by learners processing complex
information. Sherry Long differentiates the student fl ipped learning experience
in an Introduction to Education course by allowing students to demonstrate their
understanding of course content in multimodal formats (Tomlinson, 2004).
Jacqueline Morris and Ayles-Anne Wilson structure the entire Instructional
Design for Teacher Education fl ip around the ADDIE (Analysis, Design,
Development, Implementation, Evaluation) model, creating a group project that
requires students to implement each step during in-class activities. Rebecca
Morris assesses process not just product (Grennon Brooks and Brooks, 1993)
when evaluating student learning in a constructivist approach to fl ipping Library
Settings for Young People. Barbara Spector and Cyndy Leard also use construc-
tivist theory to develop a fl ipped Science Methods course that enables rich stu-
dent inquiry learning. Like Morris and Wilson, Jesse Strycker applies the ADDIE
model to a Technology Integration course in a “constant cycle of design and
evaluation [that] helped [the author] to introduce and scaffold students through
each technology resource option.”
I n the Chapter “Flipping Engineering,” case study authors Marnie Jamieson, John
Shaw, and Norma Nocente also cite Vygotsky (1978), indicating his infl uence on
their choice to use audio, visual, and print materials to scaffold instruction. Concepts
from ADDIE and the Successive Approximation Model (Allen & Sites, 2012) were
used to guide their development of content and selection of materials. Karim Altaii
and Olga Pierrakos were inspired by cognitive apprenticeship theory, which posits
“that students learn from experts by observation, imitation, and modeling. The
instructor(s) serve as coaches to bring tacit processes out in the open.” Jens Bennedsen
Prologue: An Overview ix
indicates that he is a constructivist. Citing Danish pedagogical professor, Steen
Larsen (1999), Bennedsen claims that a person learns something if and only if:
1. You have to create something in a process.
2. You have to be emotionally involved in your creation.
3. This process requires skills that you almost meet.
As a consequence, Bennedsen structures learning so that work is based on indi-
vidual competencies.
I n the Chapter “Flipping STEM,” Christensen, Tseng and Walsh fi nd inspiration
in Bruner’s (1971) concept of discovery learning. Assignments in their fl ipped
physics classroom are “structured to provide the preliminary knowledge necessary
to complete tasks prior to class and then during class, students generate ideas, test
solutions, and explain results individually and in groups.” Lu, Szafron, Ahmed,
Smith, and Onuczko incorporate not only constructivist principles in their fl ipped
computer science course but also constructionist theories. Constructivism is a the-
ory of learning where students actively construct knowledge as opposed to passive
receiving of information (Ben-Ari, 2001; Machanick, 2007). While constructivism
focuses primarily on cognitive aspects of learning, constructionism focuses on the
learning that occurs when learners are engaged in “doing” and “building,” which are
actions well suited for the fl ipped classroom. Esteban Garcia, Iryna Ashby, and
Marisa Exeter reference the tradition of apprenticeship and research that shows the
value of project work as a means for “students [to] become aware of the iterative
nature of design, and the (sometimes frustrating) nature of the creative process”
(Cennamo & Brandt, 2012). Also guided by constructivist-inspired, active thinking,
as described by Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy (1999), Sun and Xie fl ip their math
classroom so that they can move the lower cognitive level content (e.g., memoriz-
ing, understanding, and applying) to the pre-class work and maximize in-class time
with active learning through collaborative activities and personalized instruction.
In the Chapter “Flipping the Health Sciences,” Farris, Bowman, Demps, and
Boyle remind us to think about preparing students to fl ip and the importance of
considering self-regulated learning habits (Zimmerman, 1990). As a result, their
fl ipped pharmacy therapeutics course orientations have included fl ipping the stu-
dents’ expectations of the traditional learning environment and setting realistic
expectations about the preparation time required prior to face-to-face interactions.
Janotha, like Black and Cox (Chapter “Flipping the Humanities”), applies team-
based learning (TBL) pedagogy and its three stages (individual preparation assign-
ments, learning assurance assessments, and team application activities; Michaelson,
Parmelee, McMahon, & Levine, 2008) to the structure of the fl ipped course. Johnson
and Galindo fl ip their medical science labs using elements of Allen’s (2003) con-
text, challenge, activity, and feedback (CCAF) matrix and Merrill’s (2002) F irst
Principles of Instruction (activation, demonstration, application, task/problem-
centered, and integration). Finally, Vaughn, Hur, and Russell use Kolb’s (1984)
experiential learning model and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) to develop
exploratory in-class activities and collaborative projects in their kinesiology course.
x Prologue: An Overview
In the Chapter “Flipping Other Areas,” three case studies showcasing a fl ipped
approach in three vastly different subject areas all emphasize a collaborative
approach to problem solving. In a fl ipped course for Legal Research and Writing,
Anne Alexander, like several of the case studies previously mentioned, operates in
a constructivist, student-centered environment. In-class activities replicate the
workings of an actual law fi rm. Grace Onodipe and Femi Ayadi use Gagne’s nine
events of instruction theory (Gagne, 1985) to design and develop collaborative out-
of and in-class activities. Finally, River Lin concludes Part II with her description of
group work for problem solving in a fl ipped Vocabulary Acquisition for ESL course.
We invite you, the reader, to delve into this text and join the conversation on
fl ipped instruction. Our hope is not to convince anyone to “fl ip” a classroom, but
rather to provide you with the information to make that decision for yourself as well
as to support you with resources should you decide to modify a course (or courses)
using a “fl ipped” approach. Ultimately, our goal for this collection of “fl ipped”
writings, is for all using this text to fi nd a chapter or case study that inspires them to
do something very different than they have, perhaps, ever tried before.
Statesboro, GA, USA Lucy Santos Green
Chicago, IL, USA Jennifer R. Banas
Boise, ID, USA Ross A. Perkins
References
Allen, M., & Sites, R. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An agile model for developing the best
learning experiences. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Allen, M. W. (2003). G uide to e-learning: Building interactive, fun, and effective learning pro-
grams for any company . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Bandura, A. (1986). S ocial foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . New York:
Prentice Hall.
B en-Ari, M. (2001). Constructivism in computer science education. J ournal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20 (1), 45–73.
B oucher, B., Robertson, E., Wainner, R., & Sanders, B. (2013). “Flipping” Texas State University's
physical therapist musculoskeletal curriculum: Implementation of a hybrid learning model.
Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 27 (3), 72–77.
Bruner, J. (1971). The process of education revisited. T he Phi Delta Kappan, 53 (1), 18–21. Social
foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New York: Prentice Hall.
Retrieved from h ttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20373062
B utt, A. (2014). Student views on the use of a fl ipped classroom approach: Evidence from
Australia. B usiness Education & Accreditation, 6 (1), 33–43.
Enfi eld, J. (2013). Looking at the impact of the fl ipped classroom model of instruction on under-
graduate multimedia students at CSUN. TechTrends , 57( 6), 14–27. h ttp://doi.org/10.1007/
s11528-013-0698-1
Flumerfelt, S., & Green, G. (2013). Using lean in the fl ipped classroom for at risk students.
Educational Technology & Society, 16 (1), 356–366.
Freire, P. (2000). P edagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
G agné, R. (1985). T he conditions of learning and the theory of instruction (4th ed.), New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.