Review of the flipped learning literature int he STEM disciplines

Elaine Huber @enm181

A review of the literature on flipping the STEM classroom

Preliminary Findings

Elaine Huber & Ashleigh Werner


64,000

Elaine Huber


‘inverted classroom’ first coined by Lage, Platt

and Treglia (2000)

Journal of Economic Education

two high school chemistry teachers (Bergmann & Sams, 2007)


evidence

By Daekow - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=44847508

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=44847508


Why STEM?(Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics)

image: Department of Energy


image: flickr -LVCHEN

current literature

current literature

authors year studies reviewed main findings

Rotellar & Cain 2016summary of the primary literature; recommendations on implementation

Seery 2015 12over reliance on content delivery through recorded lectures offered as pre-work

O'Flaherty & Phillips 2015 28 little robust evidence

for improved outcomes

Bishop & Verleger 2013 22most research reporting only student perceptions

Hamden, McKnight, McKnight & Arfstrom

2013general summary of literature - need for more research

Elaine Huber

fill in these two text boxes


Aims1. whether there is significant evidence of the success of

flipped learning reported specifically in the STEM literature. Success is measured in terms of evidence of improved learning outcomes.

2. whether there are any findings relevant to flipped research in STEM that differ from more generalist reviews.

3. Whether there are gaps or findings in the literature that can direct future research on flipped learning.



Inclusion criteriatime periodlanguage

type of researchstudy focus

literature focus

2012 - 2016English

original - peer reviewed publicationHigher Ed., STEM discipline, UG & PG

overall theme relates to the flipped approach


Database Searched (narrowed) Hits returned Relevant articles

A+ Education 12 2ProQuest 38 9ERIC 63 5British Education Index 62 0Web of Science (flipped in title field only)

120 27

Education Research Complete 215 3Wiley 116 1Academic Research Complete 50 0Google Scholar (included STEM but only chose top 100 results)

100 11

TOTAL 776 58



Theoretical frameworks, theories or approaches

?


Theoretical frameworks, theories or approaches

Vygotsky's social learning theory

active learningcooperative learning

Bloom’s

buffer theory student involvement theory

theory of coherent practice

problem based learning

social constructivist theory

positivist approach



POSITIVE NEGATIVE NEUTRAL OR RECOMMENDATIONS

Theme Number of studies coded



*Achievement 39 *Lack of self-efficacy

11 Learning design

8

*Perception 33 Increased workload

9 *Perception 5

*Engagement 20 *Perception 7 *Self-efficacy

5

*Students’ self-efficacy

12 Learning design 4 Video/resources

4

Learning design

2 Technology 3

*Achievement 2

*discussed in the paper

CODING


Perception

33 9vs.

positive negative


Perception-venot getting value for money unless they were

receiving direct, live instruction from an expert (Mzoughi, 2015)




“they did not seem to perceive the value of interactive learning approaches” (Missildine et al., 2013, p599).




“they did not seem to perceive the value of interactive learning approaches” (Missildine et al., 2013, p599). initial frustration because their class time activities constantly

changed and they were unprepared for this ‘unknown’ (Strayer, 2012)




“they did not seem to perceive the value of interactive learning approaches” (Missildine et al., 2013, p599).

initial frustration because their class time activities constantly changed and they were unprepared for this ‘unknown’

(Strayer, 2012)a perception of increased student workload

(Khanova, Roth, Rodgers & McLaughlin, 2015; Hotle & Garrow, 2015).


Perception

student satisfaction is not necessarily an accurate indicator of learning

(Benner et al., 2010)


Engagement

20


Engagement

10 affordances and perceived value of interaction with peers, resources and teaching faculty(McCallum, Schultz, Sellke & Spartz, 2015)


Engagement

5 face-to-face strategies such as in-class discussion and specifically working through problem solutions (Koo et al., 2016)


Engagement

improved engagement did not always lead to improved achievement

(Lucke, Dunn & Christie, 2016).


Achievement

3115

+

deeper learning overall

retentioncompleting pre-work

active learning3

3

6

4


Achievement

3110

+

neutral(Heyborne & Perrett, 2016)

(Hotle & Garrow, 2015)


Achievement

31101

+

-

neutral

(Bossaer et al., 2016)


Self-efficacy

Students taking control of their learning • through use of preparation resources • development of new, independent

learning strategies

(n=12)


Self-efficacyfirst year cohorts or

introductory/foundation courses

n=7

n=8


STEM Graduate Attributes

enquiry-basedpractice orientedanalytical thinking

communication

reflective

ethical

critical thinking


STEM Graduate Attributes

“..student discomfort over the lack of in-class lecturing can give way to

meaningful discussions about the nature of higher education and real progress

toward guiding students to becoming self-regulating, lifelong learners”

(Talbert, 2014).


Next StepsCultural bias 71% USAGender bias (Ichinose & Clickenbeard, 2016) - Hispanic women

Large classes (Khanova et al., 2015)Engineering & IT

Longitudinal studies (Benade & Callaghan, 2015)

Design framework (Reyna, Davila, Huber & Meier, 2016)