Implementing Technology by Flipping the Classroom: An Article Review

 

 Abstract

The purpose of this plan is to implement technology by flipping the classroom. Classrooms are beginning to struggle with Generation Y’s need for constant stimulus in the classroom (Gillispie, 2016). The plan looks at why to implement technology, why should the classroom be flipped, does peer to peer learning work with today’s students. This review considers the technology that is already used in the classroom, what we need to make the plan work, and what could be done better with implementing new technology. Applying lessons learned from other schools that have been through the same type of implementation will be considered before this implementation takes place.

 

 Reaching a Generation

Gillispie found that (2016) students are constantly connected to each other because of the use of technology and social media. It is this type of “shared experience” that connects today’s students and the way they learn. Gillispie (2016) uses the flipped classroom to implement technology bring the gap together that is created between the generations. Students participating in a flipped classroom overall performed statistically better that those in the traditional classroom. The flipped classroom satisfies the generations need for activity while in a traditional setting of the classroom. Willcockson and Phelps thought that students should have abilities to use available technology, and be comfortable around technology if you were going to implement technology into the classroom. (Willcockson & Phelps, 2010).

Some argue that the traditional classroom is obsolete and does not meet the need of today’s college students, in fact they called it the “factory-model style of education” (Mortenson & Nicholson, 2015). Millennials represent the group of students just starting to enter college. Access to technology has been readily available to any student under the age of 25 whenever needed, for that reason these students they do not tolerate the traditional classroom (2015). Mortenson and Nicholson used Prensky (Prensky, 2001) and Roehl, Reddy, and Shannon (Roehl, Reddy, & Shannon, 2013) study learn that students brought up with technology have developed a dull sense to the traditional classroom.  Mortenson and Nicholson concluded in their study that little has changed in education in the last century, that leads to the system being out of date and doesn’t meet the educational needs of today’s students (2015).

Prezi described them as “Digital Natives, those who grew up in the technological age” (Prensky, 2001). He goes on to describe those as individuals that the educational system was not made for. The rest of us Prensky (2001) describes as “Digital Immigrants” those of us who do not speak the same language as the Natives. Immigrants also assume that a student is a student, so they can be taught the same way as always (2001). Immigrants empirically still teach the same way and each year increasingly struggle to reach the Digital Natives (2001). Lew and Jeong stated that technology has become integrated into many fields of study in the last 20 years (Lew and Jeong, 2014).

Why Flip the Classroom

Nanclares and Rodrigez Said that learners were afforded more chances to communicate with each other that before flipping the classroom (Nanclares and Rodrigez, 2015). Nanclares and Rodrigez found that students reacted positively to the flipped classroom because it increased their reasons to use technology and the practicality of the flipped classroom (2015).

Galway, Corbett, Takaro, Tairyan, and Frank found that 82% of the learners that were studied preferred the flipped classroom over the traditional classroom (Galway, Corbett, Takaro, Tairyan, and Frank, 2014). The course evaluations that were given to the flipped classroom were given a mean score of 4.7 on a 5 point likert scale, the previous 4 years averaged a mean score of 4 out of 5 (Galway et al., 2014). Galway stated that learners said they were compelled to read and be engaged in the flipped classroom as compared to the traditional class (2014).

Sams and Aglio agree that a way to increase learner engagement is to offer learners the choice of how they learn and perfect skills they are studying (Sams and Aglio, 2016). Sams and Aglio called the traditional way of testing students as “point acquisition” and they said it did not mean that a student learned (2016).

Gillispie found that there was an average 10% increase in test scores in the first flipped course and a 13.5% increase in the second flipped course (2016). Gillispie pointed out that the “higher-order critical thinking was necessary in the application portion of the flipped classroom and is needed in medical education” (2016).

Peer to Peer Learning

Galway et al. (2014) found that learners noted the increased interaction with peers and teachers, small groups, the classroom dynamic, and the class content given to them before were all advantages to flipping the classroom as it enforces peer to peer learning. Tan, Brainard, and Larkin  explained that the time spent with peer to peer is valuable time well spent (Tan, Brainard, and Larkin, 2015). Montrieux, Vanderlinde, Schellens, and Marez measured 75% of students said that having the chance to discuss with other students the questions in class helped them learn. (Montrieux, Vanderlinde, Schellens, and Marez, 2015).

Technology Already in the Classroom

Angelo and Woosley stated that technology has been in the classroom since the 1960’s (Angelo and Woosley, 2012). Overhead projectors were some of the first pieces of technology, in today’s classroom its Power Point and online learning platforms (2012).

Brill and Galloway listed in descending order the technology being used in 2006 was “the overhead projector, VCR, a slide projector, the Internet, a large screen video data display, and a instructor computer workstation” (Brill & Galloway, 2006). Brill also noted that the two lowest technological pieces of equipment were used the most amount of time. The overhead projector and the VCR averaged 72.5% of the amount of time used in the classroom (2006). Most of the instructors that Brill (2006) interviewed said that they felt the technology they use now was having a positive impact on their teaching. Teachers will implement new technology into their classroom at their own expense, they also noted that one of the biggest problems they have is the lack or limited availability of technology for the classroom (2006).

Cramer said that most teachers are already using technology in the classroom and are not aware of the amount of, or benefits of this technology readily available to them (Cramer, 2007). Start small, look around, and find what you already have, to implement one thing a time (2007).

What is Needed to Make the Flipped Classroom Work

For Educators

Cramer found that educators need to look for resources, that will be used in the classroom, where you will be utilizing them (Cramer 2007). If you search at home and them try to use them in the classroom, the blocks and filters can be different enough that it will limit your access (2007). Educators need to continually study strategies to practice for adding technology to the classroom (2007). Assignments given to students outside of the classroom my need to decrease to give students time to prepare for class (2007). Cramer also noted that teachers would need to change the way students are assessed (2007).

Mortenson and Nicholson recognized that there was a need for educators to find a way to change the viewing of lectures by students, as most professed to only watching lectures one time (Mortenson & Nicholson, 2015).

Angelo and Woosley suggested going back over the syllabi and making the content student centric (Angelo & Woosley, 2012). Educators can also include an explanation of how and why they teach the way they do, so students can better understand why the class is being taught that way (2012).

For Students

Students need to learn new ways or increase the way they prepare for the flipped classroom compared to the traditional one (Cramer, 2007).             Students commented on the need for a little lecture to bridge the gap between home and classroom assignments (Khanova, Roth, Rodgers, and McLaughlin, 2015). Tan, Brainard, and Larkin said that there was a need for students to have to adjust with “self-directed learning”, because for years students have been passive in the learning process (Tan et al., 2015).

For Both

Gillispie (2016) stated that having success while utilizing the flipped classroom must:

  • “Allow the students to be critical thinkers”
  • “Fully engage students and instructors”
  • “Stimulate the development of a deep understanding of the material.”

What Can be Done Better

Tan, Brainard, and Larkin explained how educators development is one of the most important parts to implementing technology and flipping the classroom (Tan et al., 2015).

Applying Lessons Learned

Chen found that teachers believe that implementing technology is needed, but they had not done so in their classes (Chen, 2008). He stated that teachers dealt with little to no support and constraints that were present from the organization (2008).

Tan, Brainard, and Larkin suggested that the small amount of interaction that teachers and students spend together should be evaluated as being effective. (Tan et al., 2015)

Mihai Stanciu recognized the importance of not intervening in the flipped classroom as much, allowing the students to discuss the problems with few errors and mistakes along the way (Stanciu, 2016).

When designing new courses, or changing existing ones, stringent assessment needs to be utilized to recognize any improvement opportunities, and improve quality assurance that will insure future improvement processes for flipped classes to come (Khanova, et al., 2015).

Tolks, Schäfer, Raupach, Kruse, Sarikas, Gerhardt-Szép, Kllauer, Lemos, Fischer, Eichner, Sostmann, and Hege are quoted as saying “A departure from traditional lecture formats toward learner-centered instruction appears to be advisable in medical education and in the education and training of other health professions” (Tolks, Schäfer, Raupach, Kruse, Sarikas, Gerhardt-Szép, Kllauer, Lemos, Fischer, Eichner, Sostmann, and Hege, 2016). They also note that teaching should not be classroom lecture only, but time to use the lecture material for practical problem solving that will provide greater patient centered healthcare (Tolks et al., 2016)

References

Gillispie, V. (2016). Using the Flipped Classroom to Bridge the Gap to Generation Y.OchsnerJournal, 16, 32-36. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from http://ochsnerjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1043/TOJ-15-0074?code=occl-site

Willcockson, I. U., & Phelps, C. L. (2010). Keeping learning central: a model forimplementing emerging technologies. Medical Education Online, 15(1), 4275. doi:10.3402/meo.v15i0.4275

Mortensen, C. J., & Nicholson, A. M. (2015). The flipped classroom stimulates greaterlearning and is a modern 21st century approach to teaching today’s undergraduates. Journal of Animal Science, 93(7), 3722-3731. doi:10.2527/jas.2015-9087

Prensky, M. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On Horiz. 9:1–6.

Roehl, A., S. L. Reddy, and G. J. Shannon. 2013. The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. J. Fam. Consum. Sci. 105:44–49.

Lew, H., & Jeong, S. (2014). Key factors for Successful Integration of Technology intothe Classroom: Textbooks and Teachers . The Electronic Journal of Mathematics and Technology, 8(5), 1933-2823. Retrieved May 14, 2017.

Hernández-Nanclares, N., & Pérez-Rodríguez, M. (2016, January 19). Students’Satisfaction with Blended Instructional Design: The Potential of. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from http://jime.open.ac.uk/articles/10.5334/jime.397/

Galway, L. P., Corbett, K. K., Takaro, T. K., Tairyan, K., & Frank, E. (2014). A novelintegration of online and flipped classroom instructional models in public health higher education. BMC Medical Education, 14(1). doi:10.1186/1472-6920-14-181

Sams, A., & Aglio, J. (2016, August 12). 3 ways the flipped classroom leads to bettersubject mastery. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/2016/08/15/3-ways-the-flipped-classroom-leads-to-better-subject-mastery/

Tan, E., Brainard, A., & Larkin, G. L. (2015). Acceptability of the flipped classroomapproach for in-house teaching in emergency medicine. Emergency Medicine Australasia, 27(5), 453-459. doi:10.1111/1742-6723.12454

Montrieux, H., Vanderlinde, R., Schellens, T., & Marez, L. D. (2015). Teaching and Learning with Mobile Technology: A Qualitative Explorative Study about the Introduction of Tablet Devices in Secondary Education. Plos One, 10(12). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0144008

D’Angelo, J. M., & Woosley, S. A. (2012). Technology In The Classroom: Friend OrFoe. Education, 127(4), 462-471.

Brill, J. M., & Galloway, C. (2007). Perils and promises: University instructors’integration of technology in classroom-based practices. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 95-105. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00601.x

Cramer, S. R. (2007). Update Your Classroom with Learning Objects and Twenty-First-Century Skills. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(3), 126-132. doi:10.3200/tchs.80.3.126-132

Khanova, J., Roth, M. T., Rodgers, J. E., & Mclaughlin, J. E. (2015). Student experiencesacross multiple flipped courses in a single curriculum. Medical Education, 49(10), 1038-1048. doi:10.1111/medu.12807

Chen, C. (2008). Why Do Teachers Not Practice What They Believe RegardingTechnology Integration? The Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65-75. doi:10.3200/joer.102.1.65-75

Stanciu, M. (2016). International Experiences Related To The Modernization Of TheAcademic Didactic Approach By Means Of The Flipped Classroom . Lucrari Stiintfice, 59(2), 353-358. Retrieved May 14, 2017.

Tolks D, Schäfer C, Raupach T, Kruse L, Sarikas A, Gerhardt-Szép S, Kllauer G, LemosM, Fischer MR, Eichner B, Sostmann K, Hege I. An Introduction to the Inverted/Flipped Classroom Model in Education and Advanced Training in Medicine and in the Healthcare Professions. GMS J Med Educ. 2016; 33(3): Doc46. DOI:10.3205/zma001045,URN:urn:nbn:de:0183-zma0010451

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s