Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 299–315 | Cite as

Using a Flipped Classroom Approach to Support Problem-Based Learning

  • Andrew A Tawfik
  • Christopher Lilly
Online learning
First Online:

Abstract

In the field of mathematic problem-solving, students are often assigned well-structured problems that have specific ‘right’ answers. However, this misses an important aspect of education, which is to allow the learner to investigate the problem-space of authentic problems. To date, various technology scaffolds have been researched to understand how these tools support students in problem-based learning. One recent strategy includes a ‘flipped classroom’, which suggests that learners be given multimedia videos and class-time is allotted for differentiated instruction. However, very little research exists to understand the ways in which the videos support learners in mathematical problem-solving through the lens of PBL. To address this gap, this work-in-progress study qualitatively investigated the implementation of a flipped classroom for a psychological statistics course. Themes emerged related to relevance, reciprocal learning, teacher as facilitator, and self-efficacy. Implications for practice and future directions are also discussed.

Keywords

Problem-based learning Self-directed learning Flipped classroom Qualitative research Mathematical problem-solving Multimedia 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barrows, H. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, B. W. (2013). Start flipping out with guide on the side. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 32(4), 257–260. doi: 10.1080/01639269.2013.838879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belland, B. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 401–412). New York, NY: Spring.Google Scholar
  4. Belland, B., French, B., & Ertmer, P. (2009). Validity and problem-based learning research: A review of instruments used to assess intended learning outcomes. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1059.Google Scholar
  5. Boland, R. J., Tenkasi, R. V., & Te’eni, D. (1994). Designing information technology to support distributed cognition. Organization Science, 5(3), 456–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boshuizen, H. P. A., Wiel, M. W. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2012). What and how advanced medical students learn from reasoning through multiple cases. Instructional Science, 40(5), 755–768. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9211-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. doi: 10.3102/0013189X018001032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (1st ed.). London: Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 343–374. doi: 10.1007/s10648-007-9050-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  12. Dabbagh, N., & Williams-Blijd, C. (2010). Students’ perceptions of their learning experiences in an authentic instructional design context. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 4(1). doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1092
  13. Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563–580. doi: 10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeGrazia, J., Falconer, J., Nicodemus, G., & Medlin, W. (2012). Incorporating screencasts into chemical engineering courses. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.Google Scholar
  15. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
  16. Dolmans, D., & Schmidt, H. (2000). What directs self-directed learning in a problem-based curriculum? In D. Evenson & C. E. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 251–262). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Dornan, T., Hadfield, J., Brown, M., Boshuizen, H., & Scherpbier, A. (2005). How can medical students learn in a self-directed way in the clinical environment? Design-based research. Medical Education, 39(4), 356–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ertmer, P., & Simons, K. (2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K–12 teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1005.Google Scholar
  20. Eseryel, D., Ifenthaler, D., & Ge, X. (2013). Validation study of a method for assessing complex ill-structured problem solving by using causal representations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), 443–463. doi: 10.1007/s11423-013-9297-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fitzgerald, G., Mitchem, K., Hollingsead, C., Miller, K., Koury, K., & Tsai, H.-H. (2011). Exploring the bridge from multimedia cases to classrooms: Evidence of transfer. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(2), 23–38.Google Scholar
  22. Ge, X., & Land, S. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henry, H., Tawfik, A., Jonassen, D. H., Winholtz, R., & Khanna, S. (2012). I know this is supposed to be more like the real world, but…: Student perceptions of a PBL implementation in an undergraduate materials science course. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1312.Google Scholar
  24. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2013). Creating a learning space in problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. doi: 10.7771/15415015.1334.Google Scholar
  26. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1004.Google Scholar
  27. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Eberbach, C. (2012). Learning theories and problem-based learning. In S. Bridges, C. McGrath, & T. L. Whitehill (Eds.), Problem-based learning in clinical education (pp. 3–17). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hollan, J., & Hutchins, E. L. (2010). Opportunities and challenges for augmented environments: A distributed cognition perspective. In S. Lahlou (Ed.), Designing user friendly augmented work environments (pp. 237–259). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions Compututer Human Interaction, 7(2), 174–196. doi: 10.1145/353485.353487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hung, W. (2006). The 3C3R model: A conceptual framework for designing problems in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. doi: 10.7771/15415015.1006.Google Scholar
  31. Hung, W., Jonassen, D. H., & Liu, R. (2008). Problem-based learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 659–670). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments (1st ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Jonassen, D. H., & Cho, Y. (2011). Fostering argumentation while solving engineering ethics problems. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 680–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kapur, M. (2011). A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: Unpacking the design components. Instructional Science, 39(4), 561–579. doi: 10.1007/s11251-010-9144-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Khan Academy (2014) Retrieved December 17, 2014, from http://www.khanacademy.org.
  37. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kuiper, E., & de Pater-Sneep, M. (2013). Student perceptions of drill-and-practice mathematics software in primary education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(2), 215–236. doi: 10.1007/s13394-013-0088-1.Google Scholar
  39. Lazonder, A. (2014). Inquiry learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 453–464). New York, NY: Spring.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leary, H., & Walker, A. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1). Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol3/iss1/3.
  41. Loyens, S., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411–427. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9082-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mitchell, J. E., & Smith, J. (2008). Case study of the introduction of problem-based learning in electronic engineering. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 45, 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moravec, M., Williams, A., Aguilar-Roca, N., & O’Dowd, D. K. (2010). Learn before lecture: A strategy that improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(4), 473–481. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-04-0063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nasr, K., & Ramadan, B. (2008). Impact assessment of problem-based learning in an engineering science course. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 9(3), 16–24.Google Scholar
  45. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59–76. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Savery, J. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1). Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol1/iss1/3.
  48. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96. doi: 10.1007/BF02505026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmidt, H., Loyens, S., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91–97. doi: 10.1080/00461520701263350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? a meta-synthesis of meta analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1046.Google Scholar
  51. Vardi, I., & Ciccarelli, M. (2008). Overcoming problems in problem-based learning: A trial of strategies in an undergraduate unit. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 345–354. doi: 10.1080/14703290802377190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vygotsky, L. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, (Eds.). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506–515. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yu, F.-Y., & Chen, Y.-J. (2014). Effects of student-generated questions as the source of online drill-and-practice activities on learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(2), 316–329. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA
  2. 2.Concordia University ChicagoRiver ForestUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options