Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 5, pp 687–699 | Cite as

Teacher-created videos in a flipped mathematics class: digital curriculum materials or lesson enactments?

  • Zandra de AraujoEmail author
  • Samuel Otten
  • Salih Birisci
Original Article

Abstract

The rise of digital resources has had profound effects on mathematics curricula and there has been a concurrent increase in teachers flipping their instruction—that is, assigning instructional videos or multimedia for students to watch as homework and completing problem or exercise sets in class rather than vice versa. These changes have created a need to better understand not only the features and learning affordances of these videos but also the phenomena of instructional videos taking the place of textbooks altogether. Drawing on an enacted mathematics curriculum framework, this article reports on a study of a mathematics teacher who implemented flipped instruction and created her own instructional videos and multimedia resources as replacements of printed textbooks. We examined the relationship between the teacher’s printed textbook and the digital curriculum materials she used with her flipped mathematics classroom. We also explored her role in creating the digital curriculum materials and the ways in which those materials were used in-class. The case reveals similarities between the new material design and conventional textbooks and it also illustrates the teacher’s simultaneous work designing and enacting digital curriculum materials. The broad issue of considering videos as curriculum materials rather than only as instructional representations is discussed.

Keywords

Curriculum Flipped instruction Secondary mathematics Technology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the University of Missouri’s ReSTEM Institute. We thank Nicole Fyten, Abigail Heffern, Milan Sherman, and the participating teachers and students.

References

  1. Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  3. Choppin, J., Carson, C., Borys, Z., Cerosaletti, C., & Gillis, R. (2014). A typology for analyzing digital curricula in mathematics education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 2, 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, K. R. (2015). The effects of the flipped model of instruction on student engagement and performance in the secondary mathematics classroom. Journal of Educators Online, 12(1), 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, J., Choppin, J., Roth McDuffie, A., & Drake, C. (2013). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics: Middle School Teachers’ Perceptions. Rochester, NY: Warner Center for Professional Development and Education Reform.Google Scholar
  7. de Araujo, Z., Otten, S., & Birisci, S. (2017a). Conceptualizing “homework” in flipped mathematics classes. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 20, 248–260.Google Scholar
  8. de Araujo, Z., Otten, S., & Birisci, S. (2017b). Teachers’ motivations and conceptualizations of flipped instruction. Teacher and Teacher Education 62, 60–70.Google Scholar
  9. Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H., & Gravemeijer, K. (2010). The teacher and the tool: Instrumental orchestrations in the technology-rich mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Explain Everything. (2011). Explain Everything (Version 3.21) [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from http://itunes.apple.com.
  11. Grouws, D. A., Smith, M. S., & Sztajn, P. (2004). The preparation and teaching practices of United States mathematics teachers: Grade 4 and 8. In P. Kloosterman & F. K. Lester Jr.. (Eds.), Results and interpretations of the 1990–2000 mathematics assessments of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 221–267). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  12. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Vahey, P. & Roschelle, J. (2013). Cornerstone Mathematics: Designing digital technology for teacher adaptation and scaling. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45, 1057–1070.Google Scholar
  13. Lial, M. L., Hornsby, J., Schneider, D. I., & Daniels, C. (2013). College Algebra, 11th Edition. New York, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
  14. McGivney-Burelle, J., & Xue, F. (2013). Flipping calculus. PRIMUS, 23, 477–486.Google Scholar
  15. Otten, S., de Araujo, Z., & Birisci, S. (2016). A framework for homework in flipped mathematics classes. In M. B. Wood, E. E. Turner, M. Civil & J. A. Eli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting for the North American Chapter for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (p. 1559), Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
  16. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75, 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Remillard, J. T., & Heck, D. J. (2014). Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. ZDM International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(5), 705–718.Google Scholar
  18. Rezat, S. (2011). Interactions of teachers’ and students’ use of mathematics textbooks. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 231–245). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Empson, S., Knudsen, J., & Gallagher, L. P. (2010). Integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 833–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, D. F. (2014). How flipped classrooms are growing and changing. Ed Tech Magazine.Google Scholar
  21. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Stein, M. K., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. K. Lester Jr.. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319–369). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Thomas, A. (2013). A study of algebra 1 students’ use of digital and print textbooks (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.Google Scholar
  25. Yarbro, J., Arfstrom, K. M., McKnight, K., & McKnight, P. (2014). Extension of a review of flipped learning. Retrieved on March 25, 2016, from http://flippedlearning.org/cms/lib07/VA01923112/Centricity/Domain/41/Extension%20of%20Flipped%20Learning%20Lit%20Review%20June%202014.pdf.

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Artvin Coruh UniversitySeyitlerTurkey

Personalised recommendations