Advertisement

Flipping STEM

  • Adrienne WilliamsEmail author
  • Zhiru SunEmail author
  • Kui Xie
  • Esteban GarciaEmail author
  • Iryna Ashby
  • Marisa Exter
  • David LargentEmail author
  • Paul LuEmail author
  • Duane Szafron
  • Sadaf Ahmed
  • Tracy Onuczko
  • Jacqueline Smith
  • Dirk T. TempelaarEmail author
  • Kelsey S. Bitting
  • Alison Olcott MarshallEmail author
  • Erik ChristensenEmail author
  • Hungwei Tseng
  • Joseph Walsh
Chapter
Part of the Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations book series (ECTII)

Abstract

This chapter contains case studies from STEM content areas. Case studies in this chapter focus on the concept of discovery learning, incorporate constructivist principles, but also constructionist theories. Several cases reference the tradition of apprenticeship and research that shows the value of project work as a means to highlight the iterative nature of design, while maximizing in-class time with active learning through collaborative activities and personalized instruction. Each case study opens with the instructional context and a rationale for flipping the classroom. The case-study authors also describe the structure of the course, as well as descriptions about how they prepared their students for flipping, and an evaluation of the flipping experience from both the instructor and student perspectives.

Keywords

Lesson Learn Tutorial Group Open Educational Resource Pair Programming Problem Task 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ben-Ari, M. (2001). Constructivism in computer science education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(1), 45–73.Google Scholar
  2. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, J. (1971). The process of education revisited. The Phi Delta Kappan, 53(1), 18–21. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New York: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20373062
  4. Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., Garcia, A., Pringle, R. M., & Palmer, T. M. (2015). Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances, 1(5), e1400253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cennamo, K., & Brandt, C. (2012). The ‘right kind of telling’: Knowledge building in the academic design studio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 839–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Evidence on flipped classrooms is still coming in. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 78–80.Google Scholar
  7. Jonassen, D., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kay, J., Barg, M., Fekete, A., Greening, T., Hollands, O., Kingston, J. H., & Crawford, K. (2000). Problem-based learning for foundation computer science courses. Computer Science Education, 10(2), 109–128. doi: 10.1076/0899-3408(200008)10:2;1-C;FT109
  9. Machanick, P. (2007). A social construction approach to computer science education. Computer Science Education, 17(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1080/08993400600971067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H. E., & Fernald, J. (2006). Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Communications of the ACM, 49(8), 90–95. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1145287.1145293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. O’Grady. M. J. (2012). Practical problem-based learning in computing education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 12(3), article 10. doi: 10.1145/2275597.2275599
  12. Porter, L., Guzdial, M., McDowell, C., & Simon, B. (2013). Success in introductory programming: What works? Communications of the ACM, 56(8), 34–36. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2492007.2492020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Savery, J. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. In A. Walker, H. Leary, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & P. A. Ertmer (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning (pp. 5–15). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Shore, J., & Warden, S. (2007). The art of agile development. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Simon, B., & Hanks, B. (2008). First-year students’ impressions of pair programming in CS1. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 7(4), 28 pages. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1316450.1316455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Vaughan, M. (2014). Flipping the learning: An investigation into the use of the flipped classroom model in an introductory teaching course. Educational Research & Perspectives, 41(1), 25–41.Google Scholar
  17. Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Department of Business and EconomicsUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense MDenmark
  3. 3.Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  4. 4.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  5. 5.Ball State UniversityMuncieUSA
  6. 6.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  7. 7.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  8. 8.Maastricht University School of Business and EconomicsMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  9. 9.Department of GeologyUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  10. 10.Center for Advancing Teaching and Learning Through ResearchNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA
  11. 11.South Florida State CollegeAvon ParkUSA
  12. 12.Jacksonville State UniversityJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations