Main Article Content
Learning techniques have changed over time in order to try and improve student engagement across different subjects in higher education. Mathematics has dominantly adhered to certain learning methods that use a more conventional approach. Interactive and active learning in Mathematics tend to be more common in further education yet, university level Mathematics is more complex, heavy in content and poses more difficulty in applying active learning approaches as a passive approach of traditional lectures has always been applied. The issues of learning problems in mathematics is ignored and the lack of metacognitive awareness of mathematical thinking and problem-solving skills seem to persist despite differences amongst educators on an effective learning methodology.
Following the reform movement in mathematics education in the mid 1980’s, resulting from the dissatisfaction of conventional approaches, recommending the restructuring of mathematical delivery marked the need for modifications in teaching methodology. Employing multiple models to deliver lessons may implement the changes needed to drive student engagement and satisfaction to improve the experience in learning mathematics. In order for these methods to become applicable and effective in students’ experiences in mathematical education, educators need to be encouraged to present active learning techniques so that students can begin to facilitate their own learning which can be done through introducing approaches specific to the individual such as student-centred approaches.
This paper evaluates the techniques used by mathematicians to deliver lessons and how it reflects on learning and engagement of students in comparison to the flipped classroom approach which inverts the common traditional lecture style used in classrooms. The flipped classroom model in this study is adopted to a topic from the university foundation level module, Analytical Mathematics, whereby results from the quantitative analysis undertaken show a decrease in the success of students’ performance suggesting a lesser impact on improved learning. With regards to engagement, observations from the qualitative analysis of the study highlight positive aspects of the flipped classroom model, specifically an optimistic engagement amongst peers.
Kolloffel B, Eysink T, de Jong T. Comparing the effects of representational tools in collaborative and individual inquiry learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 2011;6(2):223-251.
Richard E. Mayer. Rote versus meaningful learning, Theory Into Practice. 2002;41(4): 226- 232. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip41044 Accessed 11 Dec 2019.
Bishop J, Verleger D. The flipped classroom: A survey of the Research. 120th ASEE Annual conference and Exposition; 2013.
Sams A, Bergmann J, Daniels K, Bennett B, Marshall HW, Arfstrom KM. Flipped Learning Network (FLN). The Four Pillars of F-L-I-PT; 2014.
Teach.com. Teaching methods; 2019. Available:https://teach.com/what/teachersknow/teaching-methods/top [Accessed 12 Oct. 2019].
Freeman S, Eddy S, McDonough M, Smith M, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth M. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014;111(23):8410-8415.
Zengin Y. Investigating the use of the khan academy and mathematics software with a flipped classroom approach in mathematics teaching. Educational Technology and Society. 2017;20(2):89–100.
Andrews T, Leonard M, Colgrove C, Kalinowski S. Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education. 2011: 10(4):394-405.
Overmyer J. Research on flipping college algebra: Lessons learned and practical advice for flipping multiple sections. PRIMUS. 2015;25(9-10):792-802.
Ichinose C, Clikenbeard J. Flipping college algebra: Effects on student engagement and achievement; 2014.
Sun Z, Xie K, Anderman L. The role of self-regulated learning in students’ success in flipped undergraduate math courses. The Internet and Higher Education. 2018;36:41-53.
Cronhjort M, Filipsson L, Weurlander M. Improved engagement and learning in flipped-classroom calculus. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA. 2017; 37(3):113-121.
Fisher R, Ross B, LaFerriere R, Maritz A. Flipped learning, flipped satisfaction, getting the balance right. Teaching and Learning Inquiry. 2017;5(2):114.
Lord S, Camacho M. Effective teaching practices: Preliminary analysis of engineering educators. ASEEAnnual Frontiers in Education Conference F3C-12; 2007.
Love B, Hodge A, Grandgenett N, Swift A. Student learning and perceptions in a flipped linear algebra course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 2013;45(3):317-324.
Astin A. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel. 1984;25(4)297–308.
Sofroniou A, Poutos K. Investigating the effectiveness of group work in mathematics. Education Sciences. 2016; 6(4):30.
Gundlach E, Richards KAR, Nelson D, Levesque-Bristol C. A comparison of student attitudes, statistical reasoning, performance, and perceptions for web-augmented traditional, fully online, and flipped sections of a statistical literacy class. Journal of Statistics Education. 2015;23:1. DOI: 10.1080/10691898.2015.11889723
Lo CK, Hew KF. A critical review of flipped classroom challenges in K-12 education: Possible solutions and recommendations for future research. RPTEL. 2017;12(4). Available:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0044-2
Burgan M. “In defense of lecturing,” Change . 2006. Available:http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~katie/kt/COLLEGE-TEACHING/topic%203%20- %20syllabus/In%20Defense%20of%20Lecturing.pdf
Walthausen A. “Don’t give up on the lecture,” The atlantic [online]; 2013. Available:http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/11/dont-give-up-on-the-lecture/281624/
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural science. Academic Press: New York, NY, USA; 1969.
Love B, Hodge A, Corritore C, Ernst D. Inquiry-based learning and the flipped classroom model. PRIMUS. 2015;25(8):745-762.
Joshua Abah, Paul Anyagh, Terungwa Age. A flipped applied mathematics class- room: Nigerian University students’ Experience and perceptions. Abacus, The Mathematical Association of Nigeria. Mathematics Education Series.2017;42 (1):78-87.
Harvey S. The “Flipped” latin classroom: A case study. Classical World. Flippedlearning.org. 2014;108(1):117-127. Available:https://flippedlearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/HigherEdWhitePaperFINAL.pdf [Accessed 19 Dec. 2019].
Zhang D, Zhou L, Briggs R, Nunamaker J. Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information and Management. 2006;43(1):15-27.
Du S, Fu Z, Wang Y. The flipped classroom- Advantages and Challenges. International Conference on Economic Management and Trade Cooperation, EMTC; 2014.
Roehl A, Reddy S, Shannon G. The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences. 2013; 105(2):44-49.
Schmidt S, Ralph D. The flipped classroom: A twist on teaching. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER). 2016;9(1):1-6.
Simonson SR. Making students do the thinking: team-based learning in a laboratory course. Adv, Physiol Edu. 2014;38:49-55.