Context.
‘Flipped learning’ (FL) seeks to reduce direct instruction by asking students to read or watch some
content independently (low-order thinking) as preparatory work before a lesson, and then utilises
classroom time to practice key concepts and engage in higher-order thinking tasks (Bergmann &
Sams, 2015). This way, the academic is not the only source of knowledge; their role is shifted to a
supportive figure, who guides students in more cognitive-demanding tasks after they have processed
an exposition of contents, which they are now responsible to access. The current emphasis on digital
education confers a heightened relevance to FL. There is a need for studies which consider elements
of the FL experience in detail, as opposed to investigating the method as a whole (Hall & DuFrene,
2016). Additionally, FL is mostly used for small groups in secondary education, and only 13% of FL
research is for scientific fields (Birgili et al., 2021).
This poster will cover the details and preliminary findings of my doctoral research project: an action
research study on the course ‘Engineering Mathematics and Modelling II’, which is taken by a large
cohort of second-year undergraduates (89), and it therefore intends to contribute to this underresearched area. My aim is to implement and develop a ‘flipped learning’ approach that is best
adapted for teaching university mathematics courses to large cohorts, and so one of my contributions
will be a framework for developing these kinds of lessons. My study does not intend to generalise,
but to produce understanding which can be shared, related and interrogated (McAteer, 2013), so that
this framework may provide a platform for other lecturers and researchers.
Methodology.
Action Research (AR) is the preferred methodology for researching FL (Birgili et al., 2021); it
strengthens the connection between research and practice in education and is a necessary, powerful
methodology to improve instructional practice based on real learning contexts and experiences
(Norton, 2009). I will make use of triangulation through different methods (questionnaires, interviews
and audio-recordings of in-class student discussions) to provide alternative perspectives from where
more information can be gathered and better claims can be made. Finally, the social learning theory
of communities of practice (CoP) is especially relevant in the analysis stage, as I see FL from the four
key concepts of CoP: practice, community, identity and meaning (Wenger, 1998). In the poster I will
provide a table with the stages of my data collection in chronological order and with associated
objectives, as well as a diagram representing the AR cycles.
After each lesson, the students and I completed evaluative questionnaires. I analysed the responses
and identified what key variables were perceived as the most influential to the FL experience, and
which aspects appeared to be the priority for modifications for the next AR cycle (both for the
preparatory tasks and for the in-class part). After the AR cycles, two Nominal Focus Groups (NFG)
were conducted – a novel method in FL research – to highlight any aspects I may have not anticipated
and reduce the risk of interpretative bias.
Preliminary conclusions.
Several tensions exist in the implementation of FL. The data suggest that the active learning aspect
of FL was the most problematic part for many students during the in-class activities in the first
iteration of the AR cycle. It is apparent that a lack of adherence to the out-of-class portion of FL (the
preparation tasks) hampers progress in the in-class portion. Despite these challenges, there is evidence
that students appreciate the opportunity to work in groups during the in-class phase of FL, especially
when they are able to choose the group members, and that they see more value in the FL approach
once they have established a routine and realized the importance of proper preparation. In further AR
cycles, a more dynamic and interactive learning environment was observed, and students perceived
that this benefited them, including those who might be reluctant to speak up in a large lecture hall
during a traditional lecture. More students undertook the preparatory tasks, and perhaps to a higher
standard, which contributed to the more dynamic environment. In fact, one of the changes introduced
was a thorough check of preliminary learning at the start of the class. Additionally, students getting
accustomed to working in groups and to being active in lectures contributed to the more interactive
environment. Participants also valued the guidance from the lecturer in class, and a few expressed a
wish for more members of staff. This is a complication that large groups poses, and so the in-class
tasks were modified to foster peer discussions so students supported one another, and to provide
scaffolds and prompts for those who needed them. In terms of preparatory work, videos recorded by
the lecturer with worked out examples followed by a quiz to check understanding was highly rated.
