Patterns in Algebra 1 Classes Implementing Flipped Instruction: An Observational Study

• In Event: Studying Flipped Mathematics Instruction in Secondary and Postsecondary Contexts

Abstract

Purpose and Theoretical Perspective
Studies often compare flipped and non-flipped classes without elaborating the nuances of what happens in the classroom (AuthorsB). However, there is variability within flipped instruction and it is crucial to understand that variability before drawing meaningful conclusions regarding the effectiveness of flipped instruction. This study, which uses the Flipped Mathematics Framework (AuthorsC) and a Vygotskian (1978) perspective, identifies various forms of flipped instruction in Algebra 1 classes. More specifically, we examined aspects of in-class lessons in flipped instruction, including time allocated for instructional formats, the nature of student activities, and student involvement.

Method
Using a previously developed observation protocol (AuthorsB), each of the 21 classes (13 teachers) in our study was observed three times (Hill, Charalambous, & Kraft, 2012) throughout the 2018-2019 Academic Year to provide information about their instructional patterns. The protocol captures the duration of various in-class activities, instructional quality indicators, and classroom interactions. The research team reviewed the fieldnotes for each of the three observations and then compiled an aggregated lesson profile that captured the typical experience of students in each class.

Results
In this proposal, we focus on the two most common patterns of instructional profiles. We illustrate these two profiles because they were the most most frequently appearing and they offer a meaningful contrast regarding classroom activities and interactivity.

Type 1. Six of the teachers started their flipped lessons by assigning students instructional video(s) at home. Then, the following day, class was used primarily for independent student work time as well as briew reviews of the video content and some classroom business. These teachers seldom led whole-class discussions to synthesize or extend the mathematical ideas from the videos. For example, Ms. York’s lesson usually started with a 12-minute video assigned as homework. For the majority of her 47-minutes of in-class time, students worked individually on procedural problems as Ms. York walked around the classroom and answered questions. Students’ in-class behavioral engagement began high but decreased over time.

Type 2. Some teachers included more interaction by facilitating whole-class discussions and allowing students to work collaboratively. For instance, Ms. Terrill usually assigned multiple lecture videos (about six minutes each) for homework. During her 95-minute in-class time, Ms. Terrill interwove whole-class discourse with segments of group activities (e.g., scavenger hunt) and independent work where students mainly worked on procedural problems. Compared with type 1, Ms. Terrill’s lesson had multiple lesson foci and a more substantial portion of lecture time. Although her students interacted with peers more actively, their on-task behaviors were lower than Ms. York’s students.

Significance
Our findings distinguish various implementations of flipped instruction regarding instructional formats, the nature of student activities, and student involvement, revealing that not all flipped instruction is the same in U.S. Algebra 1. We encourage future research to undertake similar work to document classroom profiles to understand the diversity of flipped instruction in other contexts so that we can draw meaningful conclusions about how this form of instruction relates to student learning.

Authors

• Wenmin Zhao, University of Missouri - Columbia

• Jessica Kamuru, University of Missouri