A symmetrical continuum: flipped classrooms, semi-flipped classrooms and non-flipped classrooms

I have just read the article by Hung (2015) entitled “Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning”. The article presents Hungs’s work and expands the literature on the flipped classroom experience connecting it with active learning. It suggests that flipped and semi-flipped classrooms were more effective than non-flipped classrooms as they helped language learners attain better learning outcomes and better attitudes towards learning in is study. However, I find the design of the study to be a bit ill-structured. The researcher divided the participants into three groups (flipped classroom, semi-flipped classroom and non-flipped classroom) in order to examine the effect of flipped classrooms on English language learners’ academic performance, attitudes and their participation in learning procedures. I personally think that this way of grouping learners is not a sound basis for divining the effects of the flipped classroom. Traditional vs flipped classrooms can not easily be put at two ends on a continuum. How can we make sure that effects observed in the flipped classroom are due just the reverse of the traditional lecture layout? Was there any difference in regards to cognitive engagement required by assigned materials in both settings? How can we measure the cognitive engagement of the learning environments in the three designs individually?  How and to what extent do semi-flipped classrooms differ from flipped classrooms?  These were the questions for which I hoped to find an answer in the discussion but unfortunately I couldn’t. 

Hung, H-T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81-96.

Dissertation Abstract

“Exploring the Role of  Multimedia Glosses and Strategy Use in Second Language Listening Comprehension and Incidental Vocabulary Learning in a Mobile Environment” 

The study seeks to investigate the effects of multimedia glosses on second language listening comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning in a mobile environment. The study also explored the strategies used by second language learners as they interacted with listening and multimedia glosses. Based on the multimedia principle of Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2001), three types of gloss conditions were tested (textual-only, pictorial-only, textual-plus-pictorial). Two other conditions with no glosses included; one of these conditions allowed the learners to regulate their listening through an audio control tool as in the gloss conditions, the other did not allow any kind of control to the learner, except starting the audio file and restarting it. A listening application for mobile devices was developed and optimized for mobile phones. 116 participants with a low-level proficiency level in English were randomly assigned to one of these conditions. To assess their L2 listening comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning, immediate free recall and unannounced vocabulary tests were administered. The participants’ interaction with the listening text and glosses was tracked in order to examine the strategies they employed. The findings indicated that access to glosses facilitates recognition and production of vocabulary with the type of gloss having a nonsignificant effect. On the other hand, glosses had no effect on L2 listening comprehension. The results also indicate that when glosses were available, analytical listening strategies were employed more often than global listening strategies. When no glosses were available, students showed an equal tendency for either analytical or global listening. In addition, the participants preferred to use the available glosses simultaneously, i.e. as they interacted with the text. The study concluded that while access to glosses promoted vocabulary recognition irrespective of gloss types, gloss use did not have a significant effect on overall L2 listening comprehension.

Reference:

Çakmak, F. (2014). Exploring the role of multimedia glosses and strategy use in second language listening comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning in a mobile environment (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation), Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Profiles in SRL

This article by Brak, Lan, and Osland Paton (2010) is a good article on SRL and profiles or types of self-regulated learning skills and strategies.  "Individuals differing significantly in their academic achievement according to their profile membership" is not a surprising result at all.  The article can be retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/769/1480

"What we process, we learn"

Listen to this and enjoy the flow! ;)

http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_doolittle_how_your_working_memory_makes_sense_of_the_world.html

Are they "glued to the internet or not"?

Would you like to know how digital our young generation is? Here is a short summary of the report from Atlanta: http://www.news.gatech.edu/2013/10/07/where-world-are-young-people-using-internet and for more information, check this out: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/mis2013.aspx

The Finnish miracle

A couple of weeks ago I read an article from the Guardian weekly (issue: 19.07.2013) on the plane to Santiago. It was about the Finnish educational system and how a Scandinavian nation attains educational success without strains and competitions: no uniforms, no exams, no tests, no private tuition, and no inspectors. Wow, what a system!! It is extremely hard to envisage that children solely play until the time they start compulsory education at the age of 7, then they go to comprehensive schools, peruskoulu, which are free of charge and they are sorted into groups according to their abilities there. There are no exams at all until the age of 18 and they obviously do not spend more than half an hour for doing homework. I was still impressed to read more about it again after I first watched the documentary about the Finnish educational system on a US channel a year ago. I do not think it is even achievable for other nations who want to get that success reputation and also the highest ranking even they follow Finland step by step. They need to understand the basics of it. They need to bring a radical change in their systems. But why? Why is it so difficult to imagine and realize it? Because the existing systems are based on sorting students according to their scores in the exams rather than skills. They will be continuing doing so and getting the support of private institutions that mostly take the issue as money making. Without doubt, the aim of Finnish school system is not reaching the figures but the literacy in quality. Reading is a part of the culture outside schools and Plus, for such a nearly impossible educational model, teacher education needs to be considered crucial, highly qualified and valued. Pre-service education and in-service training is a real challenge and it takes some more years, patience and more importantly experience to get the diploma of teaching in Scandinavian systems. Additionally, Finland has a country profile with under 5% foreign-born citizen and the ratio of income between the richest %20 of the population and the poorest 20% is around four to one (against nine to one in Britain). Child poverty is low, social welfare policies for children work efficiently there.

The article also reminds us the fact that Finland has passed through several reforms such as mixed ability grouping, teacher education reforms, and abolishing the national curriculum and passing the administration to the local authorities until it reaches the excellency. Before the 1970s, 10% continued to their education until the age of 18 and the Finnish system was considerably influenced by British schooling. After the series of exams at the age of 11,  25%  in the top ranking went to private grammar schools. Then success came along with the reforms. Now %90 stay at school beyond 16 and they choose one of two tracks: general and vocational. General track is the academic one, they take a national exam which includes essay based tests in four subject matters.To study one particular subject, students need to take more exams done by the universities. Vocational one provides technical programs. Students in this track either directly go on a job hunting or go to polytechnics.

It seems to me that the Finnish system is an ideal one, definitely unique. What I like most about it is that there are mixed ability teaching, competitiveness for yourself not with others and the importance of literacy. The students in the Finnish system must know that it is tougher for them to get the result (endpoint) because the system is a challenge itself, not because the others do very well. They know that the system provides how they can do with their abilities and they do read! It will take way too long to see at least some of the nations will follow the Finnish miracle! 

Now watch this: http://youtu.be/dwHerTpwuvc

Measurement of cognitive load

Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) has been a remarkable instructional theory that facilitates learning for over three decades. The theory has its ground in the studies that have examined what happens in cognitive processes when working memory and long-term memory interact (Sweller, Ayres & Kalyuga, 2011). This interaction obviously affects learner's performance and learning as an outcome. Granted that too much cognitive load is created for some reasons such as complexity of material or poor or inefficient instructional design of the material, the outcome is jeopardized as insufficient working memory resources manage to carry out processes required to learn. CLT has successfully presented barriers to learning and proposed strategies like modality effect to deal with the difficulties (Sweller et al., 2011). When CLT was born, one of the basic concerns was how to measure the construct. Several measures such as error rates, time on task and dual task methods were applied until a self-rating measure was created by Paas (1992). This measure has been a hit in the field of cognitive psychology; however, after a while it received some criticism. It was basically designed to ask for learners' perceptions of their invested mental effort on a task while learning and taking tests. The criticism has been centred on the nature of the measure itself that it is a subjective measure and all three types of cognitive load cannot be measured by this single subjective measure. Additionally, it has been stated that there have been several variations in labels and items of the scale as well as administration time and frequency. Responding "timing and frequency" issue and meeting the criticism, Gog, Kirschner, Kester, and Paas (2012) have worked on the effects of timing and frequency on cognitive load measures. They collected invested mental effort ratings when each problem solving task in a set is done and compared them with the mental effort measured once at the end of the set. The findings confirm that the frequency affects the value of the mental effort and the accurate data can collected through repeated and consistently administered measures. This finding will likely help set up the conditions that can provide an accurate and reliable results.

Reference:
Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
Van Gog, T., Kirschner, F., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2012). Timing and frequency of mental effort measurement: Evidence in favor of repeated measures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 833–839.