Flipped Classroom Versus Traditional Textbook Instruction: Assessing Accuracy and Mental Effort at Different Levels of Mathematical Complexity

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 231-248

  Mattis, Kristina V ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Flipped classroom; Mathematics; Mental effort; Nursing students

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; E-LEARNING; MATHEMATICAL TECHNIQUES; NURSING; TEXTBOOKS;

ACCURACY; COGNITIVE THEORY OF MULTIMEDIA LEARNING; FLIPPED CLASSROOM; INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY; MATHEMATICAL COMPLEXITY; MENTAL EFFORT; NURSING STUDENTS; STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84930759293     PISSN: 22111662     EISSN: 22111670     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10758-014-9238-0     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Atkinson, R. K. (2005). Multimedia learning in mathematics. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 393–408). New York: Cambridge University Press.
2. Austin, K. A. (2009). Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual differences and display design techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules. Computers and Education,53, 1339–1354.
3. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.
4. Beckmann, J. F. (2010). Taming a beast of burden—On some issues with the conceptualisation and operationalisation of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction,20, 250–264.
5. Berrett, D. (2012). How “flipping” the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Feb 19, 2012. https://chronicle.com/article/How-Flipping-the-Classroom/130857/.
6. Brown, D. L. (2006). Can you do the math? Mathematic competencies of baccalaureate degree nursing students. Nurse Educator,31, 98–100.
7. Bull, H. (2009). Identifying maths anxiety in student nurses and focusing remedial work. Journal of Further and Higher Education,33(1), 71–81.
8. Chi, M. T. H., & Glaser, R. (1985). Problem solving ability. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Human abilities: An information processing approach (pp. 227–250). San Francisco: Freeman.
9. Chi, M. T., Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science,18(3), 439–477.
10. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
11. Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load (p. 27). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
12. Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). The effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology,79(347), 362.
13. Costello, M. (2010). A comparison of three educational strategies for the acquisition of medication calculation skills among baccalaureate nursing students. Ph.D., Simmons College.
14. Daniel, R. C., & Embretson, S. E. (2010). Designing cognitive complexity in mathematical problem-solving items. Applied Psychological Measurement,34, 348–364.
15. Demetry, C. (2010). Work in progress—An innovation merging “classroom flip” and team-based learning. Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2010 IEEE. 27–30 Oct 2010, Washington, DC. doi:10.1109/FIE.2010.5673617.
16. Elliott, M., & Joyce, J. (2004). Mapping drug calculation skills in an undergraduate nursing curriculum. Nurse Education in Practice,5, 225–229.
17. Fischer, G. H. (1995). The linear logistic test model: Foundations, recent developments, and applications (pp. 131–155). New York: Springer.
18. Foshay, W. R., & Silber, K. H. (2009). Handbook of improving performance in the workplace, instructional design and training delivery (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
19. Funkhouser, C., & Dennis, J. (1992). The effects of problem-solving software on problem-solving ability. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,24, 338–347.
20. Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Introduction to hybrid courses. Mar, 8. Learning Technology Center, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
21. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education,7, 95–105.
22. Gillham, D., & Chu, S. (1995). An analysis of student nurses’ medication calculation errors. Contemporary Nurses,4, 61–64.
23. Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction,15, 313–331.
24. Goldberg, M., Harvey, J. (1983). A nation at risk: The report of the national commission on excellence in education. Phi Delta Kappan, 14–18.
25. Halford, G. S., Baker, R., McCredden, J. E., & Bain, J. D. (2005). How many variables can humans process. Psychological Science,16, 70–76.
26. Harrell, B. M. (1987). Comparing the effect upon students who are taught nursing math in the classroom with students who do not experience the nursing math course. RIE(Jan), 32.
27. Hodge, J. E. (2002). The effect of math anxiety, math self-efficacy, and computer assisted instruction on the ability of undergraduate nursing students to calculate drug dosages. Dissertation, West Virginia University.
28. Jan, S., & Rodrigues, S. (2012). Students' difficulties in comprehending mathematical word problems in language learning contexts. International Researchers.
29. Jeung, H. J., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology,17, 329–343.
30. Johar, A. R., & Arrifin, S. R. (2001). Issues in measurement and evaluation in education. Bangi: University Kebangsaan Malaysia.
31. Keller, W. R. (1939). The relative contribution of certain factors to individual differences in algebraic problem solving ability. The Journal of Experimental Education,8, 26–35.
32. Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology,25(6), 943–951.
33. Mayer, R. E. (1985). Implications of cognitive psychology for instruction in mathematical problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 123–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
34. Mayer, R. E. (2005a). Multimedia learning: Guiding visuospatial thinking with instructional animation. In P. Shah & A. Miayke (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35. Mayer, R. E. (2005b). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 169–182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2009). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. McLeod, J., Fisher, J., & Hoover, G. (2003). Key elements of classroom management: Managing time and space, student behavior, and instructional strategies. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
38. Melius, J. (2012). Math anxiety and mathematics self-efficacy in relation to medication calculation performance in nurses. Dissertation, University of North Texas.
39. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review,63, 81–97.
40. Moreno, R. (2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted learning,22, 149–158.
41. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology,91, 358–368.
42. Morris, S. (2010). A comparison of learning outcomes in a traditional lecture-based versus blended course module using a business simulation with high cognitive load. Dissertation, University of San Francisco, CA.
43. Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reduction cognitive load by mixing auditor and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology,87, 319–334.
44. NAEP. (2009). Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved Mar 15, 2010. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics.
45. NCTM (2010). Overview: Standards for School Mathematics. Problem Solving. Retrieved Sept 7, 2010. http://standards.nctm.org/document/chapter3/prob.htm.
46. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skills in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology,84, 429–434.
47. Paas, F., & van Merrienboër, J. J. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine perceived mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors,35, 737–743.
48. Paas, F., & van Merrienboër, J. J. (1994a). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review,6, 51–71.
49. Paas, F., & van Merrienboër, J. J. (1994b). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology,86, 122–133.
50. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist,38, 1–4.
51. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52. Palumbo, D. (1990). Programming language/problem-solving research: A review of relevant issues. Review of Educational Research,60, 65–89.
53. Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2010). Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Denver, CO.
54. Schnotz, W. (2011). Colorful bouquets in multimedia research: A closer look at the modality effect. Zeitschrift fur Padagogische Psychologie,25, 269–276.
55. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science,12, 257–285.
56. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction,4, 295–312.
57. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognitive and Instruction,2, 59–89.
58. Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & van Merrienboër, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology,74, 71–81.
59. Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,3, 257–287.
60. Tucker, C. R. (2012). Blended learning in grades 4–12: Leveraging the power of technology to create student-centered classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
61. Walsh, K. A. (2008). The relationship among mathematics anxiety, beliefs about mathematics, mathematics self-efficacy, and mathematics performance in associate degree nursing students. Nursing Education Perspectives,29(4), 226–229.
62. Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction,22, 449–457.
63. Young, J. R. (2002). “Hybrid” teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. Chronicle of Higher Education,48(28), A33–A34.
64. Zakaria, M. J. (2002). Relationship between learning approach and problem solving on the topic of fraction. Malaysia: Universiti Kebangsaan Mayalasia.
65. Zakaria, E., & Yusoff, N. (2009). Attitudes and problem-solving skills in algebra among Malaysian matriculation college students. European Journal of Social Sciences,8, 232–245.