The affordances of using a flipped classroom approach in the teaching of mathematics: a case study of a grade 10 mathematics class

Mathematics Education Research Journal

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 149-171

  Muir, Tracey ^a   Geiger, Vince ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

^b AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Adolescents; Digital technologies; Engagement; Flipped classroom; Mathematics; Technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84959196156     PISSN: 10332170     EISSN: 2211050X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13394-015-0165-8     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Abeyseker, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1–14.
2. Attard, C., & Curry, C. (2012). Exploring the use of iPads to engage young students with mathematics. In J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics education: Expanding horizons (Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 75–82). Singapore: MERGA.
3. Bergman, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class everyday. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
4. Bergman, J., Overmyer, J., & Wilie, B. (2013). The flipped class: What it is and what it is not. Retrieved from http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/the-flipped-class-conversation-689.php.
5. Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research methods (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Longman.
6. Civil, M. (2006). Working towards equity in mathematics education: a focus on learners, teachers, and parents. In S. Alatorre, J. L. Cortina, M. Sáiz, & A. Méndez (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty Eighth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, 30-50). Mérida, Mexico: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.
7. Cole, M., Field, H., & Harris, S. (2004). Student learning motivation and psychological hardiness: interactive effects on students’ reactions to a management class. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(1), 64–85.
8. Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88–100.
9. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
10. Drijvers, P., & Weigand, H. (2010). The role of handheld technology in the mathematics classroom. ZDM, 42(7), 665–666. doi:10.1007/s11858-010-0285-2.
11. Ferrara, F., Pratt, D., & Robutta, O. (2006). The role and uses of technologies for the teaching of algebra and calculus. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: past, present and future (pp. 237–273). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
12. Flipped Learning Network (FLN). (2014). The four pillars of F-L-I-P. Retrieved from www.flippedlearning.org/definition
13. Flipped Learning Network (FLN). (2015). Speak up national research project findings. Retrieved from www.flippedlearning.org/research
14. Fredericks, J. A., Blumfield, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–110.
15. Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: flip your classroom to improve student learning. In Learning & Leading With Technology (June/July 2012) (pp. 12–17).
16. Gadanidis, G., & Geiger, V. (2010). A social perspective on technology enhanced mathematical learning – from collaboration to performance. ZDM – The International Journal in Mathematics Education, 42(1), 91–104.
17. Geiger, V. (2011). Factors affecting teachers’ adoption of innovative practices with technology and mathematical modelling. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in the teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 305–314). New York: Springer.
18. Geiger, V., Faragher, R., & Goos, M. (2010). CAS-enabled technologies as ‘agents provocateurs’ in teaching and learning mathematical modelling in secondary school classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(2), 48–68.
19. Geiger, V., Forgasz, H., Calder, N., Tan, H., & Hill, J. (2012). Technology in mathematics education. In R. Perry & T. Lowrie (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2008-2011 (pp. 111–142). Rotterdam: Sense.
20. Geiger, V., Goos, M., & Dole, S. (2015). The role of digital technologies in numeracy teaching and learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 1115–1137. doi:10.1007/s10763-014-9530-4.
21. Goos, M., & Geiger, V. (2012). Connecting social perspectives on mathematics teacher education in online environments. ZDM – The International Journal in Mathematics Education, 44(6), 705–715. doi:10.1007/s11858-012-0441-y.
22. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., & Geiger, V. (2000). Re-shaping teacher and student roles in technology enriched classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12, 303–320.
23. Greenwood, D., Woolley, S., Vaughan, J., & Goodman, J. (2014). Essential mathematics for the Australian curriculum year 10 and 10A. Cambridge: Port Melbourne, Vic.
24. Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K. (2013). A review of flipped learning. Retrieved from http://flippedlearning.org/cms/lib07/VA01923112/Centricity/Domain/41/LitReview_FlippedLearning.pdf.
25. Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62–66.
26. Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J.-B. (2010). Introduction. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain (pp. 1–11). New York: Springer.
27. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2003). What can digital technologies take from and bring to research in mathematics education? In A. J. Bishop (Ed.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 323–349). Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28. Kieran, C., & Guzma’n, J. (2005). Five steps to zero: students developing elementary number theory concepts when using calculators. In W. J. Masalski & P. C. Elliott (Eds.), Technology-supported mathematics learning environments (pp. 35–50). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
29. Laborde, C., Kynigos, C., Hollebrands, K., & Straesser, R. (2006). Teaching and learning geometry with technology. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 275–304). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
30. Larkin, K., & Jorgensen, R. (2015). ‘I hate maths: Why do we need to do maths?’ Using iPad video diaries to investigate attitudes and emotions towards mathematics in Year 3 and Year 6 students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-20. doi: 10.1007/s10763-015-9621-x
31. Lesh, R., & English, L. (2005). Trends in the evolution of models and modeling perspectives on mathematical learning and problem solving. ZDM Mathematics Education, 37(6), 487–489. doi:10.1007/bf02655857.
32. Muir, T. (2014). Google, Mathletics and Khan Academy: students’ self-initiated use of online mathematical resources. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(4), 833–852.
33. thannual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 445–452). Sunshine Coast: MERGA.
34. thannual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 485–492). Sydney: MERGA.
35. O’Leary, Z. (2010). The essential guide to doing your research project. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
36. Pearson Inc. (2013). Pearson, Inc. 2013 Flipped learning model increases student engagement and performance. Retrieved from http/assets.pearsonschool.com/asset_mgr/current/201320/Byron_standalone_casestudy.pdf
37. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
38. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
39. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
40. Srivastava, P. (2009). A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 76–84.
41. Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environmental Research, 15, 171–193.
42. Xu, J., & Wu, H. (2013). Self-regulation of homework behaviour: Homework management at the secondary school level. The Journal of Educational Research, 106, 1–13.
43. Yarbro, J., Arfstrom, K. M., McKnight, K., & McKnight, P. (2014). Extension of a review of flipped learning.