When is the best time to use rubrics in flipped learning? A study on students’ learning achievement, metacognitive awareness, and cognitive load

Interactive Learning Environments

Volumn 27, Issue 8, 2019, Pages 1207-1221

  Zhang, Yi ^a   Chen, Bei Lei ^b   Ge, Jun ^c   Hung, Cheng Yu ^a   Mei, Lin ^d  

^a CENTRAL CHINA NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b HUBEI UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY   (China)

^d Hubei Radio and Television University   (China)

Author keywords

cognitive load; flipped learning; learning achievement; metacognitive awareness; Rubrics

Indexed keywords

EID: 85058680089     PISSN: 10494820     EISSN: 17445191     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2018.1553187     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Al-Zahrani, A. M., (2015). From passive to active: The impact of the flipped classroom through social learning platforms on higher education students’ creative thinking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1133–1148.
2. Andrade, H., (1999). The role of instructional rubrics and self-assessment in learning to write: A smorgasbord of findings. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
3. Andrade, H. G., (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57(5), 13–19.
4. Andrade, H., & Du, Y., (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(3), 1–11.
5. Andrade, H., Du, Y., & Mycek, K., (2010). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and middle school students’ writing. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 199–214.
6. Andrade, H. L., Du, Y., & Wang, X., (2008). Putting rubrics to the test: The effect of a model, criteria generation, and rubric-referenced self-assessment on elementary school students’ writing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(2), 3–13.
7. Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A., (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 12–19.
8. Azevedo, R., (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.
9. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C., & Greene, J. A., (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 381–412.
10. Azevedo, R., & Jacobson, M. J., (2008). Advances in scaffolding learning with hypertext and hypermedia: A summary and critical analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 93–100.
11. Baepler, P., Walker, J., & Driessen, M., (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227–236.
12. Balan, A., (2012). Assessment for learning: A case study in mathematics education (Doctoral dissertation). Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.
13. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A., (2014). Flipped learning: Gateway to student engagement. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
14. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A., (2015). Flipped learning for math instruction (The flipped learning series). Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
15. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R., (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
16. Brookhart, S. M., (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
17. Brown, G. T. L., Glasswell, K., & Harland, D., (2004). Accuracy in the scoring of writing: Studies of reliability and validity using a New Zealand writing assessment system. Assessing Writing, 9(2), 105–121.
18. Chen, Y., Wang, Y., & Chen, N., (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers & Education, 79, 16–27.
19. Davis, E. A., (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.
20. Fretz, E. B., Wu, H. K., Zhang, B., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E., (2002). A further investigation of scaffolding design and use in a dynamic modeling tool. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans.
21. Fulton, K., (2012). Upside down and inside out: Flip your classroom to improve student learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(8), 12–17.
22. Gaughan, J. E., (2014). The flipped classroom in world history. The History Teacher, 47(2), 221–244.
23. Ge, X., & Land, S. M., (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and, 51(1), 21–38.
24. Gilboy, M. B., Heinerichs, S., & Pazzaglia, G., (2015). Enhancing student engagement using the flipped classroom. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 47(1), 109–114.
25. Greene, B. A., & Land, S. M., (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving the World Wide Web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 151–180.
26. Halonen, J. S., Bosack, T., Clay, S., McCarthy, M., Dunn, D. S., Hill, G. W., & Whitlock, K., (2003). A rubric for learning, teaching, and assessing scientific inquiry in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 30(3), 196–208.
27. Hung, C. Y., Sun, C. Y., & Liu, J. Y., (2018). Effects of flipped classrooms integrated with MOOCs and game-based learning on the learning motivation and outcomes of students from different backgrounds. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–19. doi:10.1080/10494820.2018.1481103
28. Hwang, G. J., & Chang, H. F., (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1023–1031.
29. Hwang, G. J., Yang, L. H., & Wang, S. Y., (2013). A concept map-embedded educational computer game for improving students’ learning performance in natural science courses. Computers & Education, 69, 121–130.
30. Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J., (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37–50.
31. King, A., & Rosenshine, B., (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 61(2), 127–148.
32. Koh, J. H. L., Herring, S. C., & Hew, K. F., (2010). Project-based learning and student knowledge construction during asynchronous online discussion. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 284–291.
33. Kuo, F. R., Hwang, G. J., & Lee, C. C., (2012). A hybrid approach to promoting students’ web-based problem-solving competence and learning attitude. Computers & Education, 58(1), 351–364.
34. Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J., (2015). An interactive peer-assessment criteria development approach to improving students’ art design performance using handheld devices. Computers & Education, 85, 149–159.
35. Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D., (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3(7), 837–858.
36. Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M., (2001). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420–432.
37. Lunsford, E., & Melear, C. T., (2004). Using scoring rubrics to evaluate inquiry. Journal of College Science Teaching, 34(1), 34–38.
38. Mason, G. S., Shuman, T. R., & Cook, K. E., (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 430–435.
39. Palincsar, A., & Brown, A., (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
40. Panadero, E., (2011). Instructional help for self-assessment and self-regulation: Evaluation of the efficacy of self-assessment scripts vs. rubrics (Doctoral dissertation). Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
41. Panadero, E., Alonso-Tapia, J., & Reche, E., (2013). Rubrics vs. self-assessment scripts effect on self-regulation, performance and self-efficacy in pre-service teachers. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(3), 125–132.
42. Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A., (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9(6), 129–144.
43. Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J. W., (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated learning through self-assessment and peer assessment: Guidelines for classroom implementation. In D., Laveault & L., Allal (Eds.), Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation (pp. 311–326). (The enabling power of assessment; Vol. 4). Boston, MA: Springer.
44. Panadero, E., & Romero, M., (2014). To rubric or not to rubric? The effects of self-assessment on self-regulation, performance and self-efficacy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 133–148.
45. Panadero, E., Tapia, J. A., & Huertas, J. A., (2012). Rubrics and self-assessment scripts effects on self-regulation, learning and self-efficacy in secondary education. Learning & Individual Differences, 22(6), 806–813.
46. Phye, G. D., & Sanders, C. E., (1994). Advice and feedback: Elements of practice for problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(3), 286–301.
47. Pierce, R., & Fox, J., (2012). Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom” model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(10), 196.
48. Rahimi, E., van den Berg, J., & Veen, W., (2015). Facilitating student-driven constructing of learning environments using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. Computers & Education, 81, 235–246.
49. Reddy, Y. M., (2007). Effects of rubrics on enhancement of student learning. Educate, 7(1), 3–17.
50. Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H., (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435–448.
51. Reitmeier, C. A., Svendsen, L. K., & Vrchota, D. A., (2004). Improving oral communication skills of students in food science courses. Journal of Food Science Education, 3(2), 15–20.
52. Reitmeier, C. A., & Vrchota, D. A., (2009). Self-assessment of oral communication presentations in food science and nutrition. Journal of Food Science Education, 8(4), 88–92.
53. Reynolds-Keefer, L., (2010). Rubric-referenced assessment in teacher preparation: An opportunity to learn by using. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 15(8). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=15&n=8
54. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C., (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26–33.
55. Ross, J. A., (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 11(10), 1–13.
56. Saddler, B., & Andrade, H., (2004). The writing rubric. Educational Leadership, 62(2), 48–52.
57. Sadler, P. M., & Good, E., (2006). The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1–31.
58. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T., (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(3), 77–96.
59. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S., (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475.
60. Simon, M., & Forgette-Giroux, R., (2001). A rubric for scoring postsecondary academic skills. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(18), 103–121.
61. Skipton, C., Matulich, E., Papp, R., & Stepro, J., (2011). Moving from dumb to smart classrooms: Technology options and implementation issues. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 3(6), 19–27.
62. Smith, B. K, & Reiser, B. J., (1998). National geographic unplugged: Classroom-centered design of interactive nature films. In C., Karat, A., Lund, J., Coutaz, & J., Karat (Eds.), Proceedings of the CHI 98 conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 424–431). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
63. Strayer, J. F., (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193.
64. Sun, Z., (2015). The role of self-regulation on students’ learning in an undergraduate flipped math class (Doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University.
65. Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C., (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–297.
66. Teo, T. W., Tan, K. C. D., Yan, Y. K., Teo, Y. C., & Yeo, L. W., (2014). How flip teaching supports undergraduate chemistry laboratory learning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 550–567.
67. Topping, K., (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.
68. Turan, Z., & Goktas, Y., (2016). The flipped classroom: Instructional efficiency and impact on achievement and cognitive load levels. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 12(4), 51–62.
69. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G., (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
70. Yilmaz, R. M., & Baydas, O., (2017). An examination of undergraduates’ metacognitive strategies in pre-class asynchronous activity in a flipped classroom. Educational Technology Research & Development, 65(2), 1547–1567.
71. Yıldız, D. G., & Kiyici, G., (2016). Effect of the flipped classroom on prospective teachers’ academic achievement, metacognitive awareness and epistemological beliefs. MCBÜ SOSYAL BİLİMLER DERGİSİ, 14(3), 423–444.
72. Zimmerman, B. J., (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.