don't flip the classroom, rotate it

Don’t Flip the Classroom, Rotate It

Kelly R. Elander, Ph.D., Harding University

Integrating teacher-centered

(objectivist) & learner-centered

(constructivist) approaches

Who you are?• You teach at the college or university level?

• You help instructors who teach or create courses & interactions?

• You manage or maintain the LMS/CMS for a college or university?

Who you are?•You create interactions or features for an LMS/CMS?

• You create or manage integrations between your LMS/CMS & other dBs or websites?

• You manage or support the IT & dB functions at a college or university?

Who you are?•Serving in a role similar to those previously mention for K-12?

• A student?• Vendor, contractor, or author?• Others?

How many of you have seen or read an article

in the past year, or month, or week, or in the convention

program that used the expression

“flip the classroom?”

“Flip the classroom?”What are some of the definitions or descriptions you have heard?

“Flip the classroom?”Focus shifts to student activity rather than instructor activity.Students discover, gather, or experience learning rather than receive it from someone. Class time is for discussing or processing information accessed outside of class.

“Flip the classroom?”Students are encouraged to create their own meaning or knowledge.Assessment is performance-based not based on tests.

Why the term “flip”?• It’s so “either / or” • So Binary!• It’s One or the Other (Baby with the bathwater?)

Are there no other choices?

Don’t Flip the Classroom, Rotate It

Kelly R. Elander, Ph.D., Harding University

Integrating teacher-centered (objectivist) & learner-centered (constructivist) approaches

Teacher–Centered

Learner–Centered

John Locke, Skinner, Bandura

Jean Rousseau, Piaget,

John Dewey, Vygotsky

Traditional Paradigm

New Paradigm (Jonassen, 1991)

Objectivist ConstructivistInstructivist Student-Centered /

ExperientialPositivist Subjectivist

Two Philosophies –Two Approaches

Two Philosophies –Two Approaches

Researcher and educator Dr. Johannes Cronjé (2006) questioned the traditional view of objectivism & constructivism (in learning) as opposites on a continuum or that the “constructivist-only” approach is always best. Cronjé instead saw the approaches in an orthogonal relationship (i.e., axes at 90 degree angles to one another) forming a matrix.

Cronjé’s Model

4 Quadrants for Integrating Approaches

Cronjé’s model (2006) of the new relationship may potentially illustrate all the types of instructional courses that could be formed when integrating objectivist and constructivist approaches.

Cronjé’s (2006) new perspective on the relationship between objectivist & constructivist approaches in instruction could potentially transform current theory & address the concerns & experience of practitioners. In fact a few researchers have started identifying models, & frameworks to guide the integration of these two approaches to capitalize on the strengths of each (Antle & Wise, 2013; Charles, 2014; Cronjé, 2006; Tangworakitthaworn, Gilbert, & Wills, 2011; Yanchar, South, Williams, & Wilson, 2008).

Integrating the Approaches

Why is this Important?

Apparently there is some resistance & rejection of current

theory by practitioners who have observed that constructivist

approaches alone are inadequate, at least in certain

situations (Chen, 2007; Harasim, 2012; Johnson, 2009; Reigeluth,

1992; Spiro & DeSchryver, 2009). The result is some educators &

instructional designers have disregarded accepted theory &

methods, opting instead to use whatever approach works best

with the topic (Christensen, 2008; Yanchar & Gabbitas, 2011;

Yanchar, South, Williams, & Wilson, 2008).

Dissertation Research

I conducted an inquiry into which objectivist & constructivist elements are being used in integrated courses & which of these elements are being used most often.

I also looked for patterns and combinations of objectivist and constructivist elements matched in integrated courses. The courses reported will beplotted on Cronjé’s matrix (2006). Finally, a chi-square contingency table analysis will verify whether the results are significant.

Primary Research Question

How are instructional designers integrating objectivist & constructivist elements in college & university courses?

Cronjé’s matrix (2006), & its underlying model, suggested that objectivist & constructivist learning approaches could be combined in at least four (4) combinations. If combinations were found in the different combinations those results be significant?

Ho1: The results plotted in the four quadrants of Cronjé’s matrix (2006) will not significantly differ.

Significance of the Study

Cronjé’s (2006) model proposes that objectivism &

constructivism are NOT polar opposites on a

continuum, as many have assumed & declared

(Johnson,2009; Jonassen, 1991; Khan & Nawaz, 2010;

Vrasidas, 2000), but instead are axes that form a matrix.

Cronjé’s ideas (2006) may in fact explain why & how objectivist

& constructivist elements may be combined in instructional

designs for the best results.

Survey

Qualified instructional designers, course developers,

professors & instructors (who designed their own courses)

responded to 26 statements about learning approaches

& concepts used in their courses. Participants were asked to indicate their level of

agreement or disagreement with each statement about the

way the course was developed. For example, if the designer feels that the

instructor directed the learning about half the time & the learners

directed their own learning half the time, the participant might

click on ‘To Some Extent’ to both the objectivist & the

constructivist statement.

Sample Survey Question

Statement0

Never1

To Some Extent

2 To a Great

Extent

3 Always

Learners create case studies individually

X

Learners create case studies in groups

X

Example. Let’s say in your course the learners create four case studies. Two times learners create studies as individuals and the other two times they create studies in groups. Thus, if something occurs 50% of the time or less you indicate “To Some Extent.” If the practices happen between 51% -90% of the time, you would mark “To a Great Extent” and if that situation takes place 91-100% of the time, you would mark “Always.” If something occurs 10% of the time or less, mark “Never.”

In the course I developed,

Survey Tabulation & Plotting

Since ‘To Some Extent’ is valued at one point

(+1), the online Objectivist & Constructivist

Integration Assessment (OCIA) survey would

record an objectivist score of one point (1) AND

a constructivist score of one point (1) for the

pair of statements. The online system tabulates scores

throughout the survey to produce an overall

objectivist total & likewise an overall

constructivist total.

Survey Tabulation & Plotting

Pilot Results Main Study Results

Results plotted on Cronjé’s Matrix reveals make-up of Integrated Courses

So I decided to rotate the classroom when revising my ComM254 Internet Communication Class

5 crucial dimensions in any learning.

Pre-existing & emerging information (foundational & central concepts)

Learner engagement with learning & information

Learner processing of new information

Learner application of new information

Expert thinking (problem-solving) use of the information

Intentionally integrating teacher- & learner-centered approaches

Five Key Components in

Instruction

1. Pre-existing & emerging information. (foundational & central concepts)2. Learner engagement with learning & information3. Learner processing of new information4. Learner application of new information5. Expert thinking related to the topic

Components Reordered in Internet

Communication (ComM254)

2. Learner engagement with learning & information

1. Pre-existing and emerging information. (foundational & central concepts)3. Learner processing of the information5. Expert thinking related to the topic4. Learner application of the information

Integrated Approach Used

.

Starting with Motivation & Engagement

–


Keller’s ARCS ModelAttentionRelevanceConfidenceSatisfaction

.


Communication (ComM 254)

2. Learner engagement with learning & information1. Pre-existing and emerging information.(foundational & central concepts)3. Learner processing of new information

5. Expert thinking related to the topic4. Learner application of new information

Blended Internet Communication (ComM 254)

2. Pre-course online survey - learners select the topics most relevant to their future career1. Pre-established starter topics (in critical thinking & online research), then there is a research component (provided links, videos, PPTs, materials, lecture) in each topic.3. Each topic has a discussion component (w/a partner, team, and/or the class) for learners to process information. 5. Teacher facilitates a discussion, prompting critical thinking related to the topic.4. Learners create a project deliverable summarizing topic information.


This first element was handled by sending students a link to an online, pre-course survey to select topics for the ComM254 Internet Communication course.


.








The teacher selects a couple of foundational topics to prepare learners for learner-centered activities and topics.Online Research

Critical Thinking


LMS Used in ComM254

The LMS isn’t as important as the kinds of learning experiences and interactions we want to create.

Topics have the final assignment instructions & an explanation of the suggested method(s) to tackle the topic.


There is a three part approach & rubric for each topic. The details of the approach may differ from topic-to-topic.

Rubric Used in ComM254

.

Components Reordered in

Internet Communication

(ComM 254)2. Learner engagement with learning & information1. Pre-existing and emerging information. (foundational & central concepts)3. Learner processing of new information5. Expert thinking related to the topic4. Learner application of new information




After discussing the final assignment & suggested methods — readings, articles, websites, videos, tools, & other materials are provided to jumpstart the learner’s research.

Student-centered Learning Environments (Land & Hannafin)

Constructivist Learning Environments (Jonassen)


.






2. Pre-course online survey - learners select the topics most relevant to their career1. Pre-established starter topics (in critical thinking & online research), then there is a research component (provided links, videos, PPTs, materials, lecture) in each topic.3. Each topic has a discussion component (w/a partner, team, and/or the class) for learners to process information. 5. Teacher facilitates a discussion, prompting critical thinking related to the topic.4. Learners create a project deliverable summarizing topic information.


The discussion component may take many forms.

• Live class discussion • Discussions in small groups • A class activity to collect & organize ideas, such as a mind map or lists.

• Online forums


Some topics may have two or more discussion sessions – one to process research findings & then another to further analyze & classify information learned.

The teacher often facilitates these discussions and tries to stir critical thinking and questions. Techniques may include• Socratic questions• Requests for further explanation• Q & A following a student presentation.


.








.

The final assignment is a project or presentation designed to permit learners to show their understanding of the topic.


By rotating (or integrating) approaches instructors can choose their role anywhere on a spectrum from total direction to no direction. The rotated classroom can be done offline, online, or as a blend.

Rotating the Classroom (Integrating Approaches)

Techniques could combine :• Game-based learning• Project-based learning• Collaborative problem-solving• Simulations• Cognitive Apprenticeship

Rotate the classroom

Any Questions?

ReferencesAntle, A.N., & Wise, A.F. (2013) Getting down to

details: Using theories of cognition and learning to inform tangible user interface design. Interacting with Computers, 25(2), 1-20. doi:10.1093/iwc/iws007

Charles, J.M. (2014) Constructivism, direct instruction, and the Free-energy Optimization Principle: Cognitive perspectives on learning. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 5(2), 31-38.

Cronjé, J. C. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and learning sciences. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 54(4), 387-416. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9605-1

ReferencesJonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism vs. constructivism:

Do we need a new paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14. doi: 10.1007/BF02296434

Tangworakitthaworn, P., Gilbert, L., & Wills, G. (2011, November). Towards a Matching Strategy of Constructivism and Instructionism. Paper submitted to the 19th International Conference on Computers in Education, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Retrieved from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/22598/

Tangworakitthaworn, P., Gilbert, L.,& Wills, G. (2012, June). An Equivalent Architecture of Learner's and Instructor's Knowledge through the Matching of Intended Learning Outcome. Paper submitted to the 5th World Summit on the Knowledge Society, Rome, Italy. Retrieved from http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/273230

References

Yanchar, S. C., South, J. B., Williams, D. D., & Wilson, B. G. (2008). How do instructional designers use theory? A qualitative-developmental study of the integration of theory and technology. In M. R. Simonson (Ed.), Proceedings of selected research and development presentations (pp. 331-337). Washington DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Kelly Elander, [email protected] areas:Integrating Objectivist &Constructivist Learning Approaches

eCollaboration in E-learningInstructor Presence in E-learningMotivation in learning

mailto:[email protected]

More Dissertation Details

Why is this Important?

Christensen (2008), Katz (1999), Moallem (2001), and Yanchar, South, Williams, Allen, and Wilson (2010) have all reported the situation of instructional designers and other educationalpractitioners choosing not to consistently adhere to prevailing theoretical approaches; instead adopting more eclectic

or pragmatic approaches of selecting methods that

work best for a particular instructional situation.

Figure 1. Cronjé’s Original Matrix, circa 2000

Figure 2. Cronjé’s Revised Matrix, circa 2006

Terms 01Constructivist. Constructivist is used as a descriptive term to reflect

aspects of the Constructivist philosophy including a subjectivist or

interpretivist View of knowledge & how it is created & formulated in

the mind of another person (Bellefeuille, 2006; Harasim,2012).

Constructivists tend to have a relativist view of existence & reality

(Duffy & Jonassen, 1992). In learning, constructivists are

associated with progressive concepts such as learner-centered,

personalized knowledge that is unique to individual & their

perception (Powell & Kalina,2009). Constructivists hold that knowledge

cannot be transmitted, but can be cultivated in individuals as

they undergo new experiences, processes, authentic tasks, &

environments that help learners create their own understanding of a

subject, building upon prior experience (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992;

Harasim, 2012).

Terms 02Construction quadrant. The construction quadrant contains courses

dominated by constructivist elements. This quadrant could include

cognitive orsocial constructivist courses, constructivist

environments, situated learning, & cognitive apprenticeships.

Injection quadrant. The injection quadrant contains courses entirely

objectivist or dominated by objectivist elements. Injection quadrant

courses most closely resemble traditional instructivism, in

which “body of human knowledge” (Johnson, 2009, p. 14) is provided

& presented to learners (Cronjé, 2006; Cunningham & Allen, 2010).

Terms 03Immersion quadrant. The immersion quadrant encompasses learning

situations that are low in both constructivist & objectivist elements

(Cronjé,2006; Cunningham & Allen, 2010). This quadrant

encompasses self-initiated, self-directed learning that is also low in

direction & low in social construction. The immersion quadrant holds the

potential to explain how informal learning (Jonassen, 2009),

“incidental learning” (Yamamoto & Kubota, 2010, p. 39), &

connectivism fit into a relationship with the objectivist & constructivist

approaches.Integration quadrant. The integration quadrant contains courses that are

high in both objectivist & constructivist elements. The learning

approaches in this quadrant use objectivist & constructivist elements

together in the same course, in a complementary fashion.

Terms 04Objectivist. The descriptive term objectivist refers to the way something or someone reflects positivist views of the nature of knowledge & how it is created & formulated in the mind of another person (Chen, 2003). Objectivists generally have a realist view of reality & existence (Cunningham & Allen, 2010). In learning, objectivists are associated with traditional concepts that knowledge is external to the individual & finite (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992; Harasim, 2012). Objectivists hold that knowledge can be identified, categorized & sequentially ordered for transmission to another person, who can reassemble the information in their mind into a construct that resembles the knowledge of the presenter (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992).

Problem CThe literature has shown that some educators, instructional designers,

course developers, and educators are consciously breaking from accepted theory and research-based practice in their instruction because they feel the constructivist-only approach is inadequate to handle all instructional applications (Christensen, 2008; Gilbert, 2009; Johnson, 2004, 2009; Reigeluth, 1992; Yanchar et al., 2010). Additionally, a number of articles have shown instructors and course developers talking more about vacillating back and forth, picking either an objectivist and constructivist approach based on the needs of that particular course (Christensen, 2008; Lan & Sie, 2010; Pollalis & Mavrommatis, 2008; Vernadakis et al., 2011). Evidence also exists that some instructional designers, course developers, and instructors who develop their own courses are intentionally integrating objectivist and constructivist elements within a single course in an effort to help learners more fully grasp the subject (Alonso et al., 2009; Arbaugh & Benbunan-Fich, 2006; Bellefeuille, 2006; Chen, 2007; Cronjé, 2006; Johnson, 2009; Kinchin et al., 2009; Marcum, 2008; Nie & Lau, 2010; Santoso et al., 2006; Wright, 2008).

1st Set Sub Research ?s Will there be courses reported integrating objectivist

and constructivist elements? Will there be integrated courses reported with a more

constructivist-orientation, fitting the construction quadrant of Cronjé’s matrix (2000, 2006)?

Will there be integrated courses reported with a more objectivist-orientation, fitting the injection quadrant of Cronjé’s matrix (2000, 2006)?

Will there be integrated courses reported where objectivist and constructivist approaches are being used equally, fitting the integration quadrant of Cronjé’s matrix (2000, 2006)?

Table 1 The First Set of Research Sub-Questions Examine the Composition of the Integrated Courses Reported

Questions Explanation

Where do integrated courses cluster within the Construction quadrant of Cronjé’s matrix (2000, 2006)?

The Construction quadrant, explained in the definition of terms section to follow, contains courses that employ more constructivist characteristics than objectivist characteristics. The plotting of courses in the Construction quadrant is based on numerical scoring of responses on a Likert scale that show a greater use of constructivist learning elements in the course.

Where do integrated courses cluster within the Injection quadrant of Cronjé’s matrix (2000, 2006)?

The Injection quadrant, explained in the definition of terms, contains courses that employ more objectivist characteristics than constructivist characteristics. These courses reflect the report of more objectivist elements being used and, or, objectivist elements being used more of the time.

Where do integrated courses cluster within the Integration quadrant of Cronjé’s matrix (2000, 2006)

The Integration quadrant, explained below, contains courses that employ more of an even balance between objectivist and constructivist characteristics. The combination objectivist and constructivist elements may vary from course to course, but the overall orientation of the course will reflect a good measure of each approach.

Where do integrated courses cluster within the Immersion quadrant of Cronjé’s matrix (2000, 2006)? (Note: Few of these are expected in a university setting.)

The Immersion quadrant, explained below, will contain courses that use very few objectivist and constructivist characteristics, or use them less frequently. This type of learning would fall more in line with the spirit of self-directed learning or independent study.

2nd Set of Research Sub-?s Where do the integrated courses cluster within the

Construction quadrant of Cronjé’s matrix (2000, 2006)?

Where do the integrated courses cluster within the Injection quadrant of Cronjé’s matrix (2000, 2006)?

Where do the integrated courses cluster within the Integration quadrant of Cronjé’s matrix (2000, 2006)?

Where do the integrated courses cluster within the Immersion quadrant of Cronjé’s matrix (2000, 2006)? (Note: Few of these are expected in a university setting.)

3rd Set of Research Sub-?s Which constructivist elements are being used in

integrated courses? Which objectivist elements are being used in integrated

courses? Which constructivist elements are being used most often

in integrated courses? Which objectivist elements are being used most often in

integrated courses? What patterns and matching combinations of objectivist

and constructivist elements will be found in integrated courses?

Were courses more objectivist or more constructivist in

orientation?

Data Analysis Methods Comparing overall objectivist and constructivist

survey scores from the sum of ordinal responses to objectivist-oriented statements and constructivist-oriented statements (never = 0, to always = 3).

Frequency counts Descriptive statistics Cross-tabulation, comparison and meta-analysis Plotting courses in Cronjé’s matrix (2000, 2006) A Chi-square statistical analysis will be used to

determine the significant difference between the results reported in the four quadrants of Cronjé’s matrix (2000, 2006)

7 Course Topics from most popular Majors at U.S. Colleges & Universities

Courses Major

General Psychology or Psychology 101 Psychology

Microbiology Nursing

Public Speaking or Speech 101 Communication

Data Structures Computer Science

Introduction to Teaching Education

Macro Economics or Micro Economics Business

Basic Biology or Biology 101 Biology

Statement 0 Never

1 To Some Extent

2 To a Great

Extent

3 Always

1. The instructor is perceived as the authority figure and source of information on the subject.

2. The instructor is a support and additional source of information among many available to the learners.

Figure 3. Sample Pairing Statements on the OCIA Survey

Pilot Results Main Study Results

Research Into Whether Approaches Were being Combined in Higher Ed

Table 6 Sub-questions pertaining to the use of objectivist and constructivist elements in integrated courses

Sub-questions Explanation

Which constructivist elements are being used in integrated courses?

The Web survey used will ask participants whether they agree with statements about the planning and approach used in courses. Statements will include examples of constructivist characteristics (listed in Table 3). The answers should reveal whether constructivist elements are being used. If some objectivist characteristics are also being used, to a lesser degree, the course will be considered a constructivist- oriented integrated course.

Which objectivist elements are being used in integrated courses?

The participants will indicate levels of agreement with statements about the presence of objectivist characteristics (listed in Table 2) in the course. The answers should reveal whether objectivist elements are being used. If some constructivist characteristics are also being used, to a lesser degree, the course will be considered an objectivist- oriented integrated course.

Which constructivist elements are being used most often in integrated courses?

The data collected should permit comparisons of answers between surveys as well as within each survey. For example, it might be determined that the majority of integrated courses are all using group activities and collaboration.

Which objectivist elements are being used most often in integrated courses?

Comparisons of responses between surveys may reveal trends and general practices. For example, if a group of constructivist-oriented integrated courses are compared, it might turn out that the majority of the courses do not use scaffolding, instead opting for direct guidance and feedback throughout instruction.

What patterns and matching combinations of objectivist and constructivist elements will be found in integrated courses?

Just as some objectivist or constructivist elements may be used more often, it might be expected that certain combinations of objectivist and constructivist elements may be used, repeatedly, across the pool of integrated courses. As the survey results are analyzed from multiple angles, any patterns of element use should emerge.

What patterns and matching combinations of objectivist and constructivist elements will be found in integrated courses?

Just as some objectivist or constructivist

Were courses more objectivist or more constructivist in orientation?

The Web survey tool in this study will assign a value score to each response selected (based on a scale measuring the level of frequency that a characteristic occurs, see Appendix C). For each set of statements, there will be an objectivist score and a constructivist score. The survey will produce an overall objectivist and an overall constructivist score. If either score is more than 50 %, that learning approach will determine the orientation. The higher the score in either direction will indicate possible intensity or orientation.