Research article of American Journal of Educational Research and Reviews
Engaging Adolescent Readers: Flipped Learning at an Urban High School
Michael Schulte1 and Matthew D. Campbell2
1Memphis Teacher Residency
2University of North Alabama
This study examines the efficacy of the flipped learning model within a secondary English classroom at a large, urban high school in the Southeastern United States. To understand the effectiveness of the flipped learning model, the primary author conducted an action research study designed to answer the following research question: will students see more growth than their peers in reading comprehension because of the flipped learning model? Over the course of a month-long instructional unit, students in two eleventh grade English classes encountered instruction via the flipped learning model or from a more traditional approach before being tested on their reading comprehension. Those students taking part in flipped learning scored higher than their peers who received instruction from a more traditional approach. Although modest, these findings suggest that the flipped learning model is effective at promoting reading comprehension.
Keywords: flipped learning; pedagogy; instructional strategies; instructional design
How to cite this article:
Michael Schulte and Matthew D. Campbell.Engaging Adolescent Readers: Flipped Learning at an Urban High School. American Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 2019,4:45. DOI: 10.28933/ajerr-2019-02-0406
1. Ash, K. (2012, August 27). Educators evaluate ‘flipped classrooms.’ Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/08/29/02el-flipped.h32.html
2. Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centered learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243-260. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2010.06.001
3. Beers, K. (2003). When kids can’t read: What teachers can do. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
4. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2014). Flipped learning: Gateway to student achievement. Learning & Leading with Technology, 41(7), 18-23. Retrieved from http://www.learningandleading-digital.com/learning_leading/
5. Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013, June). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/20/papers/6219/view
6. Bloom, B., Engelhart, M.D, Furst, E.J, Hill, W.H, & Krathwol, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.
7. Butzler, K.B. (2014). The effects of motivation on achievement and satisfaction in a flipped classroom learning environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northcentral University, Prescott Valley, AZ. Retrieved from http://www.une.edu/sites/default/files/Effects%20of%20Motivation.pdf
8. Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: Flip your classroom to improve student learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(6), 12-16. Retrieved from http://www.learningandleading-digital.com/learning_leading/
9. Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Evidence on flipped classrooms is still coming in. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 78-80. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar13/vol70/num06/Evidence-on-Flipped-Classrooms-Is-Still-Coming-In.aspx
10. Guay, F., Boggiano, A. K., & Vallerand, R. J., (2001). Autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and perceived competence: Conceptual and empirical linkages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(6), 643-650. doi:10/1177/0146167201276001
11. Kettle, M. (2013). Flipped physics. Physics Education, 48(5). doi: 10.1088/0031-9120/48/5/593
12. Kober, N. & Usher, A. (2012). A public education primer: Basic (and sometimes surprising facts about the U.S. educational system. Washington, D.C.: The Center on Educational Policy.
13. Koretz, D. (2017). The testing charade: Pretending to make schools better. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
14. Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2006). Qualitative reading inventory 4. Boston, MA: Pearson.
15. Morgan, H. (2014). Flip your classroom to increase academic achievement. Childhood Education, 90 (3), 239-241. doi:10.1080/00094056.2014.912076
16. Ryan, K., Cooper, J.M., & Tauer, S. (2013). Teaching for student learning: Becoming a
1. master teacher (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
17. Sams, A. & Bergmann, J. (2013). Flip your students’ learning. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 16-20. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar13/vol70/num06/Flip-Your-Students’-Learning.aspx
18. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan , C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59. Retrieved from http://standards.dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/cal/pdf/teaching-dl-adolescents.pdf
19. Teale, W. H., Paciga, K. A., & Hoffman, J. L. (2007). Beginning reading instruction in urban schools: The curriculum gap ensures a continuing achievement gap. The Reading Teacher, 61(4), 344-348. doi:10.1598/rt.61.4.8
20. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The nation’s report card: 2015 mathematics and reading assessments (NCES 2015-4136). Washington D.C.: Institute of Education Services. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#?grade=4
21. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246-260. doi:10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.206
22. Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. (1998). The importance of supporting autonomy in medical education. Annals of Internal Medicine, 129(4), 303-308. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-129-4-199808150-00007