How to flip the right way? Fail, flip, fix and feed in practice.

Kolloquium Fachdidaktik

Richard Conrardy

richard.conrardy@phbern.ch

University of Teacher Education Bern

04.03.2024

Promotionsprojekt

Inhalt

1. Promotionsprojekt

2. Productive failure

3. Flipped Classroom

4. 4F-Modell
   Fail, flip, fix and Feed

5. Untersuchungs-design

6. Weitere 4-Phasen-Modelle

7. Fragen

Umriss

• Promotionsprojekt

• Fakultät für Natur- und Gesellschaftswissenschaften

• Mitgliedschaft: Graduate School PH Heidelberg

• Kumulative Promotion, 3 Artikel

• Betreuer: Prof. Dr. Christian Spannagel

Geplanter Ablauf

gantt
    title Ablauf
    dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
    section Vorbereitung
    section Doktorarbeit
        Exposé: e0, 2023-01-08, 240d
        Promotionsvereinbarung: pv, 2023-07-01, 30d
        Zulassung durch den Promotionsausschuss: zp, 2023-10-05, 5d
        Probedurchlauf: pdl, 2024-04-01,14d
        Experiment 1          :  e1, 2024-05-01, 60d
        Experiment 2    : e2, 2025-02-01, 120d
        Experiment 3: e3, 2025-08-01, 110d
        1. Artikel : art1, 2025-05-01, 365d
        2. Artikel : art2, 2026-02-01, 365d
        3. Artikel : art3, 2027-02-01, 365d
        🎉🍾: cha, 2028-03-01,1d
        Dissertationsförderung: diss, 2025-08-01, 365d

    section Projekt
        Antrag Anschubfinanzierung: a0, 2023-02-01, 30d
        Anschubfinanzierung: a1, 2024-08-01, 365d
        Antrag Projekt: p0, 2025-01-01, 60d
        Projekt: p1, 2026-08-01, 1100d
        
    section Innovationspool
        Antrag Innovationspool: i0, 2023-02-01, 30d
        Innovationspoolprojekt: i1, 2024-08-01, 365d
        Treffpunkt Hochschuldidaktik: i2, 2024-03-01, 5d
        Poster: i3, 2025-08-01, 5d

Productive failure

Inhalt

1. Promotionsprojekt

2. Productive failure

3. Flipped Classroom

4. 4F-Modell
   Fail, flip, fix and Feed

5. Untersuchungs-design

6. Weitere 4-Phasen-Modelle

7. Fragen

Einordnung: Productive failure

• First Paper: Kapur (2008)
• Design: Kapur & Bielaczyc (2012)
• Fidelity Criteria: Sinha & Kapur (2021)
• Deutschsprachig: Loibl & Rummel (2014)
• Beyond STEM: Nachtigall et al. (2020)

Einordnung

Sinha & Kapur (2021) CC BY 4.0

Design

• 2 Phasen:
  • Phase 1: generation and exploration phase
  • Phase 2: consolidation phase

Kapur & Bielaczyc (2012)

• Typischer Unterrichtsinhalt:

  • Standardabweichung, bzw. Varianz

vgl. Kapur (2008), Kapur (2014), Kapur (2015), Loibl & Rummel (2014), Brand et al. (2023), Hartmann et al. (2022), Hartmann et al. (2020)

Erhobene Variablen

• math ability
• prior knowledge
• number of solutions
• mental effort
• engagement

• procedural knowledge
• conceptual understanding
• transfer

vgl. Kapur (2015)

Effekte individuell

conceptual knowledge: \(p<0.001\), \(\eta^2=0.26\)

Hartmann et al. (2020)

conceptual understanding: \(p<0.001\), \(d = 2.00\)

transfer \(p<0.001\), \(d=1.52\)

Kapur (2014)

transfer \(p < 0.005\), \(d = 0.67\)

Kapur (2015)

Effektstärken	klein	mittel	gross
Cohens \(d\)	0.2	0.5	0.8
Hedges \(g\)	0.05	0.15	0.25
\(\eta^2\)	0.01	0.06	0.14

(vgl. Cohen, 1992)

Collaboration

Unterschied kollaborativ - individuell

Primar (quasi-experimentell): \(p=0.28\), \(\eta^2_p=0.005\)

Mazziotti et al. (2019), p.2

Sekundarklassen (quasi-experimentell): \(p = 0.437\)

Brand et al. (2023)

Boundary conditions?

there is evidence that element interactivity provides an explanatory variable for the presence or absence of a problem-solving first advantage.

Ashman et al. (2020), p.242f

the beneficial effect […] only comes to bear if the teacher compares typical student solutions and contrasts them to the canonical solution during instruction

Loibl & Rummel (2014), p.84

Flipped Classroom

Inhalt

1. Promotionsprojekt

2. Productive failure

3. Flipped Classroom

4. 4F-Modell
   Fail, flip, fix and Feed

5. Untersuchungs-design

6. Weitere 4-Phasen-Modelle

7. Fragen

Flipped Classroom - a brief history

• classroom flip: Baker (2000)
• inverted classroom: Lage et al. (2000)
• Ursprung: Bergmann et al. (2011) und Tucker (2012)
• kein präzises Modell: Lo et al. (2017), Tucker (2012)
• Metastudie: Kapur et al. (2022)

Definition flipped class

The traditional definition of a flipped class is:

• Where videos take the place of direct instruction
• This then allows students to get individual time in class to work with their teacher on key learning activities.
• It is called the flipped class because what used to be classwork (the “lecture” is done at home via teacher-created videos and what used to be homework (assigned problems) is now done in class.

Bergmann et al. (2011)

Definition flipped classroom

set of pedagogical approaches that:

1. move most information-transmission teaching out of class

2. use class time for learning activities that are active and social and

3. require students to complete pre- and/or post-class activities to fully benefit from in-class work.

Abeysekera & Dawson (2015)

Definition flipped learning

2 Phasen

1. getting students to learn basic content online and prior to class.
2. make use of the freed-up in-class time to clarify students’ understandings of the concept and design learning strategies that will enable students to engage deeply with the targeted concept.

Kapur et al. (2022)

Effekte - Flipped Classroom

• 46 meta-analyses, 173 studies
• Von \(d=0.25\) bis \(d=2.29\) in meta-analysis.
• Asian: \(g=0.75\), Western: \(g=0.53\)
• Math: \(g=0.26\)

presence of publication bias on effect size level

There need to be at least 6,424 unpublished studies with a mean of 0; however, to overturn the claim that flipped learning has a positive impact on student learning.

Kapur et al. (2022)

Key findings

1. quality of implementation […] not consistent
2. greatest impact […] in-class included a lecture
3. effects on learning […] due to active learning
4. problem-solving prior to a lecture […] can be effective

Kapur et al. (2022)

4F-Modell
Fail, flip, fix and Feed

Inhalt

1. Promotionsprojekt

2. Productive failure

3. Flipped Classroom

4. 4F-Modell
   Fail, flip, fix and Feed

5. Untersuchungs-design

6. Weitere 4-Phasen-Modelle

7. Fragen

4F-Modell

1. Fail - diagnose, check, and understand what was and was not understood
2. Flip - pre-exposure to the ideas in the upcoming class (as simple as providing a video of the class)
3. Fix - misconceptions are explored and opportunity to re-engage in learning the ideas
4. Feed - feedback to the students and instructor

Kapur et al. (2022)

synchron

asynchron

Leitfrage:

Is the 4F-model flipped the right way?

Alternative Model

1. Fail
2. Instruct
3. Fix
4. Feed

synchron

asynchron

Untersuchungs-design

Inhalt

1. Promotionsprojekt

2. Productive failure

3. Flipped Classroom

4. 4F-Modell
   Fail, flip, fix and Feed

5. Untersuchungs-design

6. Weitere 4-Phasen-Modelle

7. Fragen

Eine Woche vor dem ersten Tag der Untersuchung

Min.	Gruppe 1	Gruppe 2
20	Pretest	Pretest

Es findet eine zufällige Zuteilung der Klasse in zwei Gruppen statt.

Erster Tag der Untersuchung

Klasse wird in 2 Gruppen räumlich getrennt.

Min.	Gruppe 1 (4F)	Gruppe 2 (Alt)
40	Fail koll.	Fail ind.
5	Mental effort	Mental effort
20	Flip	Instruct
5	mental effort	mental effort
20	Posttest	Posttest

synchron

asynchron

Zweiter Tag der Untersuchung

Klasse wird zusammen unterrichtet.

Min.	Gruppe 1 (4F)	Gruppe 2 (Alt)
20	Fix	Fix
5	mental effort	mental effort
40	Feed	Feed
5	mental effort	mental effort
20	Posttest	Posttest

Forschungsfragen und Hypothesen

1. Students in the 4F-model score higher in engagement than the non-flipped model.
2. Students in the 4F-model score higher on (a) procedural fluency and (b) concept knowledge than the alternative model.

Weitere 4-Phasen-Modelle

Inhalt

1. Promotionsprojekt

2. Productive failure

3. Flipped Classroom

4. 4F-Modell
   Fail, flip, fix and Feed

5. Untersuchungs-design

6. Weitere 4-Phasen-Modelle

7. Fragen

Padua-Modell

4-Funktionen im Lernzyklus

1. Problemlösendes Aufbauen
2. Durcharbeiten
3. Üben und Wiederholen
4. Anwenden

Aebli (1983) ?

LUKAS-Modell

• Konfrontationsaufgaben
• Erarbeitungsaufgaben
• Vertiefungs- und Übungsaufgaben
• Transfer- und Syntheseaufgaben

Luthiger et al. (2018)

AVIVA-Modell

5-Phasen

1. Ankommen und einstimmen
2. Vorwissen aktivien
3. Informieren
4. Verarbeiten
5. Auswerten

Städeli & Maurer (2020)

Fragen

Inhalt

1. Promotionsprojekt

2. Productive failure

3. Flipped Classroom

4. 4F-Modell
   Fail, flip, fix and Feed

5. Untersuchungs-design

6. Weitere 4-Phasen-Modelle

7. Fragen

Fragen

Meinerseits:

• Ist es sinnvoll Padua, Lukas, usw. mitzuerwähnen?
• Wieviel Theorie braucht ein Paper?
• Anregungen zu zukünftigen Designs.

Eurerseits?

Bibliographie

Abeysekera, 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336

Aebli, H. (1983). Zwölf Grundformen des Lehrens: eine allgemeine Didaktik auf psychologischer Grundlage: Medien und Inhalte didaktischer Kommunikation, der Lernzyklus (15. Auflage). Klett-Cotta.

Ashman, G., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2020). Problem-solving or Explicit Instruction: Which Should Go First When Element Interactivity Is High? Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09500-5

Baker, J. W. (2000). The „Classroom Flip“: Using web course management tools to become the guide by the side. 9–17.

Bergmann, J., Overmyer, J., & Wilie, B. (2011, Juni 21). The Flipped Class: Myths vs. Reality - THE DAILY RIFF - Be Smarter. About Education. http://web.archive.org/web/20160305005240/http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/the-flipped-class-conversation-689.php

Brand, C., Hartmann, C., Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2023). Do students learn more from failing alone or in groups? Insights into the effects of collaborative versus individual problem solving in productive failure. Instructional Science, 51(6), 953–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09619-7

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155

Hartmann, C., Gog, T. van, & Rummel, N. (2020). Do examples of failure effectively prepare students for learning from subsequent instruction? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(4), 879–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3651

Hartmann, C., Gog, T. van, & Rummel, N. (2022). Productive versus vicarious failure: Do students need to fail themselves in order to learn? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(6), 1219–1233. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4004

Kapur, M. (2008). Productive Failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669

Kapur, M. (2014). Productive Failure in Learning Math. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 1008–1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12107

Kapur, M. (2015). The preparatory effects of problem solving versus problem posing on learning from instruction. Learning and Instruction, 39, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.004

Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for Productive Failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.591717

Kapur, M., Hattie, J., Grossman, I., & Sinha, T. (2022). Fail, flip, fix, and feed – Rethinking flipped learning: A review of meta-analyses and a subsequent meta-analysis. Frontiers in Education, 7, 956416. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.956416

Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480009596759

Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Chen, G. (2017). Toward a set of design principles for mathematics flipped classrooms: A synthesis of research in mathematics education. Educational Research Review, 22, 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.002

Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). Knowing what you don’t know makes failure productive. Learning and Instruction, 34, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.004

Luthiger, H., Wilhelm, M., Wespi, C., & Wildhirt, S. (Hrsg.). (2018). Kompetenzförderung mit Aufgabensets: Theorie - Konzept - Praxis (1. Auflage). hep, der bildungsverlag.

Mazziotti, C., Rummel, N., Deiglmayr, A., & Loibl, K. (2019). Probing boundary conditions of Productive Failure and analyzing the role of young students’ collaboration. Npj Science of Learning, 4(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0041-5

Nachtigall, V., Serova, K., & Rummel, N. (2020). When failure fails to be productive: probing the effectiveness of productive failure for learning beyond STEM domains. Instructional Science, 48(6), 651–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09525-2

Sinha, T., & Kapur, M. (2021). When Problem Solving Followed by Instruction Works: Evidence for Productive Failure. Review of Educational Research, 91(5), 761–798. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211019105

Städeli, C., & Maurer, M. (2020). The AVIVA model A competence-oriented approach to teaching and learning. https://www.hep-verlag.ch/the-aviva-model

Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education next, 1, 82–83. https://www.msuedtechsandbox.com/MAETELy2-2015/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/the_flipped_classroom_article_2.pdf