Analysis of knowledge construction during group space activities in a flipped learning course
Abstract
Flipped learning is a pedagogical approach that uses technology to deliver instructional content outside of class (individual space) and class time to engage in collaborative activities (group space). In a flipped learning course, the traditional classroom paradigm shifts and teachers become more facilitator than lecturer. Research on flipped learning is limited, in that studies are mostly conducted in postsecondary classrooms and focus on engagement and performance rather than the learning that occurs during collaboration. My study was designed to investigate group learning or knowledge construction during collaborative activities. Participants were middle school students from Hawaii. To identify group learning, I targeted a specific activity between three students in the group space. Using a computer‐supported collaborative learning framework, I recorded and analysed the group's verbal communication as they worked together. Moments of knowledge construction and interactions leading to those moments were analysed. Content analysis and lag sequential analysis revealed significant strategies used by students to construct knowledge. Some recommendations for practitioners include designing a need for teacher facilitation, incorporating questions that promote student discussion, and requiring students to reflect on their understanding. Future studies should include different K‐12 environments and focus on knowledge construction transfer between the individual and group learning spaces.
Lay Description
What is already known about this topic:
- Much of the available literature includes postsecondary learners, uses quantitative or mixed methods, and shows flipped learning positively impacts engagement and performance.
- Flipped learning use in K‐12 education is increasing, and practitioners need more evidence‐based support, especially for younger learners.
- Active learning in the group space is the driving force behind effective flipped learning.
What this paper adds:
- Adds to limited research in K‐12 environments by studying a middle school classroom using flipped learning.
- Uses qualitative methods unique to that available literature on flipped learning in order to investigate knowledge construction.
- Provides evidence of group learning and knowledge constructions strategies used during collaborative activities.
Implications for practice and/or policy:
- Design teacher facilitation into collaborative activities to foster collective and individual regulation.
- Facilitation strategies should include questioning that promotes discussion and argumentation amongst learners.
- Collaborative activities should require students to reflect on, discuss, and exchange their understanding and ideas.
1 INTRODUCTION
Flipped learning is a teaching approach designed to enhance group learning by using technology to flip traditional instruction. Content is delivered outside of class, and class time is used to engage in collaboration, shifting the teacher's role towards facilitation (Hamdan, McKnight, McKnight, & Arfstrom, 2013). As a facilitator and not a lecturer, the teacher is better able to individualize learning and have meaningful face‐to‐face communication with students. Although based on student‐centred ideas, flipped learning is more a blend of direct instruction and constructivism (Jensen, Kummer, & Godoy, 2015). Because various definitions and versions exist, my study adapted the following terminology promoted by the Flipped Learning Network (2014), an organization dedicated to supporting teachers who use flipped learning in the classroom:
Flipped learning is a pedagogical approach in which direct instruction moves from the group learning space to the individual learning space, and the resulting group space is transformed into a dynamic, interactive learning environment where the educator guides students as they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter. (p. 1)
Despite gaining attention in professional and media outlets, there is no consensus model of flipped learning (Tucker, 2012). Originally called the “classroom flip” (Baker, 2000, p. 9), other names include “the inverted classroom” (Lage, Platt, & Treglia, 2000, p. 30), reversing the classroom (Foertsch, Moses, Strikwerda, & Litzkow, 2002), video podcasting (Kay, 2012), and the flipped classroom (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). Regardless of name, most studies describe a version of the individual and group learning spaces such as the “content attainment” and “concept application” phases (Jensen et al., 2015, p. 2). Others make connections to existing frameworks such as Bloom's Taxonomy, claiming that the individual space is where “students gain first exposure to new material outside of class” and the group space is where students engage in “higher forms of cognitive work in class with the support of their peers and instructor” (Brame, 2013, p. 1). Such descriptions establish some conceptual consistency; however, researchers continue to adapt flipped learning terminology to fit specific studies and purposes (i.e., Chen, Wang, Kinshuk, & Chen, 2014). As a result, the use of conceptual frameworks to guide flipped learning practice and research is encouraged (Bishop & Verleger, 2013; O'Flaherty, Phillips, Karanicolas, Snelling, & Winning, 2015).
1.1 Learning spaces framework
Figure 1 was created for this study and shows that flipped learning is composed of two integral but inherently different learning spaces. The individual learning space is a learning environment in which direct instruction and content are enhanced through technology. The individual space is completely and exclusively online and technology based. As a teacher‐centred space, students access created and curated content in the form of screencasts, instructional videos, websites, and other online tools. Supported by cognitive theories that emphasize psychological activity and “learning by viewing versus learning by doing” (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p. 5), the individual space is intended to help learners develop foundational knowledge to be built upon or applied in the group learning space. Because learning depends on proper design to produce cognitive activity, it has been suggested that content in the individual space align with multimedia learning principles (Day & Foley, 2006). The group learning space is a student‐centred environment supported by constructivist theories that emphasize group knowledge construction and “learning‐as‐participation” (Sfard, 2009, p. 55). In the group space, students work on collaborative activities with teacher and peer support. The group space can include technology‐based tools but is not exclusively online. By incorporating collaborative strategies, the group space builds on the cognitive foundation of the individual space, establishing a group environment where enduring learning can occur.
2 REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
2.1 Studies on flipped learning
A majority of studies on flipped learning have been with adult learners in related subject matter courses. Although popular examples such as Khan Academy have increased use in K‐12 education (Kronholz, 2012), most published research remains at the postsecondary level, focusing on adult learners (O'Flaherty et al., 2015). Calls for future research include K‐12 environments (Zainuddin & Halili, 2016), particularly for younger students where limited resources have prompted expert practitioners to develop material for teachers (i.e., Bergmann & Sams, 2016). Giannakos, Krogstie, and Chrisochoides (2014) also note that research is dominated by computer science and technology‐related subjects. In fact, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses constitute a majority of the flipped learning resources available online, whereas humanities and social science courses are under‐represented (Chen & Summers, 2015). As research accumulates, teachers continue to implement flipped learning (Goodwin & Miller, 2013). Subsequently, practice is outpacing effective research as the need for information on teacher preparation and development of flipped learning environments increases (DeSantis, Van Curen, Putsch, & Metzger, 2015).
Although research in education is often criticized for its quality of evidence‐based practices (Biesta, 2007), educational technology is particularly scrutinized for lacking “methodological robustness” and the field is encouraged to expand its use of methods (Bulfin, Henderson, Johnson, & Selwyn, 2014, p. 404). Similarly, with the exception of Day and Foley (2006), few studies are considered thorough investigations of flipped learning. This is because a majority of research relies on self‐reported survey data (Pursel & Fang, 2012). As a result, there is now considerable support for the positive impact of flipped learning on student attitude (Giannakos et al., 2014), perception (O'Flaherty et al., 2015), motivation, and engagement (Zainuddin & Halili, 2016). Although such research is necessary in emerging fields, its application is often limited. Recent literature reviews show that mixed methods are becoming more common, with the main collection instruments being opinion surveys and performance tests, followed by interviews and observations (Zainuddin & Halili, 2016). However, even case and comparative studies are still criticized for including “many potential causative mechanisms” that limit findings (Jensen et al., 2015, p. 2). Some researchers even recommend avoiding experimental interventions altogether, instead studying classrooms with teachers willingly using flipped learning to benefit students (Johnson & Renner, 2012). Others suggest that there are benefits to studying the group learning that occurs in flipped learning classrooms (DeLozier & Rhodes, 2016) and more focus should be put on in‐class (Zainuddin & Halili, 2016) and face‐to‐face activities (O'Flaherty et al., 2015).
2.2 Analysing group knowledge construction
In computer‐supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments, group knowledge construction or group learning is the priority for practitioners and researchers. Like flipped learning, early CSCL research purported the benefits of individual and group learning spaces on problem solving, citing “the necessity to coordinate individual working phases with phases of joint work” (Hermann, Rummerl, & Spada, 2001, p. 6). CSCL studies identify knowledge construction by studying communication, shifting analysis from student to group, focusing on moments that could not have occurred individually but only within the group context in which they were observed (Stahl, 2015). Recording classroom interactions can help capture such instances of learning and uncover occurrences difficult to observe in a live classroom setting. However, the tedious transcription and coding process limit the amount of interactions that can be reasonably included in a study. For this reason, CSCL research typically includes asynchronous environments and is “micro‐analytic, examining a brief episode in great detail” (Stahl, Koschmann, & Suthers, 2006, p. 13). In some cases, fleeting moments of knowledge construction, no more than 2 min in length, can be examined (i.e., Looi & Chen, 2010). To better understand such instances of group learning, techniques such as lag sequential analysis (Bakeman & Gottman, 1997) can help identify knowledge construction strategies used by learners. This process identifies if a certain contribution increases the probability that another will occur. Significant sequences can be used to create transition state diagrams to demonstrate strategies used by students to construct knowledge. Similar techniques have been used in online (Shukor, Tasir, Van der Meijden, & Harun, 2014), mobile (Lan, Tsai, Yang, & Hung, 2012), augmented reality (Lin, Duh, Li, Wang, & Tsai, 2013), and collaborative problem‐solving environments (Chang et al., 2017).
2.3 Facilitating group learning
For teachers in the classroom, designing and facilitating activities in the group space are considered the ultimate benefit of flipped learning (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). Effective group spaces often include active learning strategies that promote problem solving and discussion (Baepler, Walker, & Driessen, 2014). The benefits of collaborative problem solving (Dillenbourg & Traum, 2006) and active learning (Michael, 2006) are well documented, particularly in middle school where active learning is developmentally appropriate for adolescent learners (Edwards, 2015) and problem‐based learning has been successful (Belland, 2010). Flipped learning is even considered an ideal approach for using multiple active learning strategies (DeLozier & Rhodes, 2016). Strategies such as posing high‐order questions have shown to increase engagement and promote active learning in flipped learning environments (Jamaludin & Osman, 2014). Some even suggest that the benefits of flipped learning do not result from the flipped configuration itself, but rather from the time and space made available for active learning (Jensen et al., 2015).
The available literature on flipped learning is limited in terms of the teacher's role and “research has not been done to determine the differential effect of instructor facilitation” in classrooms (Jensen et al., 2015, p. 2). This is particularly important because flipped learning has shown to stimulate students to seek teacher support (Sun, Wu, & Lee, 2016). Effective facilitation guides learning in the classroom. Regardless of technology, the teacher is responsible for designing, facilitating, and regulating student and group learning. The importance of facilitation in promoting peer‐to‐peer collaboration during small group activities is well documented in face‐to‐face environments (Webb, 2009). Teacher guidance during online CSCL activities has shown to be effective in high school (Asterhan, Schwarz, & Gil, 2012). Also at the college level, teachers can support knowledge construction by encouraging learners to adopt regulative strategies led by individuals, the group, or a combination thereof (Mukama, 2010). However, teachers “need to work on the thin line between high and low level of external regulation” (Romero & Lambropoulos, 2011, p. 323). Too much or too little support can negatively impact group learning during collaborative activities. Moreover, “groups need different real‐time support” and activities should be designed with flexible learning outcomes (Hämäläinen, 2012).
3 PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of my study was to investigate student communication for evidence of group learning during collaborative activities in the group space of a flipped learning course. It was designed to contrast previous research by using methods and learners not visible in the available literature on flipped learning. As a middle school social studies teacher, I integrated flipped learning into my course and saw increased student engagement and performance, an area well supported by research. I knew students were learning; however, I questioned how they learned, especially in the group space where the most significant learning occurs. To identify group learning or knowledge construction, I analysed the group space as a face‐to‐face CSCL environment, studying instances of learning and regulation from the external level (teacher), collective level (group), and individual level (student). By identifying strategies used by students to collectively regulate and construct knowledge, I hoped a better understanding of how to design and facilitate group space activities would emerge. The following questions were examined:
- RQ1
What cognitive, regulative, and affective contributions are made by students during collaborative activities in the group learning space?
- RQ2
What sequences of cognitive, regulative, and facilitative contributions lead to group learning during collaborative activities in the group learning space?
- RQ3
What is the quality of group learning, and what strategies produce high‐level knowledge construction during collaborative activities in the group learning space?
4 METHODS
4.1 Participants and setting
Participants were 35 sixth grade students in Hawai'i enrolled in a social studies course on Pacific and Hawaiian history. The course was divided into two sections of 18 and 17 students. Section placement was based on scheduling factors at the beginning of the school year. Informed consent was acquired from all participants and parent‐guardians through a signed form. Eleven‐year‐old students completed an orally scripted consent form as required by the University of Hawai'i Institutional Review Board. All measures were taken during data collection and analysis to keep the identity of participants anonymous. The setting was a K‐12 private school with a one‐to‐one laptop programme and a school‐wide high‐speed wireless network. It was a conducive setting for technology‐based strategies such as flipped learning.
4.2 Researcher–teacher role
My role was both teacher and researcher. As researcher, I investigated collaborative activities in the group learning space of my classroom using a CSCL framework. As teacher, I developed the course over several years using flipped learning as a pedagogical approach. Although a study should not usually be conducted at a site in which the researcher is vested (Creswell, 2014), I hoped to avoid a “failed attempt” at studying flipped learning like those conducted in courses for purely experimental purposes by outside researchers (Johnson & Renner, 2012, p. 72). Also, my objective to analyse the group space called for the “ability to perceive and interpret nuances in classrooms” that is unique to teacher‐researchers (Kennedy‐Lewis, 2012, p. 108). Therefore, my rapport and familiarity with the students allowed for more relevant interactions and learning.
4.3 Homework in the individual space
Prior to class, students completed homework in the individual learning space. The assignment was accessed through a learning management system and included a narrated screencast designed for the course using content from a middle school textbook (Potter, Kasdon, & Rayson, 2003). The screencast was approximately 5 min long and designed using multimedia learning principles (Mayer, 2009). Individually, students were required to take notes and complete an online questionnaire (Google Forms) on content covered in the screencast. An example assignment can be found at csclgroupspace.weebly.com/homework. Students were required to complete approximately one screencast per week. As the teacher, I checked questionnaires online before class and student notebooks during class to ensure homework assignments were properly complete.
4.4 Stations in the group space
The group learning space was divided into sections or stations. Each station was a separate activity and area designed for three students, a technology‐based device, and materials (Figure 2). Group space sessions were 75 min in length and began with writing prompts that reviewed content from the individual space. Instructions were provided through the learning management system, and students progressed at their own pace, working in different groups at each station. Stations did not have to be completed sequentially, and students were encouraged to choose based on interest. Work at stations was documented individually in student notebooks and through a group product. Each collaborative activity was designed to build upon content presented in the individual space, and incorporate skills, standards, and benchmarks prescribed by the course curriculum.
4.5 Data collection
One collaborative activity or station was the focus of my study. The station included content on immigration to Hawai'i and was supported by an instructional website created for the course. The website can be found at etec750assignment.weebly.com. Content for the website was adapted from a high school textbook (Menton & Tamura, 1999). The website was designed to guide students step‐by‐step through the instructional event process of presentation, demonstration, and application (Merrill, 2013). The station was designed for three students to each individually complete a paper‐based chart documenting their learning. As a group, the students then collectively complete an online form that applied what they learned. As students worked collaboratively using a laptop computer to navigate the website, software on the computer (QuickTime Player) audio recorded student interactions as they discussed content and collaborated.
Audio recording were collected at the station during regular weekly social studies classes. Because recording yields a large amount of data and analysis is a labour‐intensive process that involves extensive reviewing, transcribing, and coding, only six recordings of different groups were collected during a 4‐week unit of study. I reviewed the recordings for those of the best quality. Data sampling or reducing is common when analysing qualitative data (Chi, 1997). In all, three sessions were successfully recorded in their entirety. Of the three, one was fully transcribed and became the target recording for my study. This recording included three students collaborating in the group space and was approximately 75 min long. A sample from the recording can be found at csclgroupspace.weebly.com/audio. It took an independent transcriber approximately 7 hr to transcribe and produced over 700 lines of text.
4.6 Data analysis and results
4.6.1 Content analysis
To identify instances of knowledge construction, content analysis was applied to the transcript. I adapted an existing CSCL coding scheme (Table 1) developed for evaluating asynchronous and synchronous K‐12 environments (Van der Meijden, 2005). The scheme categorizes learner contributions as cognitive, affective, or regulative, while distinguishing high‐level cognitive contributions as evidence of knowledge construction (CHV2, CHG2, CI2, AY, and NAY). Some codes also signify argumentation (AN, AY, NAN, and NAY). However, because the scheme was designed for CSCL environments “without much teacher guidance” (Van der Meijden, 2005, p. 51), I amended it to accommodate for teacher facilitation or facilitative contributions (TI and TR) that occur in a live classroom. A subcode was also used to distinguish participants reading content aloud to the group (READ). In all, 428 coded segments were identified in the transcript. Segmenting is an essential step when analysing transcribed verbal data because each segment constitutes a unit of analysis to be coded (Chi, 1997). Two coders were used for reliability purposes, and each coder applied the adopted scheme to the transcript in separate coding sessions. Pauses, silences, and non‐nonverbal communication were not included. Coding was then compared, contrasted, and discussed until agreement on proper code was reached. There was an intercoder agreement of 80.1%, which is slightly lower than comparative studies (Shukor et al., 2014). Content analysis revealed that 43.7% of total coded segments were cognitive, 22.7% were regulative, 8.2% were affective, 7.0% were teacher facilitation, and 18.5% were “non‐task‐related remarks” (AND) or “reading instructional content text” (READ).
| Contributions | High level | |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive: Asking questions | ||
| CHV1 | Asking questions that do not require an explanation (facts or simple questions) | |
| CHV2 | Asking questions that require an explanation (comprehension or elaboration) | x |
| CHVER | Verification or asking for agreement | |
| Cognitive: Giving answers | ||
| CHG1 | Answering without explanation | |
| CHG2 | Answering with explanation (using arguments or by asking a counterquestion) | x |
| Cognitive: Giving information | ||
| CI1 | Giving information (an idea or thought) without elaboration | |
| CI2 | Giving information (an idea or thought) with elaboration | x |
| CIT | Referring to earlier remark/information | |
| CIE | Evaluating the content (summarizing/concluding) | |
| AN | Accepting contribution of another participant without elaboration | |
| AY | Accepting contribution of another participant with elaboration | x |
| NAN | Not accepting contribution of another participant without elaboration | |
| NAY | Not accepting contribution of another participant with elaboration | x |
| Affective | ||
| A | Positive, neutral, or negative emotional reaction to another participant or with regard to the task | |
| Regulative | ||
| RV | Planning, monitoring, and evaluation of the task or group process | |
| RINS | Instructing; one participant instructs another participant | |
| Facilitative | ||
| TR | Teacher support is requested by one or more of the participants | |
| TI | Teacher provides instruction to one or more of the participants | |
| Other | ||
| AND | Non‐task‐related remarks, unfinished sentences, or interactions that did not fall into any other category | |
| READ | Participants reading instructional content text aloud | |
Of the 97 segments coded as regulative contributions, 70.1% were subcoded as “planning, monitoring, and evaluation of the task or group process” (RV), and 29.9% were subcoded as “instructing” (RIS). Generally, regulative contributions occurred in clusters and involved members monitoring the group process (RV) while instructing each other (RIS). In monitoring the group process, students often direct and redirect the focus of the group. In the following excerpt from the transcript, all three students provide regulative contributions by instructing or monitoring the group process.
Student 3: We've got to figure out this one.
Student 2: We already did. It's Korea.
Student 3: No! Step three.
Student 1: No, we skipped step two. Wait, let's read the whole thing.
Of the 30 segments coded as teacher facilitation, 56.7% were subcoded as “teacher support is requested” (TR), and 43.3% were subcoded as “teacher provides instruction” (TI). The following excerpt from the transcript shows teacher facilitation being followed by several regulative contributions.
Teacher: Work together and go question by question.
Student 3: Let's completely read the questions this time. Ok?
Student 2: An immigrant can always be considered a migrant?
Student 1: Wait.
Student 2: No.
Students 1 and 3: Wait!
Only 35 segments were coded as affective or “positive, neutral, or negative emotional reaction” (A). The following excerpt from the transcript demonstrates students' emotional reaction during teacher facilitation.
Teacher: Remember, a migrant is a person who moves from one place to another. I moved from the mainland to Hawai'i. That makes me what?
Students 1, 2, and 3: Migrant!
Teacher: Yes, migrant. Does it make me an immigrant?
Students 1, 2, and 3: No!
Student 2: Does it make me an emigrant?
Students 1, 2, and 3: No!
Student 2: Ooooh!
Teacher: So, a migrant is not always an emigrant or an immigrant.
Because cognitive contributions are “thinking activities that students use to process learning content and attain learning goals,” such behaviours are indicators that collaborative learning is taking place (Van der Meijden, 2005, p. 47). Of the 187 segments coded as cognitive, 66 were at the high level, meaning 15.4% of all learner contributions were evidence of knowledge construction in the group space. Figure 3 shows the distribution of all cognitive subcodes with high‐level contributions shaded in grey. High‐level contributions tended to cluster together in the coding sequence. In the following excerpt from the transcript, asterisks follow high‐level cognitive contributions.
Student 1: Which is a political factor of migration? Oh! Education.
Student 2: War.
Student 3: Unemployment.
Student 2: No wait. Political is the government.*
Student 3: But I think that the government...
Student 2: Can I try mine? Hah!
Student 1: Wait, but why is it war?*
Student 2: Because the political part of the country can declare war.*
Student 3: Ok, next. Which is an economical factor of migration?
Student 2: Let's think in an economic way.
Student 1: Maybe this could be education?
Student 3: Its unemployment ‘cause money is economic.* Watch this! Bam! Got it right!
4.6.2 Lag sequential analysis
Lag sequential analysis involves computing adjusted residuals (z‐scores) by putting the chronological coded segments through transition matrix calculations. Z‐scores greater than 1.96 indicate statistical significance (p < .05).
Significant sequences
Nine sequences were found to be statistically significant with two producing regulative contributions, one producing low‐level knowledge construction, four producing high‐level knowledge constructions, and two sequences sustaining high‐level knowledge construction (Table 2).
| Regulative contributions | z‐score | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher provides instruction to one or more of the participants (TI) | ➔ | Planning, monitoring, and evaluation of the task or group process (RV) | 2.90 |
| Not accepting contribution of another participant without elaboration (NAN) | ➔ | Instructing; one participant instructs another participant (RIS) | 2.21 |
| Low‐level knowledge construction | |||
| Accepting contributions of another participant with elaboration (AY) | ➔ | Not accepting contribution of another participant without elaboration (NAN) | 2.45 |
| High‐level knowledge construction | |||
| Giving information (an idea or thought) with elaboration (CI2) | ➔ | Accepting contribution of another participant with elaboration (AY) | 2.35 |
| Not accepting contribution of another participant without elaboration (NAN) | ➔ | Not accepting contribution of another participant with elaboration (NAY) | 3.79 |
| Teacher support is requested by one or more of the participants (TR) | ➔ | Giving information (an idea or thought) with elaboration (CI2) | 2.36 |
| Teacher provides instruction to one or more of the participants (TI) | ➔ | Accepting contribution of another participant with elaboration (AY) | 2.16 |
| Sustained high‐level knowledge construction | |||
| Not accepting contribution of another participant with elaboration (NAY) | ➔ | Not accepting contribution of another participant with elaboration (NAY) | 5.66 |
| Giving information (an idea or thought) with elaboration (CI2) | ➔ | Giving information (an idea or thought) with elaboration (C12) | 3.53 |
High‐level contributions
High‐level contributions are considered evidence of group learning, and significant sequences are the strategies used by the group to construct knowledge. Significant sequences were used to create a transition state diagram to demonstrate all significant sequences and strategies used by students during collaborative activities in the group learning space (Figure 4). Italicized numbers are z‐scores, and stars represent high‐level cognitive contributions.
5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The results of this study provide insight into the group learning space of a flipped learning course, as well as the collaborative learning strategies of middle school students. First (RQ1), during collaborative activities, student contributions were mostly cognitive and regulative in that they asked questions and provided information while evaluating the group process and instructing each other. Second (RQ2), certain sequences significantly led to or produced group regulation and cognition during collaborative activities. Lastly (RQ3), the quality of knowledge construction was relatively low, as high‐level knowledge construction occurred only half as much as low‐level knowledge construction. Also, teacher facilitation and argumentation were the main knowledge construction strategies used during collaborative activities in the group space. Each research question will be discussed separately in relation to the available literature and implications for practice.
5.1 Contributions in the group learning space (RQ1)
The results of this study found that students cognitively contributed to group learning by questioning, providing answers, and giving information. Students also monitored and evaluated their tasks through collective and individual regulation. Such collaboration may have resulted from the flipped learning paradigm which includes an individual and group learning space – for the integration of individual and collaborative learning is know to improve problem solving and group learning in CSCL environments (Hermann et al., 2001). Also, frequent transition to and from individual learning can improve collaborative learning (Chang et al., 2017). Unfortunately, the data were not comprehensive enough to conclude whether the collaboration analysed in the group space resulted from activity in the individual space, from the design of the collaborative activity, from the use of active learning strategies in the group space, or from a combination of factors. However, the available literature suggests because similar outcomes are produced when flipped learning is compared with traditional classrooms using active learning strategies (Baepler et al., 2014), that content in the individual space is less significant than active learning in the group space (Jensen et al., 2015). Some even claim flipped learning is not contingent on technology in the individual space but benefits directly from time spent on active learning (DeLozier & Rhodes, 2016).
Presumably, my study has some implications for learning space design by demonstrating that face‐to‐face CSCL environments can be established in the group learning space of a flipped learning course. To be effective, however, collaborative activities need to be engaging and learning spaces should be designed to maximize student interest in the subject matter. At the middle school level, active learning strategies are appropriate. Practically speaking, however, flipped learning and learning space design can be adjusted to fit elementary, secondary, or postsecondary learners. Using technology‐based tools to support learners and collaboration is appropriate, however, as Mukama (2010) states, “The fact that learners are organized in small task‐based groups mediated by a computer does not automatically imply interactions conducive for knowledge building.” In flipped learning, the group space is the apex of the pedagogical approach and collaborative activities are where important learning takes place. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the teacher to use their expertise to design engaging learning spaces.
5.2 Significant sequence during collaborative activities (RQ2)
The results of this study found that teacher facilitation of the collaborative activity significantly initiated regulative contributions within the group. By providing information to one or more of the participants, external regulation significantly led to collective regulation in the form of monitoring, evaluating, and planning the task. This is evidence that teacher facilitation or teacher regulation during collaborative activities can foster group regulation strategies. This is consistent with CSCL research that shows learners who are supported by a teacher “tend to develop a progressive discourse consisting of constructive exchanges and coordinated interaction necessary for the creation of new knowledge” (Mukama, 2010, p. 8). Although research is feasible, few investigations into teacher facilitation of CSCL environments have been conducted, especially at the secondary level (Asterhan et al., 2012). Therefore, this study supports external regulation of collaborative activities in the group learning space and by implication supports the use of CSCL at the middle school level. An implication for practice includes design collaborative activities that require some level of teacher facilitation. Perhaps the instructions for activities could include a step that requires students to request the teacher to intervene to acknowledge the progress made by the group. It also suggests teachers be aware of their impact on students collaborating in the group learning space. This includes being conscious of individual student ability and the group's ability to regulate. By understanding the dynamics within a group, the teacher can better facilitate to promote group regulation, and groups that can regulate themselves are more likely to be engaged and have meaningful learning experiences in the group space.
Significant sequences from the results of this study also showed that argumentation in the form of both accepting and not accepting contributions of group members with and without elaboration significantly led to group regulation and knowledge construction of low‐level and high‐level quality. More specifically, one argumentation sequence significantly led to students instructing each other, one led to low‐level cognition, one led to high‐level cognition, and the other led to sustained high‐level knowledge construction. This too aligns with other CSCL findings, and teachers are encouraged to foster argumentation in groups through questioning and solicitation of opinion (Shukor et al., 2014, p. 225). An implication for practice includes promoting argumentation by using high‐level question in the group space. In postsecondary classrooms using flipped learning, questioning has been effective at enhancing engagement, promoting active learning, and achieving learning outcomes (Jamaludin & Osman, 2014). The findings from this study suggest the same may be possible for younger students in flipped learning environments.
5.3 Knowledge construction quality and strategies (RQ3)
In addition to the argumentation strategies, the results of this study found strategies that initiated high‐level group knowledge construction. Two strategies included teacher facilitation in the form of instruction to and requests from the group. This suggests that knowledge construction is enhanced by teacher facilitation. Comparatively, CSCL findings show that immediate teacher support improves collaboration (Hämäläinen, 2012), whereas flipped learning claims to stimulate students to seek teacher support (Sun et al., 2016). An implication for practice is to design teacher facilitation into activities while balancing collective group regulation and individual student regulation. Facilitation needs to accommodate the learning ability of different groups while simultaneously avoiding under or over regulation that are both detrimental to group learning. Flexible learning outcomes can be used to accommodate different group collaboration levels (Hämäläinen, 2012). Although the benefits of facilitation are clear, it is difficult to adjust regulation during collaborative activities while navigating the complexity of a live classroom (Romero & Lambropoulos, 2011). Therefore, it is suggested that teachers gradually implement collaborative activities that require teacher facilitation into their courses.
Finally, the results of this study found two knowledge construction strategies that sustained high‐level knowledge construction. Sustained strategies perpetuate knowledge construction and contain instances that significantly lead to duplicate instances. It has been suggested that sustained knowledge construction can promote knowledge acquisition from learner to learner in a group through the discussion and synthetization of ideas (Lin et al., 2013). An implication for practice includes designing collaborative activities that encourage learner to clarify understanding of certain content within the group. By having students discuss, reflect on, or exchange ideas at certain intervals during a collaborative activity, there will be more opportunity for knowledge to be constructed and transmitted within the group.
6 CONCLUSION
Flipped learning combines contrasting theories, techniques, and strategies. The individual learning space is cognitive and teacher centred—relying on direct instruction and technology. The group learning space is constructivist and student centred—relying on collaboration and active learning. In a flipped learning classroom, the teacher's role shifts from instructor to facilitator. As a teaching approach, it has found acceptance at various levels of education; however, most research is conducted in postsecondary classrooms and focuses heavily on student perception and performance measures. Few studies have been done with learners in K‐12 environments. In general, the available literature not only supports the positive impact of flipped learning but also suggests that active learning is the impetus behind its effectiveness. It is also agreed that the group learning space is where the most consequential learning occurs. In order to better understand this learning space, I investigated the interactions of a small group to identify and study collective or group knowledge construction.
Using qualitative methods, this study attempted to identify instances of group learning. A triad of students was targeted as they collaborated together on an activity in the group learning space. The verbal interactions of the students in the group were recorded and investigated using content analysis and lag sequential analysis. Content analysis revealed that a majority of collaborative interactions were cognitive and regulative. Cognitive contributions were based on quality with more than half at the low level. High‐level cognitive contributions are considered evidence of knowledge construction and were further analysed to identify the strategies used to generate them. Lag sequential analysis revealed significant interactions and knowledge construction strategies. Both regulative contributions and high‐level cognitive contributions significantly resulted from teacher facilitation and argumentation. Moreover, high‐level knowledge construction was sustained through argumentation.
The findings of my study provide several guidelines for practitioners when facilitating collaborative activities. Activities should be designed in a way that requires or encourages students to seek support from the teacher. This would increase interaction with the teacher and the probability that learning will occur. Teachers should also use questioning to provoke student thought and stimulate discussion in a group. When designing collaborative activities, argumentation should also be incorporated to promote group interactions and increase the likelihood of learning or knowledge construction. Finally, students should be prompted during collaborative activities to reflect and inform the group of their understanding.
The results of this study provide a unique investigation of flipped learning that adds to limited research in K‐12 education. The findings are comparable with studies on adult learners in flipped learning and collaborative learning environments—which suggests that the implications for practice from those studies may be applicable to middle school students. More research is needed, however, specifically in the group learning space and generally on flipped learning. At its broadest, my study and findings are intended to help teachers effectively use flipped learning to benefit students in the classroom. Although designed to influence middle school practice, the methods and strategies used in this study can be adapted to lower or higher levels of education. Limitations included the sample size and bias related to my teacher–researcher role, which may have influenced interactions during collaborative activities in the group space.
Future studies should investigate flipped learning in various K‐12 environments. By studying different groups of learners, findings may reveal common understanding. Student differences should also be accounted for in order to identify aspects of flipped learning that benefit certain learners. In addition, future research should investigate the connections between learning spaces and how students construct knowledge. Perhaps researchers could track or follow the process of knowledge construction from instructional content in the individual space into the collaborative activities of the group space. Studies should also use more creative methods that allow flipped learning to be studied from a different viewpoint. More importantly, however, studies must be relevant for teachers. As the use of flipped learning increases, it is necessary to support teachers with sound educational research. This means analysing established classrooms using flipped learning and age‐appropriate strategies. It is the responsibility of teachers and researchers to identify or develop effective learning spaces. Only when properly implemented and studied can approaches such as flipped learning be applied to best support teachers and students.
