Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
The Faculty of Education in Science and Technology
M.Sc. Proposal
Affective Aspects of the Flipped Classroom:
A Mathematics for Computer Science Course at MIT
Student: Brian Isaac Rizowy
Advisor: Prof. Yehudit Judy Dori
For purposes of thesis seminar: 218122w with Prof. Revital Tali Tal:
Date of discussion: 22 December 2015
‫‪M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom‬‬
‫הטכניון – מכון טכנולוגי לישראל‬
‫הפקולטה לחינוך למדע וטכנולוגיה‬
‫הצעת מחקר לתואר ‪M.Sc.‬‬
‫ההיבט הריגושי של הכתה ההפוכה‪ :‬קורס מתמטיקה למדעי‬
‫המחשב ב‪MIT-‬‬
‫הסטודנט‪ :‬ברייאן אייזק ריזובי‬
‫המנחה‪ :‬פרופ' יהודית דורי‬
‫‪Page 2 of 22‬‬
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
ABSTRACT
The overwhelming consensus amongst educators is that different learners achieve success
through a variety of teaching and learning styles. While frontal, passive lectures have been the
predominant for of university-level instruction of STEM1 courses, modern technology has created a
space for the development of novel, student-centered methodologies of learning and teaching.
However, in STEM courses frontal-style lectures are common at universities. Over the past decade, in
an effort to help more students succeed in STEM courses, active learning modes such as the studio
classroom or the flipped classroom, have been piloted, developed, and validated at several universities
for large, mandatory courses.
The flipped classroom aims to engage students in active learning by restructuring the time and
tasks performed in- and out-of-class. Content is relayed to students outside of class hours through such
methods as online tutorials, clips of video lectures, textbooks and pre-class exercises. Problem solving,
which would traditionally be assigned as homework, are then brought into the classroom. Classroom
time is mostly devoted to solving problems through group collaboration and peer-facilitated learning.
Previous studies conducted at MIT focusing on TEAL2 for physics have demonstrated student gains
in the cognitive and affective domains using quantitative methods such as conceptual questions,
quizzes, examinations, and written feedback as a qualitative measure.
The researchers in the larger study3 aim to better understand for whom the flipped-classroom
environment is a good fit in terms of maximizing learning outcomes. In this more focused study, the
researchers aim to find a relationship between the spectrum of a student’s affective responses across
the four categories detailed below, and his or her academic performance.
Over the course of two semesters in the 2013-2014 academic year, a flipped-classroom course
design was developed for a Mathematics for Computer Science course required for all incoming
Computer Science majors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Two conditions were
offered to students; while all students would undergo the flipped-classroom setting, students who so
desired could also participate in a Project Based Learning activity to be submitted before the final
examination.
The comprehensive study included approximately 300 undergraduate students. To assess
affective aspects, students were given the opportunity to provide written feedback regarding the course
in general, the flipped classroom, and the project-based learning in particular. The written statements
were analyzed for terms and phrases regarding affective engagement across four main categories: (1)
Evaluation Methods, (2) Instructional Methods, (3) Motivational Orientation, and (4) Teamwork. Each
statement will be read and assigned to at least one of the aforementioned categories, which were
developed according to the literature and a grounded-theory approach. The preliminary statement
analysis will be validated by other researchers also guided by the experts. This study aims to contribute
to the body of knowledge relating to the active learning modes and their effect on aspects of
undergraduate affective responses to large, mandatory, STEM courses at institutions of higher
education.
STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
TEAL – Technology Enhanced Active Learning (Dori & Belcher, 2005a)
3
See Dori et al., 2015
1
2
Page 3 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
3
INTRODUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
1.1
Research Background ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
1.2
Research Goal and Question -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
1.3
Research Contribution---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ------------------------------------------------------------ 7
2.1
The Affective Domain: Interest and Motivation for Learning --------------------------------------------------- 8
2.2
Active Learning in Higher Education -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
2.2.1
Pedagogies of Engagement in STEM ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
2.2.2
The Flipped Classroom (FC) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
2.2.3
Project-Based Learning (PBL)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
THE RESEARCH SETTING AND METHODOLOGY --------------------------------- 13
3.1
Study Population--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
3.2
Active Learning in the Mathematics for Computer Science Course ----------------------------------------- 14
3.2.1
The Flipped Classroom and Learning Materials ----------------------------------------------------------- 14
3.2.2
The Optional Project in Probability – Project-Based Learning ----------------------------------------- 15
3.3
The Method of Statement Analysis --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
3.4
The Research Tool: Rubric for Assessing Student’s Affective Responses ---------------------------------- 16
3.5
Sample Student Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17
3.5.1
Guide for Completing the Rubric ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17
4
FURTHER RESEARCH PLAN --------------------------------------------------------------- 18
5
REFERENCES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19
Page 4 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
1
INTRODUCTION
“The chief effort of all educational reforms is to bring about the
readjustment of existing scholastic institutions and methods so that they
shall respond to changes in general social and intellectual conditions”
(Dewey & Dewey, 1915, p. 167).
In the 21st century, almost anyone with an internet connection has the opportunity to be
taught and learn online via many platforms. However, most top-tier universities do not grant degrees
based on participation in online courses alone (Bowen, 2015; US News and World Reports, 2015).
Frontal-style lectures remain common at brick-and-mortar universities for large mandatory classes in
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) courses despite readily available
alternative online learning environments. Over the past decade, in an effort to help more students
succeed in STEM courses, and keep students attending classes, universities have taken a blended
learning environment approach that brings together online components with active learning
environments such as the Studio Classroom or the Flipped Classroom (FC), and pedagogies of
engagement (Baepler, Walker, & Driessen, 2014; Eberlein et al., 2008; Kong, 2014). Such blending
of physical and online teaching and learning environments with suitable pedagogical and assessment
tools come together to form a unique course structure tailored to the needs of the course. The
researchers in a larger study (Dori, Kohen, & Meyer, 2015) investigated students' learning outcomes
in a flipped classroom, and whether there was a difference in students' learning outcomes in the topic
of probability between those who volunteered to take part in a project-based learning assignment and
those who did not. In this more focused research, the affective study, we aim at understanding the
perceptions of MIT undergraduate students who studied in the flipped-classroom environment with
and without the project-based learning component during the academic year 2013-2014. The overall
goal is to better understand for whom the flipped-classroom environment is a good fit in terms of
improving student achievement and perceptions through active learning and group engagement.
1.1
Research Background
As of the year 2013, only 43 percent of students entering a STEM major at a four-year public
US college or university will graduate with a STEM degree. The Federal Government aims to
graduate an additional one million students in STEM fields by the year 2023, requiring an increase of
about 34 percent of STEM graduates over current rates by the year 2020. As part of a 5-year strategic
plan for reforming STEM education in the United States, the National Science and Technology
Council (2013) called for an increase in research into evidence-based approaches for STEM
education. According to the report, there exists research into evidence-based best practices for STEM
Page 5 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
courses such as pedagogies, curricula, instruction materials, and academic and social support
systems, which should be implemented in order to significantly increase the number of STEM
majors completing degrees and entering the workforce. The National Research Council (2012)
suggests that increasing research into teaching strategies that engage the students in learning, has the
potential to change students attitudes and beliefs towards STEM education, and motivate them to
pursue and finish STEM degrees.
A few published studies have investigated student and instructor attitudes, beliefs and
reactions to current STEM pedagogies and curricula (National Research Council, 2012). Though
indicated by many authors as necessary direction for future research (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004;
Lowell et al., 2013; Walker, Brooks, & Baepler, 2011), studies investigating students affective
responses to novel STEM pedagogies, learning environments, and tools have only recently gained
traction and recognition (see Bernard, Borokhovski, Schmid, Tamim, & Abrami, 2014; Borrego &
Henderson, 2014; Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, & Kenney, 2015; Ferrell & Barbera, 2015).
1.2
Research Goal and Question
This study aims to better understand the relationship between student participation in active
learning environments and its impact on an undergraduate student’s perceptions toward mandatory
participation in large, required, STEM courses at institutions of higher education. In an effort to
contribute to the body of knowledge regarding evidence-based approaches that can increase STEM
student retention and graduation, this study aims to fill this void in the literature by demonstrating
the effectiveness gained by blending online and face-to-face teaching and learning through a FC and
a pedagogy of engagement.
The research question were: (1) What were the students’ perceptions of studying in a
mandatory, undergraduate Mathematics for Computer Science course in a flipped classroom; and (2)
what were the students’ perceptions of engaging in an optional Project Based Learning activity in
addition to participating in the flipped classroom?
1.3
Research Contribution
To the best of our knowledge, little research has been conducted evaluating students’
affective perceptions towards studying in a mandatory, large course taught in a FC environment with
a pedagogy of engagement. This study aims to contribute to the body of knowledge regarding
students’ affective perceptions in a top-tier universities whose alumni play a major role in creating
many of the internet technologies we rely on daily. The larger study (Dori et al., 2015) demonstrated
student gains in our iteration of the flipped classroom. However, it is not only in our iteration that the
Page 6 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
FC and pedagogies of engagement have demonstrated student gains in the cognitive domain as
assessed by solving conceptual problems, exercises, quizzes, and formal examinations when used in
undergraduate STEM courses. Other iterations such as Conceiving, Designing, Implementing and
Operating (CDIO) for aeronautical engineering (Crawley, Brodeur, & Soderholm, 2008),
Technology-Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) for physics (Dori & Belcher, 2005; Dori et al., 2007),
blended and flipped active learning environments for chemistry (Baepler et al., 2014), and peer
facilitated learning for biology (Tsaushu et al., 2012), have also shown positive student gains in the
aforementioned domains.
Project-Based Learning (PBL) lends itself naturally to engineering education as the students
will eventually enter a workforce where they will work in teams to build things to serve society
(Crawley et al., 2008). Today’s computer science students will be tomorrow’s makers of things that
serve society as well; and by engaging these students in PBL, we aim to provide computer science
students with the knowledge and skills of high-achieving engineering students.
This research extends and expands upon the use of active learning environment and
pedagogies of engagement used in a Mathematics for Computer Science (CS) course taught in the
department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT. This study aims to contribute to
the body of knowledge regarding MIT students’ affective responses to active learning in FC and PBL
environments while studying in a mandatory Mathematics for Computer Science course.
2
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Since the rapid integration of the World Wide Web into modern living starting in the 1990s,
one’s access to information becomes easier by the second. As a result, the face of higher education is
changing rapidly – high quality, accurate content, and pedagogically-rich instructional materials are
available to students worldwide regardless of proximity to a brick-and-mortar institutions and ability
to pay exponentially increasing tuition fees (Bowen, 2015; Lowell et al., 2013). Studies show that
video lectures (Zhang, Zhou, Briggs, & Nunamaker, 2006), online homework (Bonham, Deardorff,
& Beichner, 2003; Fynewever, 2008), and carefully developed artificial intelligence-based tutoring
systems (VanLehn, 2011) can lead to equal, if not better, student learning outcomes as assessed
cognitively by content knowledge assessments. While there is research into the affective aspects of
learners who solely engage in online distance learning, there is a lack of research investigating the
impact of affective aspects on students who are present in brick-and-mortar learning environments
and use physical and digital resources together (Breslow et al., 2013; Lowell et al., 2013; Tal &
Dierking, 2014).
Page 7 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
In 2001, MIT became the first major university to offer free, open access to their course
offerings through the OpenCourseWare (MITx) platform allowing anyone with an internet
connection to gain knowledge and understanding of select topics in STEM courses (Abelson, 2008;
Lowell et al., 2013; MIT, 2001). Online teaching and learning environments, such as MITx, edX,
Coursera, Khan Academy, etc., are easily accessible and have demonstrated enough evidence of
meaningful learning outcomes. Yet, the affective aspects of learning in such environments has yet to
be evaluated (Breslow et al., 2013). Affective aspects of interactions between teachers and learners
within traditional learning environments have been extensively studied and have shown
transformative potential (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004).
Considering MIT’s excellent online learning offerings, and their state-of-the-art brick-andmortar facilities, MIT continues to implement and evaluate the potential gains of blending the two
learning environments for the instruction of STEM courses.
2.1
The Affective Domain: Interest and Motivation for Learning
Psychologists use the term “affect” to refer to an observable emotion, and is deeply rooted in
a one’s sense of what psychologists refer to as the self. In his theory of self-efficacy, psychologist
Albert Bandura (1977) posits that one is motivated to effect behavioral change in order to achieve a
performance based goal. As a learners, students achieve understanding of materials differently, and
at different paces. Until entering a college or university setting, learners’ time is generally externally
regulated by school teachers and parents; yet, when the time comes for a learner (particularly for
American college students) to regulate his or her learning in the less structured environment at
universities, many students are wanting for the self-regulatory learning skills necessary to achieve
their goals (Zimmerman, 2002). Self-regulated learning is not simply a cognitive ability or an
academic performance skill, rather, it is a set of learned processes aimed at setting goals, time
management, self-evaluation, learning strategies, seeking help, and the regulation of selfmotivational tools and techniques used in combination to achieve a particular goal.
The processes needed to become a self-regulated learner can be taught and learned, both
formally and informally (Hofer, Yu, & Pintrich, 1998). Self-regulation overlaps in scope with Ryan
and Deci’s (2000) theory of self-determination, intrinsic motivation, and social-development which
can be applied to human behavior in general, and has been frequently applied to learners in
particular. Ryan and Deci’s (2000), “Taxonomy of Human Motivation” indicates a wide spectrum of
motivation ranging from purely extrinsic motivation – when one’s motivation is contingent on
compliance, fear of consequences, or desire for rewards – to completely intrinsic motivation, when
one shows motivation to do something to achieve inherent satisfaction and shows personal interest in
Page 8 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
the activity. One’s motivations to engage in most activities lays somewhere on the spectrum between
having completely extrinsic to completely intrinsic motivation; this is especially true of learners who
may or may not have a personal interest in learning a particular topic, yet due to external factors,
must attain a certain level of achievement in order to continue moving towards his or her ultimate
goal – in the case of a higher-education student, obtaining a degree.
Here, it is important to differentiate between one’s degrees of interest in engaging in
activities. Ainley (2006) makes a key distinction between personal and situational interest.
According to Ainley’s theory, one needs less extrinsic motivation to engage in an activity of personal
interest; for example someone who enjoys playing an instrument or a sport needs less extrinsic, and
has more intrinsic motivational forces to engage in practicing the piano or playing soccer. With
regards to students in mandatory STEM courses, educators and curriculum designers cannot be
certain that every student has a personal interest in learning the topic at hand. To overcome the
challenges of getting an amotivated student motivated to succeed, Ainley has suggested the theory of
situational interest, whose key feature is the trigger-maintenance hypothesis. Creating, or inducing,
situational interest is a key feature of many pedagogical reforms – the goal of the triggermaintenance hypothesis is to trigger sufficient interest so that a student is motivated to (temporarily)
engage in learning a topic that might not be of personal interest.
The most challenging aspect for educators is “maintaining” a learner’s interest throughout the
lesson, course, semester, or even the duration of one’s studies. Ainley, Hidi and Dagmar (2002),
assert that there are psychological processes relating affect and motivation when learning something
of personal interest. Engaging in a behavior that is of personal interest is associated with a positive
psychological effect, motivation, and tends to result in increased learning (Ainley, 2006). Students
who display individual interest in learning are often motivated to acquire new information about
related topics of interest, or novel topics altogether.
Dweck and Legett (1988) build on the social-cognitive, interest, and motivation approaches
of Atkinson (1964) and Bandura (1986), to propose a model which describes how one’s motivation
is oriented when working towards achieving an academic, or performance goal. One’s interest can
effect behavioral changes towards motivation or goal achievement. Stemming from the research and
conclusions of the aforementioned authors, “Learning goals, with their emphasis on understanding
and growth, were shown to facilitate persistence and mastery-oriented behavior in the face of
obstacles, even when perceptions of current ability might be low” (Grant & Dweck, 2003, p. 541).
One’s self-efficacy beliefs impacts one’s ability to successfully achieve a goal; in a series of
five studies conducted with top-tier university students studying in a mandatory pre-medical general
chemistry course, Dweck and Grant (2003) identify four types of predictive achievement goals. The
Page 9 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
four goal types described are: active learning goals, ability-linked goals, normative goals, and
performance goals. Dweck asserts that students’ interests have a strong impact on his/her goals is
powerful for two reasons: “First, it means that goals can have a causal role in producing achievement
patterns. Second, it means that learning environments can be constructed in ways that enhance
achievement” (Grant & Dweck, 2003, p. 541) Making modifications to traditional pedagogies and
learning environment can effect changes in students’ affects towards learning and motivation to
succeed.
2.2
Active Learning in Higher Education
When discussing active learning, three of the most important educational theorists should be
noted, namely Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky. Piaget, a developmental psychologist and the father of
the constructivist theory, posited that learning is a continuously ongoing process of integrating,
connecting, and associating experiences and observations into schema. Throughout life, as more
information and experiences are assimilated, these schema are fused together into complex
intellectual structures in order to explain the phenomenon the learner is currently encountering in a
meaningful and logical manner (Fosnot & Perry, 2013; Shaffer, 2000, p. 51). Vygotsky, a
contemporary of Piaget, posited that guided learning occurs in a zone of proximal development when
learners, aware of their own limitations, seek help and encouragement from a more skilled partner
nearby. The social interaction that ensues to help the learner achieve his or her goal, also benefits the
instructors’ ability to solidify his/her understanding of the material, and how better to explain the
process in the future (Shaffer, 2000, p. 92). While Piaget and Vygotsky spoke of learning in general,
Dewey applied his philosophies to the occurrences within a learning environment and spoke directly
of pedagogies – the practical actions educators need to take within certain environments to elicit
meaningful learning.
Active learning is a teaching method that has a variety of guided, learner-centered activities
that occur especially in the classroom. Active Learning Environments (ALE) use classroom time to
encourage students to work together with instructors' guidance. These instructors generally include
the professor, Teaching Assistants (TAs), and Undergraduate Teaching Assistants (UTAs), who
facilitate in-class student activities with their peers, such as solving problems, conducting
experiments, and/or discussing conceptual understanding tasks. Before coming to class for team
problem-solving sessions, students prepare by learning the relevant concepts online autonomously.
By engaging in class discussions, solving problem sets, and/or producing a final project, students
gain meaningful understanding of material (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The material presented
and problems solved in these meetings are essential for understanding the overall course concepts.
Page 10 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
This builds upon Vygotsky’s theory of a zone of proximal development as students are teaching and
learning from one another. These peer-led face-to-face, social interactions also provide a supportive
environment to learn STEM subjects (Eberlein et al., 2008)
Active learning in engineering courses resonates with Dewey’s (1913) mantra of learning by
doing. Dori and Belcher (2005a, 2005b) assert that active participation in discovery-based ‘handson’ activities, such as conducting experiments and using visualizations, help students develop
conceptual understanding. In several higher education programs, engineering students engage in
active learning by designing an artifact or a final product as it is the role of an engineer to combine
scientific theory—understanding of abstract concepts, and the physical world—making physical
objects/devices. ALE have been implemented successfully most notably for physics (Dori &
Belcher, 2005a, 2005b; Dori, Hult, Breslow, & Belcher, 2007), chemistry (Baepler et al., 2014;
Golde, McCreary, & Koeske, 2006), and engineering (Crawley et al., 2008; Dori & Silva, 2010).
The National Research Council (2012), has stated that active learning environments demonstrate
positive learning outcomes relating to students’ higher order cognitive processing, retention of
material, and ability to transfer the knowledge they gained; yet more research needs to be done in an
effort to develop, evidence-based pedagogies that best serve higher education STEM courses
(Borrego & Henderson, 2014; National Research Council, 2012).
2.2.1 Pedagogies of Engagement in STEM
Pedagogies of Engagement (POE) are built upon social constructivist theory and suggests
that knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner, and is not simply transferred, unchanged,
from the mind of the teacher to the mind of the learner (Bodner, Klobuchar, & Geelan, 2001). Active
learning occurs when there are social, in-person, dynamic, “building processes” between instructors
and students working towards a mutual learning objective (Eberlein et al., 2008). The literature
shows that students who participate in courses designed to foster active learning can achieve
meaningful learning outcomes (Dori et al., 2015; Lowell et al., 2013).
Some well-known and proven POE in STEM in higher education include studio physics
(Beichner, Dori, & Belcher, 2006), project-based learning (PBL) (Crawley et al., 2008), inquiry
learning (Justice, Rice, Roy, Hudspith, & Jenkins, 2009), problem-based learning (Savery, 2006),
and peer-led team learning (Eberlein et al., 2008). “Pedagogies of engagement aim to promote higher
order thinking skills; the help students learn to reason through problems, instead of using algorithmic
approaches; to build conceptual understanding through active engagement with the material; to foster
growth in teamwork and collaborative problem solving skills” (Eberlein et al., 2008, p. 264).
Page 11 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
Together, the theorists are saying: we learn by doing things together. Some of the researchers also
explain the implementation of a curriculum that engages the learner in meaningful and relevant
learning (Lowell et al., 2013; Stuckey, Hofstein, Mamlok-Naaman, & Eilks, 2013). Built upon the
framework of Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky, we chose to explain in more detail two POEs – FC and
PBL (see below), due to the fact that they were chosen for teaching the MIT course.
2.2.2 The Flipped Classroom (FC)
The term flipped, (or inverted) classroom (FC) was first defined in the literature by Lage,
Platt, and Treglia (2000) as a learning environment that aims to engage students in active learning
by restructuring the time and tasks performed in- and out-of-class. Instead of rows of seats, a FC is
generally designed with round tables accommodating six to ten students, and facilitates a variety of
active learning styles including cooperative and peer-assisted learning techniques (Lage et al., 2000;
Lowell et al., 2013).
Although the term ‘flipped’ accurately describes how time in a FC is redistributed compared
to a traditional lecture class, Bishop and Verleger (Lowell et al., 2013) emphasize that the most
important aspect of the FC is its ability to enable active learning during class time. The FC is a
blended learning environment because of the implementation of a pedagogy of engagement that
naturally mixes various online learning components with face-to-face learning time on a physical
campus for the purposes of teaching a single course (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). Course content is
effectively relayed to students outside of class hours through such methods as online tutorials, clips
of video lectures, textbooks and pre-class exercises. Problem solving, a more cognitively-intense task
than solving exercises, which would traditionally be assigned as homework, are then brought into the
classroom. The FC enables for the expansion of a curriculum and deepening of content
understanding by maximizing the amount of active-learning and active interaction time between
instructors and students.
Unlike passively listening to lectures in a traditional hall, the active learning that takes place
in a FC enables students to achieve these goals and come away with meaningful learning outcomes.
The main argument for actualizing a FC emerges from the desire to (a) encourage students on the
same campus to physically and socially interact with one another (Entwistle, 2005; Rovai, 2002), (b)
improve student learning outcomes through pedagogies of engagement (Zhu et al., 2009), and (c)
enable students with different learning styles to succeed (Baepler et al., 2014; Carini, Kuh, & Klein,
2006; Lage et al., 2000).
Page 12 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
2.2.3 Project-Based Learning (PBL)
Project-Based Learning (PBL) “is driven by the premise that basic science concepts will be
understood and remembered longer when they are learned, discussed and applied in a practical, real
world context” (Eberlein et al., 2008). In a PBL assignment, groups of six to eight students are
presented with a complex, open-ended, real world problem. The amount of time necessary to
complete the problem may vary from a single class session to the course of the semester. There is
usually less guidance from the course staff, and students must learn on a “need-to-know” basis
autonomously in order to solve the many smaller problems that need solving, before the final
problem is solved completely. Group structure, organization, and meeting times vary by group.
Students are encouraged to use the best resources they can find and contribute actively to the group
by solving problems, and further the group’s effort to successfully present the final project. Dewey
and Dewey (1915) repeatedly assert that one engages in learning by doing; one learns when a
connection is made between what is learned in school to a student’s everyday life, as the knowledge
becomes practical and relevant, thus instilling motivation to continue learning. PBL has been
integrated successfully into many STEM undergraduate courses, especially in the engineering related
topics (Crawley et al., 2008).
Of utmost importance when implementing systemic educational reform is the cooperation of
the faculty and instructors. The creation of new a new course format for the instruction of a large
mandatory course for incoming students requires the cooperation of many stakeholders. MIT has
both the physical and digital infrastructure, and the will, to allow for the implementation of a new
course format that blends pedagogies and learning environments in novel ways in an effort to
continually provide the highest quality of instruction to students. The researchers participating in this
study believe in the importance of continually making learning relevant as the needs of 21st century
learners’ change. This research aims to understand a student’s affective response (disposition,
feelings) in a mandatory mathematics for computer science class at MIT’s brick-and-mortar learning
environment, when blended with the institution’s own MITx pedagogical instruments.
3
THE RESEARCH SETTING AND METHODOLOGY
During the Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 semesters, incoming MIT Computer Science (CS)
majors took a Mathematics for Computer Science course in a blended learning environment. The
course, Math for CS (in short), was designed in the FC environment and implemented a novel
pedagogy for fostering active learning. Course meetings were held at the MIT campus in a specially
designed classroom that facilitated in-class teamwork. Online content was provided through the
Page 13 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
course website, and included MITx content, such as online lectures, a digital textbook (Lehman,
Leighton, & Meyer, 2013), an online tutor, and weekly online problem sets.
The course content includes fundamentals of discrete mathematics, discrete mathematical
structures, and discrete probability
theory. Figure 1 is a screen-capture
of the introductory lecture showing
the course material with examples
and the video of the professor
explaining the content and
structure of MIT's Mathematics for
Computer Science flipped
classroom course. Displayed
similarly are the course material
that includes the textbook, the
course calendar, course
organization, and problem
submission guidelines. In the
flipped classroom environment, in-class team problem solving replaces frontal lectures, which
students are expected to watch in their own space and at their own pace before each session.
3.1
Study Population
In the Fall 2013 semester, 258 undergraduate CS students participated in a Math for CS
course. Of those, 176 students (68%) participated in the FC condition alone, and 82 students (32%)
also chose to participate in the PBL assignment pertaining to probability. The Spring 2014 semester
included 74 students -- however, due to limitations beyond this author’s control, these data are not
analyzed.
3.2
Active Learning in the Mathematics for Computer Science Course
3.2.1 The Flipped Classroom and Learning Materials
The mathematics for computer science FC restructures the time and tasks performed in- and
out-of-class. The students were expected to have independently learned the day’s relevant topic
using the provided online learning materials. Such materials included the professor’s online lectures,
the MITx 6.042 textbook, a weekly online problem set (pset), and access to an online intelligent
tutor. Once a week, upon arrival to the classroom, the students were given “prep checks,” or “mini
Page 14 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
quizzes,” in order to gauge their level of readiness for the upcoming class of team problem solving
assignments. These tasks are generally simple, and do not require advanced higher-order thinking
skills. Problem-solving, which would traditionally be assigned as homework, was then done in
teams, and in an instructor-facilitated guided-learning structure with the assistance of the professor,
Undergraduate Learning Assistants (UTAs), and Teaching Assistants (TAs). Guided learning
involves solving problems which require conceptual understanding and higher-order thinking skills
in addition to quantitative skills. Attendance was mandatory for all students, was recorded, and was
calculated (in low percentages) into each student’s final grade.
In the daily implementation of pedagogies of engagement, educators often choose to blend
aspects of the pedagogies of engagement discussed in the theoretical background. In this class, all of
the students participated in a FC within a PBL option. Students who so chose could additionally
participate in a PBL final project, which was submitted before the final exam taken by all the
students. The teams also presented their projects to all their peers either via a poster or a short
presentation using PowerPoint.
3.2.2 The Optional Project in Probability – Project-Based Learning
While technology and new pedagogical methods are attractive, adding new features to the
classroom without considering ways that they might affect learning is a potential source of problems.
The in-class activities component of the FC is more engaging, so students feel neither distanced from
their professors nor intimidated by their peers, enabling them to comprehend the content discussed
through the team learning activities (Lowell et al., 2013; Strayer, 2007). Adding a project to a
traditional course is an additional shift from teacher-centered learning to active learning that mimics
real-life settings (Dori, 2003), especially in companies and industries (Dori & Silva, 2010).
Significant project elements are included in the CDIO approach, exposing students to experiences
that engineers are likely to encounter during their professional lives. Students are tasked with solving
a problem that does not have a single proper solution, requiring them to explain their choice and
often create a product or an artifact (Crawley et al., 2008; Hsieh & Knight, 2008). At the core of our
study is the FC with problem-based and project-based learning. While both approaches involve
teamwork, the project was optional and encompassed an entire topic: probability. Committing to a
PBL assignment presented a bigger team commitment than solving a single set of problems.
3.3
The Method of Statement Analysis
To assess the students’ affective responses to learning in a FC setting or FC and PBL
together, they were given the opportunity to provide written feedback regarding the course in general
Page 15 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
and the teaching methods in particular. At the end of the semester, students were given the option of
filling out a three page “end-of-term survey” which was comprised of a 34-item inventory marked
with a five-point Likert scale. Responses to these questions will be analyzed quantitatively using
statistical tests such as the t-test and ANOVA. The student was also provided with an empty box
filling two-thirds of the last page and prompted with the following statement, “We would be pleased
to hear any other comments or suggestions you may have about the course.” The statements that we
received were transcribed. The quantitative data from the Likert scale inventory will be analyzed
together with the quantified qualitative statement data and compared within and between participants
in FC only and FC and PBL conditions. “Although students’ perceptions of difference may be
interesting in and of themselves, analyses of student-reported differences will be more useful in
national discussions of mathematics education if they clarify whether and how the differences
mattered in students’ mathematical experiences” (Star, Smith, & Jansen, 2008).
3.4
The Research Tool: Rubric for Assessing Student’s Affective Responses
The written statements were evaluated for content relating to affective responses to
participation in the FC or FC and PBL. The researcher who transcribed the statements also read them
and created a rubric for assessing affective responses to key course components across four main
categories: (1) Evaluation Methods, (2) Instructional Methods, (3) Motivational Orientation, (4)
Teamwork, and (5) Student's Recommendations. These categories were developed according to the
literature and a grounded-theory approach. A review of the literature found that there are similarities
in the categories which emerged through our grounded approach of statement analysis have and the
categories other researchers have used to assess students’ self-reported affective responses on postcourse evaluations (Akkoyunlu & Soylu, 2008; Bernard et al., 2014).
Table 1 (below) shows three statements received as student feedback. These statements were
analyzed using the rubric seen in Appendix A. The rubric was designed to gauge a student’s affective
response to participating in the FC with and without PBL for mathematics for computer science. The
preliminary statement analysis was validated by four researchers and experts. Each rater was given
fifteen transcribed statements, the rubric seen in Appendix A, and the evaluation guidelines seen in
section 3.4.1. We intend to align our grounded approach of analysis of affective responses with
instruments developed and implemented by Bishop & Verleger (Lowell et al., 2013), Dori and
colleagues (2004), and Entwistle (2005).
Page 16 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
3.5
Sample Student Statements
Student Statement
“I thought that the group problem solving approach was very
helpful in learning the material. I thought it was valuable to learn
how to work with people of all skill levels. I think that switching
up the groups in the middle of the semester might be helpful in
making sure that people don't fall into predefined roles, though.”
“I wasn't too confident going into this class, and found myself to
be one of the slower members of my group, but I really ended up
liking the group style as the rest of my team has been very willing
to help me and I think I've learned a lot and become more
confident in this subject as a result. I found the recorded online
videos to be helpful in preparing for class. Also, [NAME] is an
awesome TA and his office hours are review sessions in particular
were extremely valuable in my learning the material and
understanding it completely.”
“I feel like the results of this class, due to the structure of it are
largely dependent on your TA & tablemates. I was lucky to have
good ones but I have a friend who didn't and as a result struggled a
lot more than I did. I think tables should be better assigned by
understanding level so that there aren't huge differences in groups
where some students do all the problems & leave none of the other
[problems to] students who don't pick up as quickly behind”
Affective Category Identified
This student responded
positively to three categories:
(1) Evaluation Methods,
(3) Motivational Orientation, and
(4) Teamwork.
The student also provided
constructive feedback
This student responded
positively to three categories:
(2) Instructional Methods,
(3) Motivational Orientation, and
(4) Teamwork.
This student was analyzed as an
ambivalent response to all four
categories, and provided
constructive feedback.
Table 1 Sample Student Statements and Preliminary Feedback Analysis
3.5.1 Guide for Completing the Rubric
The following directions were given to the rater as an introduction to affect for the purposes of
analyzing the 15 statements previously used to build the matrix based on grounded theory: On a
three-point scale, we are evaluating a student’s affective response to the category. An affective
response can be described as one’s disposition (attitude) about the category mentioned. Affect is
measured on the following three-point scale:
(+) Positive – The student expressed a positive emotion (enjoyment, happiness, fulfillment,
confidence) towards the item they are describing.
(=) Ambivalent – The student mentioned a topic, and did not assign an emotion to the item they are
describing. The affect is neutral.
(-) Negative – The student assigned a negative emotion (anger, unfairness) towards the item they are
describing.
Page 17 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
4
FURTHER RESEARCH PLAN
“It is a commonplace that until a child goes to school he learns nothing
that has not some direct bearing on his life. How he acquires this
knowledge is the question that will furnish the clew for natural school
method. And the answer is, not by reading books or listening to
explanations of the nature of fire or food, but by burning himself and
feeding himself; that is, by doing things. Therefore, says the modern
teacher, he out to do things in school” (Dewey & Dewey, 1915).
My research plan is to submit my thesis by August, 2016. At this time, all of
the data have been collected, and preliminary evaluation of statements using an
“affect matrix” designed by me and validated by my peers and advisor, has begun.
The matrix further development and improvement of the motivational orientation
section of the matrix remains a work in progress. The goal is to have a validated
matrix pertaining to motivational orientation by the end of January, 2016. By the end
of February, 2016, it is my intention to have applied the validated matrix to all of the
statements eligible for inclusion in the study, and begin the statistical analysis by the
end of April, 2016.
Page 18 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
5
REFERENCES
Abelson, H. (2008). The creation of OpenCourseWare at MIT. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 17(2), 164–174. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9060-8
Ainley, M. (2006). Connecting with learning: Motivation, affect and cognition in interest processes.
Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 391–405. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9033-0
Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that
mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545–561.
http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545
Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M. Y. (2008). A study of student’s perceptions in a blended learning
environment based on different learning styles. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 183–
193. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-010-1351-2
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Oxford, England: Van Nostrand.
Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: blending, flipping, and
efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers and Education, 78, 227–236.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191–215. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Beichner, R., Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. W. (2006). New physics teaching and assessment:
Laboratory- and technology-enhanced active learning. Handbook of College Science Teaching:
Theory, Research and Practice, 97–106. Retrieved from
http://www.physics.ncsu.edu/physics_ed/Articles/NSTAHandbookChapter.pdf
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A metaanalysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the
applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26, 87–122. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12528013-9077-3
Bodner, G., Klobuchar, M., & Geelan, D. (2001). The many forms of constructivism. Journal of
Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107. http://doi.org/10.1021/ed078p1107.4
Bonham, S. W., Deardorff, D. L., & Beichner, R. J. (2003). Comparison of student performance
using web and paper-based homework in college-level physics. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 40(10), 1050–1071. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10120
Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM
higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education,
103(2), 220–252. http://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20040
Bowen, W. G. (2015). Higher education in the digital age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J. W., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and
implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a crosscase analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1–17. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.006
Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying
learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX’s first MOOC. Research & Practice in
Assessment, 8(March 2012), 13–25. Retrieved from http://www.rpajournal.com/dev/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/SF2.pdf
Page 19 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing
the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-0058150-9
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. AAHE Bulletin, Mar, 3–7. http://doi.org/10.1016/0307-4412(89)90094-0
Crawley, E. F., Brodeur, D. R., & Soderholm, D. H. (2008). The education of future aeronautical
engineers: Conceiving, designing, implementing and operating. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 17(2), 138–151. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9088-4
Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press.
Dewey, J., & Dewey, E. (1915). Schools of tomorrow. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc.
Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. W. (2005a). How does technology-enabled active learning affect
undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts ? The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243–279. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402
Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. W. (2005b). Learning electromagnetism with visualizations and active
learning. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in Science Education (pp. 187–216). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
Dori, Y. J., Hult, E., Breslow, L., & Belcher, J. W. (2007). How much have they retained? Making
unseen concepts seen in a freshman electromagnetism course at MIT. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 16(4), 299–323. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9051-9
Dori, Y. J., Kohen, Z., & Meyer, A. (2015). Flipped classroom for computer science undergraduates:
The effect of in-class team problem solving and projects. Paper Presented at the NARST Annual
International Conference. Chicago, IL, USA, April 11-14, 2015.
Dori, Y. J., & Silva, A. (2010). International product design & development graduate courses: The
MIT-Portugal collaboration.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma-Nelson, P., & White, H.
B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 262–273.
http://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20204
Entwistle, N. J. (2005). Enhancing teaching-learning environments in undergraduate courses in
electronic engineering: an introduction to the ETL project. International Journal of Electrical
Engineering Education, 42(1), 1–7. http://doi.org/10.7227/IJEEE.42.1.2
Ferrell, B., & Barbera, J. (2015). Analysis of students’ self-efficacy, interest, and effort beliefs in
general chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 16, 318–337. http://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00152D
Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (2013). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T.
Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice (2nd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fynewever, H. (2008). A comparison of the effectiveness of web-based and paper-based homework
for general chemistry. The Chemical Educator, 13(08), 264–269.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in
higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Golde, M. F., McCreary, C. L., & Koeske, R. (2006). Peer instruction in the general chemistry
Page 20 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
laboratory: Assessment of student learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(5), 804.
http://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p804
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 541–553. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541
Hofer, B. K., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Teaching college students to be Self-Regulated
Learners. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching
to self-reflective practice (pp. 57–85). New York: The Guilford Press.
Hsieh, C., & Knight, L. (2008). Problem-based learning for engineering students: An evidence-based
comparative study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(1), 25–30.
Justice, C., Rice, J., Roy, D., Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2009). Inquiry-based learning in higher
education: administrators’ perspectives on integrating inquiry pedagogy into the curriculum.
Higher Education, 58(6), 841–855. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9228-7
Kong, S. C. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain
knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom
strategy. Computers and Education, 78, 160–173.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.009
Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an
inclusive learning environment. Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30.
Lehman, E., Leighton, F. T., & Meyer, A. R. (2013). Mathematics for computer science. Retrieved
November 11, 2013, from http://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.042/spring12/mcs.pdf
Lowell, J., Utah, B., Verleger, M. A., Beach, D., Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The
flipped classroom : A survey of the research. In Proccedings of the Annual Conference of the
American Society for Engineering Education (p. 6219). Retrieved from
http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/20/papers/6219/view
MIT. (2001). MIT OpenCourseWare: Our History. Retrieved from http://ocw.mit.edu/about/ourhistory/
National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and
improving learning in undergraduate science education. (S. R. Singer, N. R. Nielsen, & H. A.
Schweingruber, Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science and Technology Council. (2013). Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education 5-Year Strategic Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_stratplan_2013.pdf
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in
asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319–332.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00130-6
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. … Journal of
Problem-Based Learning, 1(1). http://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002
Shaffer, D. R. (2000). Social and personality development (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Star, J. R., Smith, J. P. I. I. I., & Jansen, A. (2008). What Students Notice as Different Between
Reform and Traditional Mathematics Programs. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Page 21 of 22
M.Sc. Proposal: The Affective Aspect of the Flipped Classroom
Education, 39(1), 9–32. http://doi.org/10.2307/30034886
Strayer, J. F. (2007). The effects of the classroom flip on the learning environment: A comparison of
learning activity in a traditional classroom and a flip classroom that used an intelligent
tutoring system. The Ohio State University.
Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of “relevance” in
science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education,
49(1), 1–34. http://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.802463
Tal, R. T., & Dierking, L. D. (2014). Learning science in everyday life. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 51(3), 251–259. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21142
Tsaushu, M., Tal, R. T., Sagy, O., Kali, Y., Gepstein, S., & Zilberstein, D. (2012). Peer learning and
support of technology in an undergraduate biology course to enhance deep learning. CBE-Life
Sciences Education, 11(4), 402–412.
US News and World Reports. (2015). National University Rankings | Top National Universities | US
News Best Colleges. Retrieved June 28, 2015, from
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities
VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and
other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611369
Walker, B. J. D., Brooks, D. C., & Baepler, P. (2011). Pedagogy and space : Empirical research on
new learning environments. Educause Quaterly, 34(August).
Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning:
Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information and
Management, 43(1), 15–27. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.004
Zhu, X., Chen, A., Ennis, C., Sun, H., Hopple, C., Bonello, M., … Kim, S. (2009). Situational
interest, cognitive engagement, and achievement in physical education. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 34(3), 221–229. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.05.002
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(2), 64–70. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Page 22 of 22