Running Head: RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE: A LANGUAGE ARTS UNIT
Responding to Prejudice:
A 21st Century Language Arts Unit for Middle School
Submitted to Dr. George Beckwith
By
Jane Foltz
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Master of Science in Educational and Instructional Technology
National University
San Diego
9/2013
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
The Capstone Project entitled Responding to Prejudice: A 21st Century Language Arts Unit for
Middle School is approved by:
Signature_______________________________________________ Date___________
George Beckwith, Ed.D.
Capstone Faculty Advisor, School of Education
We certify that this Capstone Project by Jane Foltz entitled Responding to Prejudice: A 21st
Century Language Arts Unit for Middle School, in our opinion, is satisfactory in the scope and
quality as Masters of Science project for the degree of Master of Science in Educational and
Instructional Technology in the School of Media and Communication, at National University.
Signature_______________________________________________ Date___________
George Beckwith, Ed. D., MSEIT Lead Faculty
2
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
3
Copyright © 2013 by Jane Foltz
All Rights Reserved
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
4
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................... 6
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6
Background of the Study ............................................................................................................ 7
Statement of the Instructional/Training Problem ........................................................................ 9
Purpose...................................................................................................................................... 10
Delimitations ............................................................................................................................. 11
Definitions................................................................................................................................. 11
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER 2: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 13
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 13
Historical Overview .................................................................................................................. 13
Meta-analyses of Research ....................................................................................................... 17
Instructional Elements .............................................................................................................. 19
Advantages and Disadvantages of Flipped Teaching ............................................................... 21
Motivation and Effort ............................................................................................................... 22
Promoting Literacy ................................................................................................................... 24
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 3: Project Design.................................................................................................... 26
Learning Theory........................................................................................................................ 26
Project Design ........................................................................................................................... 27
Procedure .................................................................................................................................. 27
Ethical Considerations .............................................................................................................. 32
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 4: Project Evaluation and Discussion ........................................................................ 35
Project Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 35
Data Presentation ...................................................................................................................... 36
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 38
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 40
CHAPTER 5: Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................................... 41
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 41
Implications for Teaching ......................................................................................................... 42
Implications for Further Research ............................................................................................ 43
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 45
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 50
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................... 50
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
5
ABSTRACT
Responding to Prejudice is a 21st century language arts unit designed for eighth grade middle
school students to address the essential question, "When faced with prejudice, how do people
successfully respond?" This overarching question provides a theme for reading, discussion,
watching, and listening to a variety of sources of information in print and online. As students
construct a personal response to the question, they will analyze and synthesize meaning offered
by these multiple sources and express their understanding in writing and a multimedia product.
The unit has been designed to be delivered in a flipped classroom setting; it is
hypothesized that the benefits of this model of instruction will allow for a symbiotic combination
of topic, use of online technologies, Common Core standards-based instruction, and pedagogical
approaches (specifically differentiation and gradual release of responsibility). Presently, teachers
anecdotally report that flipped teaching "humanizes" their instruction by allowing them more
time to tackle the thorny, higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy alongside their students in a
workshop-like environment. It is hoped that this particular unit will result in such humanization
while investigating an important and relevant topic that spans all of human history. (Note that
while it is intended for use with a class of students with mild to moderate disabilities, this unit
could easily be adapted for the general education population.)
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
6
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Thirteen years into the 21st century, learned members of the educational community
continue to debate characteristics of and ways to cultivate the skills and habits of mind that will
guarantee full participation in global political, social, academic, intellectual and economic life. It
is abundantly clear, however, that whatever 21st century skills are conceived to be, they are
completely and deeply intertwined with computer technology. This technology, it can be argued,
fulfills the ancient human needs "to communicate, share, collaborate, and express" (Fisher &
Frey, 2010, p. 222) on an unprecedented scale and in heretofore unimagined ways. It is also clear
that, broadly speaking, American public education has been slow to embrace and employ
computer technologies for a multitude of reasons; the rapid proliferation of technological forms
and tools may have, ironically, in and of itself slowed the pace of educational change (Flumerfelt
& Green, 2010). It is useful, therefore, for educators to heed the advice of Fisher and Frey
(2010), and "stop thinking of technology in terms of nouns (PowerPoint, YouTube, or Twitter)
and instead think in terms of verbs (presenting, sharing, and communicating)" (p. 226). In other
words, with emphasis on the affordances that technology offers in terms of "doing," the dictates
of solid pedagogy drive the educational use of technology, not the reverse.
That said, the infusion of computer technology into nearly every realm of human endeavor
necessitates a shift in not only how 21st century teachers teach but also what they teach. As
Prensky (2012) writes, "digital wisdom is a two-fold concept, referring both to wisdom arising
from the use of digital technology to access cognitive power beyond our usual capacity and to
wisdom in the use of technology to enhance our innate capabilities" (p. 202). With the pace of
knowledge growth accelerating concurrently with that of access to it, the focus in education
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
7
shifts from rote memorization with emphasis on a static set of skills to the development of
critical thinking nourished by the posing of questions, the seeking for answers, and the sharing
and expressing of what is discovered both in ourselves and the world at large (Bransford, Brown,
Cocking, 2000). The unit in question, Responding to Prejudice, blending as it does face-to-face
instruction with both asynchronous and synchronous uses of instructional technology, is rooted
firmly in this 21st century mindset. The unit's purpose is to meet multiple California Common
Core reading and writing standards (California Department of Education, 2013) while enhancing
several 21st century literacies as defined by the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE)
(NCTE, 2013).
Background of the Study
Blended instruction, as exemplified in particular by flipped classrooms, has recentely
moved quickly into mainstream teaching (Tucker, 2012). Although used by teachers for many
years in varying forms (with and without technological aspects), this teaching model has surged
in popularity due to the much-publicized work of Salmon Khan and his Kahn Academy, which
had its beginning in 2006 (Berrett, 2012). Many teachers seeking solutions to common teaching
problems are currently adopting this model in an information vacuum--with a focus on
technological tools and without a full understanding of its practical or theoretical underpinnings.
In contrast, Responding to Prejudice will be developed from a "digital wisdom" perspective,
both accessing "cognitive power beyond our usual capacity" (Prensky, 2012, p. 202) and
enhancing "our innate capabilities."
The flipped classroom model of instruction has always offered teachers several advantages.
When literature teachers assign reading for homework, as they have for many decades, they are
asking students to arrive at school prepared so that "class time can be devoted to discussions,
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
8
peer interactions, and time to assimilate and think" (Mazur, 2009, p. 51). Similarly, newer
examples of computer-based flipped instruction also require students to interact with
instructional materials in advance of class, but the materials are generally posted online in the
form of audio or video recordings. Viewed through the lens of Bloom's revised taxonomy,
students are engaging in less cognitively demanding work ("gaining knowledge and
comprehension") (Brame, n. d., para. 1) independently in or out of class, and confronting the
tougher, higher-level work ("application, analysis, synthesis, and/or evaluation") (Brame, n. d.,
para. 1) at school, in the presence of an expert teacher and peers.
Moreover, instruction that blends the use of online technologies and person-to-person
instruction enables teachers to differentiate instruction and bring to life the commonly cited four
Cs of the Common Core--collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creativity--at the
same time. This convergence of possibilities may underlie the fervor with which teachers have
seized onto the flipped classroom phenomenon. Differentiation in the process, products,
environment, and content of learning to meet the diverse needs of students has long been touted
as the Holy Grail of instructional excellence (Tomlinson, 2001). The proposed unit, Responding
to Prejudice, purposes to harmoniously encompass differentiated instruction, the four Cs of the
Common Core, and the gradual release of responsibility model of 21st century teaching
described by Fisher and Frey (2010). With the differentiation-hallmarks of ongoing, formative
assessment; awareness of learner strengths and weaknesses; use of variously configured group
work; and emphasis on problem solving and student choice, the unit at hand will erase the
physical and temporal school/home boundaries, and open learning to a wide world of meaning
and 24/7 learning (Differentiated Instruction).
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
9
Prior to the sudden widespread interest in and use of Khan Academy videos late in the first
decade of the 21st century, the majority of teachers who had stumbled across or developed their
own versions of flipped teaching were working at the college level (Brame, n. d.; Mazur, 2009).
Thus the implementation of the flipped model in K-12 education is a relatively recent
phenomenon. Interestingly, as the impetus for adopting this model has arisen from outside
academia, research on flipped classrooms is lagging behind their establishment in American
schools.
The unit, Responding to Prejudice, has been designed around the essential question,
"When faced with prejudice, how do people successfully respond?" By means of video, fiction,
and nonfiction textual sources of information, middle school resource students with mild to
moderate disabilities will be presented with real world examples of people--historic,
contemporary, and fictional--who have done just that. Students will concurrently consider the
variety of purposes that authors may have for writing and the ways in which purpose, task, and
audience give shape to meaning and message in text. Along with this content, students will
participate in a community of learners both online and at school that has first-hand experience
with the essential question. As Fisher and Frey (2006) suggest, language arts instruction for
adolescents "should be organized around big ideas" (p. 19) that matter to students. This unit
provides a relevant context for nurturing academic skills aligned with Common Core standards
while attending "to the ethical responsibilities required" for learning in a complex online
environment (NCTE, 2013).
Statement of the Instructional/Training Problem
As stated above, the language arts unit Responding to Prejudice, purposes to achieve
differentiated instruction within a gradual release of responsibility framework in a blended
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
10
learning context. Known models of instruction will thus be transplanted into a new environment
that is inconceivable without computer technology. According to the U. S. Department of
Education (2010), significant learning gains must result in order to justify the considerable time
and expense involved in developing and implementing blended learning experiences at any level.
As will be discussed, current research can only suggest which features of blended learning might
be responsible for the positive effects cautiously noted so far (U. S. Department of Education,
2010). Those elements seem to be related to "additional learning time and instructional elements"
(U. S. Department of Education, 2010, abstract) not afforded in control conditions. Benefits of
blended learning occurring in flipped classrooms do not derive, therefore, from the use of
technology per se (U. S. Department of Education, 2010). This highlights the importance of
adhering to bedrock pedagogical models of instruction in the design and implementation of this
unit, and the salience of evaluating what learners are learning as they engage in this unit, both
formatively and summatively.
The primary problem faced in designing, developing, and implementing this unit,
Responding to Prejudice, is transferring the best of known pedagogy into relatively unknown
territory, K-12 teaching. This problem is at once the greatest challenge and the greatest promise
of this unit's design.
Purpose
The purpose of this project is to provide a learning experience that blends face-to-face and
online instructional elements that will enable students to 1) meet grade-level Common Core
standards in reading and writing; 2) grow in their proficiency with technological tools and
"attend to the ethical responsibilities required by these complex environments" (NCTE, 2013,
para. 2) ; and 3) add to their "reservoir of literary and cultural knowledge, references, and
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
11
images" through "wide and deep" (California Department of Education, 2013, p. 49) reading of
fiction and nonfiction.
Delimitations
This project has been designed for a classroom that can reliably provide Internet access and
a computer for every learner each and every day. It is recognized, however, that less than 100%
of the students have computer access at home. Students will be supported as they seek access at
the after-school homework center, the early Wednesday morning hours at the computer lab, or
the public library.
Definitions
For purposes of this project, the following words are defined:
1. Flipped classroom : A form of blended learning in which the traditional pattern of classroom
instruction is inverted or "flipped on its head": content typically provided in a lecture-like format
is instead delivered out of school, while deep, deliberate practice with that content occurs at
school. For purposes of this paper, flipped learning is understood to include "regular and
systematic use of interactive technologies in the learning process" (Strayer, 2012, p. 172).
2. Gradual release of responsibility model: A model for instruction described by Pearson and
Gallagher (1983) that features a sequence of teaching that begins with explicit instructor
modeling of skills to be taught, progresses to guided practice, and ends with independent practice
or application. Responsibility for demonstrating a given skill or strategy shifts from the teacher
to the student in stages.
3. Just in Time Teaching (JiTT): A teaching strategy rooted in research done by the National
Science Foundation that refers to the process of students responding electronically to questions
that follow web-based assignments prior to class on the same topic. The teacher "reads the
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
12
student submissions 'just-in-time' to adjust the classroom lesson to suit the students' needs"
(www.ittdl.physics.iupui.edu/jitt/).
Summary
This paper will capture the unique intentions and underlying instructional design ideas that
have given shape to Responding to Prejudice, a language arts unit meant for middle school
students, in particular a class of eighth grade students with mild to moderate disabilities. This
unit will be delivered via a flipped classroom model of instruction in which students will
independently access online technology to gain background knowledge and lecture content, and
then use class time to apply and explore that content in a community of learners. Since research
on what makes flipped learning effective is scarce, the designer has been careful to rely on
known models of instruction (differentiation, gradual release of responsibility) to deliver
Common Core standards-based instruction. It is hypothesized that the flipped approach will in
fact make the aforementioned models easier to implement. The result, it is hoped, will be an
engaging unit that will promote the four Cs shared by most lists of 21st century skills and the
Common Core standards: collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creativity.
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
13
CHAPTER 2: Review of the Literature
Introduction
The purpose of this project is to create a flipped classroom unit of language arts instruction
for middle schoolers that will ignite student interest and engagement while enabling them to
meet grade-level Common Core standards in reading and writing. This will occur within a
relevant and timely context for learning framed by the essential question, "When faced with
prejudice, how do people successfully respond?" Student learning will be measured by both
formative and summative assessment (the latter in the form of two performance products: an
essay and a multimedia project.) This project reflects the contemporary view that the lecture
"model is making less and less sense as sources of information grow more plentiful" (Berrett,
2012, para. 30). Supporting research and information on the flipped model of instruction and its
constituent, instructional supports is found in journal and book sources by means of the search
terms "flipped classroom," "instructional technology," and "21st century skills." This chapter will
present a brief history of the flipped classroom model, the theoretical framework that undergirds
it, and research that points to important components of the unit design.
Historical Overview
For decades, college humanities professors, among others, have engaged in flipped
teaching in a basic form but powerful form (Berrett, 2012). Independent reading has been
assigned for homework, while class time was reserved for in depth discussions of plot, literary
device, meaning, and so on (Berrett, 2012). In the sciences, flipping has been adopted in niches
(Berrett, 2012). In the mid-1990's, for example, the math department at the University of
Michigan began to flip calculus courses; students would complete reading prior to class and
engage in problem-solving in class at the board or in groups with professor support (Berrett,
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
14
2012). As one lecturer observes, students are "learning how to think," and teachers are "learning
what they're struggling with" in the classroom (Berrett, 2012, para. 21). According to pre- and
post-test measures of student learning, University of Michigan students in flipped "courses
showed gains at about twice the rate of those in traditional lectures at other institutions who took
the same inventories" (as cited in Berrett, 2012, para. 24).
Mazur, a physics professor at Harvard University, "has been flipping his courses for 21
years using an evolving method he calls 'peer instruction'" (PI) (Berrett, 2012, para. 28). Mazur
(2009) has developed PI in response to mounting evidence of student difficulty applying
concepts taught to novel situations after receiving information in the traditional lecture-read-test
sequence of transferring content. Mazur (2009) began to require that students read new material
in advance of class; "this initial information transfer through reading allows the lectures to focus
on the most important and difficult elements...perhaps from a different perspective or with new
examples" (Crouch & Mazur, 2001, p. 973).
The PI twist has class beginning with students answering a few "short, conceptual
multiple-choice questions" (Mazur, 2009, p. 51) based on homework. As students respond via
hand-held "clickers," the professor can immediately view the level of understanding in the class.
"If between 35% and 70% of the students answer" (Mazur, 2009, p. 51) correctly, they are
prompted to search for a peer with a different answer; Mazur and teaching assistants circulate
and coach as learners "apply the core concepts" and "try to convince each other of the
correctness of their own answer by explaining the underlying reasoning" (Crouch & Mazur,
2001, p. 970). Students then re-answer the questions, and the professor can calibrate the next
instructional steps to student need demonstrated in the moment. Crouch and Mazur (2001)
suggest that this sequence represents an adaptation of JiTT.
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
15
Interestingly, Mazur also addresses the issue of student motivation in his PI model, which
also must be tackled in Responding to Prejudice. This author requires that students answer three
free response questions on the assigned reading before each class, online. The third question, he
reports, is always, "'What did you find difficult or confusing about the reading? If nothing was
difficult or confusing, tell us what you found most interesting" (Crouch & Mazur, 2001, p. 973).
Students earn effort-based credit for their responses, which help guide the teaching that
immediately follows. This professor employs two forms of motivation: basing grades "on
conceptual understanding, not just traditional problem solving" (Crouch & Mazur, 2001, p. 974)
and "setting the right tone in class (including explaining the reasons for teaching this way)". The
core principles of Mazur's PI model--information transferred ahead of instruction, formative
assessment of initial understanding, in-class application of new information to new contexts, peer
discussion ingrained in the resolution of conceptual misunderstandings, and constant teacher
calibration to student need--represent the key features of any flipped instructional setting. These
in turn recommend the model to nearly any teaching context. Remarkably, these principles are
quite similar the hallmark characteristics of instructional differentiation noted in Chapter 1:
ongoing, formative assessment; awareness of learner strengths and weaknesses; use of variously
configured group work; and emphasis on problem solving (Robb, 2008).
Notably, Mazur suggests that similar classroom situations can be conjured without
"clickers" or any form of technology; he has, however, developed an improved "clicker" that can
pinpoint students who need assistance according to seat number so as to arrange small groups to
best advantage (Mazur, 2009). For this author, however, "it is not the technology but the
pedagogy that matters" (Mazur, 2009, p. 51). Mazur (2009) reports "that learning gains nearly
triple" (p. 51) when "students are given the opportunity to resolve misunderstandings about
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
16
concepts and work together to learn new ideas and skills." As Prensky (2011) writes, "changes
toward the way today's kids learn best must drive the technology we acquire and use, rather than
having our future classrooms be driven by any technology's feature set, bandwidth, availability,
or price" (Prensky, 2011, para. 19). Thus technology can contribute to PI or any form of flipped
teaching in a variety of forms workable for any subject, activity, audience, and teacher.
A quantitative study by Deslauriers, Schlew, and Wieman (2011) explores the
effectiveness of two differing instructional approaches in large-enrollment (more than 200student), university physics classes: three hours of traditional lecture versus three hours of
instruction featuring elements of flipped instruction. The treatment condition involved "moving
the simple transfer of factual knowledge outside of class...and creating tasks and feedback that
motivate students to become fully engaged" in class (Deslauriers, Schlew, & Wieman, 2011, p.
862). In-class activities included student "deliberate practice in 'thinking scientifically'"
(Deslauriers et al., p. 862) along with pre-class reading, pre-class quizzes on readings, "in-class
clicker questions" (Deslauriers et al., p. 863), student discussion, group problem solving, and inthe-moment teacher feedback. Learner attendance, engagement, and quantity learned all
measured significantly higher in the treatment group which included students, learning
objectives, instructional time and exams similar to the control group.
A Wagner, Laforge, and Cripps (2013) qualitative report examines the effects of a flipped
lecture component in engineering courses at the University of Regina. A given percentage of
lectures in a given course were simply delivered by supplying video lectures, supporting online
materials, and in-class assignments prior to class. Survey feedback provided by both instructors
and students suggests that the flipped model was a resounding success. Specific conclusions
drawn by Wagner et al. (2013) include the following: 1) "success of flipped lectures is directly"
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
17
(p. 4) related to the in-class assignment, with individual work following group interaction
seeming to provide the greatest educational benefit; 2) 10 to 15 minutes of video was preferred
by students; 3) videos were viewed repeatedly by students; 4) student opinion held that one
flipped lecture per week (30% of lecture time) was optimal; 5) video production consumed 2 to 3
hours of instructor time per 15-minute lecture; and 6) instructors gained back several hours by
providing review materials online prior to tests. In sum, study results generated enthusiasm
among faculty; the key to success in lecture-flipping, according to Wagner et al. (2013) is
student use of class time to "work on a strategically designed instructor-supported assignment"
(p. 2).
Meta-analyses of Research
The U. S. Department of Education Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online
Learning: A Meta-analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies (2010) provides the
remarkable conclusion that "no experimental or controlled quasi-experimental studies [from
1994 through 2006] that both compared the learning effectiveness of online and face-to-face
instruction for K-12 students and provided sufficient data for inclusion in a meta-analysis" (p.
xii) could be found. However meta-analysis of 50 study effects, most of which involved older
learners, yields the following key finding: "students in online conditions performed modestly
better, on average, than those learning the same material through traditional face-to-face
instruction" (U. S. Department of Education, 2010, p. xiv). Further, instruction that blended
online and face-to-face instruction resulted in greater measurable benefits than pure online
instruction when compared to pure face-to-face contexts (U. S. Department of Education, 2010).
The only other instructional variable found to produce statistically significant benefits was
collaborative or instructor-mediated (versus purely independent) online activities. Narrative
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
18
review of what studies were available suggests the following conclusions: 1) blended and soleonline instruction within single studies produce similar learning outcomes; 2) learning outcomes
in online settings cannot be attributed to any specific media elements such as online quizzes or
video; and 3) online courses that include opportunities for reflection and "self-monitoring of
understanding" (U. S. Department of Education, 2010, p. xvi.) enhance learning. The findings of
this meta-analysis support the notion that what makes flipped teaching effective is not the
inclusion of technology per se, but rather the provision of meaningful online instruction followed
by student-centered learning activities that might not otherwise occur.
Bishop and Verleger (2013) provide The Flipped Classroom: A Survey of the Research
which highlights the reality that flipped classroom instruction success depends on the in-class
instruction, not just the provision of video lecture (as was suggested by Wagner et al., 2013).
Although they encounter the same paucity of thorough and comparable research as did the
U. S. Department of Education (2010), they posit a few key findings: 1) student reaction to
flipped learning is generally positive; 2) college students come to class better prepared when
supplied with video lectures versus textbook reading; and 3) pre-class online quizzes on videolecture content are appreciated--and even requested--by college students (Bishop & Verleger,
2013).
Usefully, Bishop and Verleger (2013) include a discussion of the theoretical framework
supporting the flipped classroom model as they characterize it--pre-recorded lectures assigned
for homework with class time reserved for interactive learning activities "that cannot be
automated or computerized" (para. 10). Flipped instruction, they caution, is not the mere reordering of homework and class work; without in-class activities shaped by "student-centered
learning theories" (Bishop & Verleger, 2013, para. 27) after Piaget and Vygotsky, "the flipped
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
19
classroom," they assert, "simply does not exist." Flipped classroom activities may take the form
of problem-based learning, peer tutoring, collaborative learning, cooperative learning, or peerassisted learning (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). All of these iterations of student-centered learning
fall into the overarching category of active learning according to these authors. Prince (2004)
defines active learning as "any instructional method that engages students in the learning
process" (as cited in Bishop & Verleger, 2013). The flipped classroom, Bishop and Verleger
(2013) conclude, in fact unites the best of two seemingly incompatible learning theories-constructivism in the form of active, student-centered learning in a social context and
behaviorism in the form of direct instruction.
Instructional Elements
The use of either teacher-created or other videos is also supported by learning theory.
According to Bonk's (2008) discussion of research from the 1990's, online videos construct a
"macrocontext," or shared contextual experience, to ground instruction in a community of
learners. The fact that videos are always available and easily reviewed strengthens their ability to
provide a common learning space in which to anchor instruction and/or build prior knowledge.
Bonk (2008) also suggests that video-viewing resonates with dual coding theory in that
information can be recalled "through both verbal and visual channels" (para. 19). This may in
turn enhance memory of content since several types (semantic and episodic) can be activated at
once (Bonk, 2008). The chunking of content necessitated by the creation of short videos is also
recommended by growing understanding of brain function, as is the importance of repetition of
important content (Medina, 2008).
The "brain rules" for memory elucidated by Medina (2008) in his book of same name seem
to support many of the facets of flipped instruction reviewed thus far. For example, information
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
20
that is endowed with a higher "quality of encoding" is more easily remembered and retrieved
(Medina, 2008). "'Quality of encoding' really means the number of door handles we can put on
the entrance to a piece of information...The handles we can add revolve around content, timing,
and environment" (Medina, 2008, p. 144). All of those "handles" are easily controlled by the
teacher in flipped learning contexts, with timing being partially under the control of students who
can watch and re-watch video lectures as they wish. Similarly, Medina (2008) concludes that
"the best way to make long-term memory more reliable is to incorporate new information
gradually and repeat it in timed intervals" (p. 147). Again, this level of fine-tuning of information
presentation dovetails nicely with and if afforded by the flipped model of instruction.
Robert and Dennis (2005) present interesting findings on the impact of instructional media
that is rich in social presence versus media that is "lean" and lower in social presence. Contrary
to other studies, the authors found that media high in social presence [such as synchronous chats]
"induces increased motivation but decreased ability to process, while...media low in social
presence [such as asynchronous wikis and discussion boards] induces decreased motivation but
increased ability to process" (Robert & Dennis, 2005, p. 19). The implications are that media
used for online instruction should be carefully chosen with an eye to the learning objectives to be
accomplished. "What is vital" when designing online instructional materials is "not always the
sense of presence...but having sufficient information in the appropriate format and the ability to
duly consider it" (Robert and Dennis, 2005, p. 19).
It would seem to follow that uses of asynchronous and synchronous elements in online
instruction should be carefully chosen and balanced with respect to each other. As Hrastinski
(2008) forwards, "the e-learning community needs an understanding of when, why, and how to
use different types of e-learning" (p. 2). A small study conducted by Hrastinski analyzed
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
21
sentences contributed by learners in both synchronous and asynchronous online discussions.
After sorting the sentences into three categories--content-related, task-planning-related, socialsupport-seeking or -giving-- Hrastinski (2008) concludes that the two forms of online discussion
serve different purposes; "synchronous e-learning better supports personal participation and
asynchronous e-learning better supports cognitive participation" (p. 4). Ultimately, it seems, the
two complement each other, and it falls to the instructional designer to match form to function.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Flipped Teaching
Given the current "buzz" being generated by the flipped classroom topic in educational
circles, the informal, professional literature is full of teacher anecdotes and implementation
advice. A compilation of the benefits of flipped teachings cited in various sources is as follows:
1) efficiency of information transmission via video; 2) reusability of videos improves teacher
quality of life; 3) strengthened relationships with students via more class time for productive
interactions and the "taking of the teacher home" in 24/7 video form; 4) enhanced teacher
reflection on their own teaching; 5) increased class time for student collaboration; 6) vastly
improved opportunities to differentiate instruction by student; 7) chance to customize
curriculum; 8) easy teacher sharing of multimedia resources; 9) increased student engagement
and learning; and 10) flexibility that resonates with this generation of students. (Brunsell &
Horejsi, 2013; Fulton, 2012).
An additional benefit of flipped teaching is the opportunity to provide immediate teacher
feedback on student work, as has been discussed. In the case of Responding to Prejudice in
which writing is a major focus of instruction, the chance to provide feedback to students on an
individual basis as they traverse the writing process is a huge boon (Berne, 2010). As
Warschauer (2010) observes, approximately two decades ago, it was feared that the growing
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
22
hegemony of Internet multimedia would erode the importance of writing. Today, not only have
these fears not been realized, but, according to the National Commission on Writing (2003)
"writing is more important than ever before" (as cited in Warschauer, 2010, p. 3). Blogs and
wikis (and the threaded discussions they enable) allow for "exploring identity, expressing one's
voice, airing diverse views, and developing community" (Warschauer, 2010, p. 4). Further, wikis
and online collaborative writing platforms such as Google docs allow for same-time group work
and preserve a history of student contributions and edits for the teacher (Warschauer, 2010).
Additionally, Warschauer states that studies of collaborative online writing with second language
learners point to increased writing quantity and writer confidence online (Warschauer, 2010).
In and amongst the many benefits that flow from flipped classroom teaching, there are
drawbacks recorded in the literature. Several studies report initial student dislike of the model, in
particular its emphasis on the work to be done accountably, in advance of class (Herreid &
Schiller, 2013; Berrett, 2012; Crouch & Mazur, 2001). Crouch and Mazur (2001) warn teachers
to expect a period of adjustment to the new model that might be accompanied by a brief decline
in performance. "With significant effort invested to motivate students, student reactions to PI are
generally positive," in time (Crouch & Mazur, 2001).
Motivation and Effort
Given the student audience for which Responding to Prejudice has been designed (a very
diverse group of special eduation students), motivation is an issue that must be thoughtfully
addressed. In accordance with Mazur (2009), there will be multiple mechanisms for recognizing
student effort in contrast to performance. As Wiest, Wong, Cervantes, Craik and Kreil (2001)
discuss in a study of regular and special education high school students on measures of
"perceived competence" and "academic coping" (abstract), "positive information from significant
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
23
others fosters the development of competence, which in turn impacts academic success" (p. 113).
Their findings suggest that students with learning disabilities demonstrate "less academic
competence than do matched students with the same cognitive abilities" (Wiest et al., 2001, p.
114). Further, such students tend to "attribute their failure to their lack of ability," which is a
hallmark characteristic of a fixed mindset. (Terrell, 1990 as cited in Wiest et al., 2001, p. 115).
This conclusion speaks to the importance of cultivating a growth mindset in students. As
explained by Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck (2007), "children's beliefs become the mental
'baggage' that they bring to the achievement situation" (p. 259). These authors conclude that a
focus on student potential for growth and development of intellectual capacity, no matter the rate
of development, according to a growth mindset, "provides a host of motivational benefits"
(Blackwell et al., 2007, p. 260). A study by Schunk and Cox (1986) renders the surprising
discovery that simple recognition of student effort as reflected in the spoken words, "'You've
been working hard,'" produced significant gains in both self-efficacy and skill development in
students with learning disabilities (p. 204). All of these findings hint at strategies to weave into
the unit, Responding to Prejudice.
Historically, this group of students has struggled with sustaining focus, motivation,
and effort across tasks that require any length of time. The students' willingness to commit to a
blended learning environment is a potential problem that will be addressed by elements of the
instructional design in ways large and small, from chunking of tasks, to presenting captivating
visual sources of information, to tangibly recording student progress. Specifically, creating
"effort-to-progress graphs" for distinct learning tasks will "mimic the incremental progress
feedback provided by getting to the next level on a computer game" (Willis, 2011, para. 14). As
a result, it is anticipated that students will "experience the dopamine-pleasure response and
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
24
intrinsic motivation of meeting a challenge" (Willis, 2011, para. 10). This encourages the brain
to work toward another such experience and carry effort into the next task (Willis, 2011). Also,
graphing individual growth and effort supports differentiation by recognizing that each student
presents a different profile of strengths and weaknesses, and will travel a different trajectory of
learning. Students will also receive visual feedback for working hard by means of the awarding
of points on Class Dojo (classdojo.com, 2013).
Promoting Literacy
It should be noted that the design of this unit, from its largest outline of activities that
sequentially build to the development of "big ideas" to the smallest discrete chunk of vocabulary
instruction, has been informed by the current understanding of developing literacy in
adolescents. Recognizing the fact that "conflicting messages about literacy practices" that will
support implementation of the CCSS in language arts are currently being communicated by
policy and product, the International Reading Association (IRA) (2012) has published a CCSS
implementation guide. This article offers several salient suggestions for teachers planning
language arts instruction in the here and now. Specifically, the IRA advises that "an ambitious
itinerary of rich and varied narrative and informational texts, including some texts that are
easier" (International Reading Association, 2012, p. 1) as well as texts that require students to
stretch their current ability be accessed. Further, the IRA suggests that the "close, attentive"
reading demanded by the CCSS should proceed to the next step of "using the information and
ideas drawn from text...as the basis of one's own arguments, presentations and claims"
(International Reading Association, 2012, p. 2). Reading and writing are, of course, mutually
reinforcing, and the CCSS requires teaching that encourages their concomitant growth and
support. This source recommends the purpose and format of the forthcoming unit. Additionally,
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
25
the IRA (2012) states that student presentation of ideas "in writing and multimedia formats are
central to the Standards [sic], and as such, students need to know how to summarize text,
critically analyze the information presented in texts, and synthesize information from multiple
texts" (p. 3). All of these skills are embedded in the unit at hand.
Summary
Even in the absence of definitive scientific studies comparing the efficacy of face-to-face
to flipped classroom instruction for K-12 students, a growing body of research offers several
conclusions as to benefits and elements that promote its success. One prominent conclusion
centers on the role of technology. First and foremost, this model is best understood as a way to
improve pedagogy by solving instructional dilemmas; carefully chosen technological elements
are enabling parts of a solution, not solutions in and of themselves. "The regular and systematic
use of interactive technologies" (Strayer, 2012, p. 172) does characterized flipped or inverted
teaching in most studies, however. Together, these ideas suggest the importance of careful
matching of technological tool to instructional intention.
Chief benefits include increased time available for deeper, active learning inside the
classroom, documented learning gains, and enhanced opportunities to differentiate instruction.
Flipping success can be boosted by including web-based student accountability measures for outof-class work a la JiTT, recognizing student effort, and providing conceptual coherence between
what happens out of class and what happens in class (Couch & Mazur, 2001; Mazur, 2009;
Strayer, 2012). Perhaps most importantly, research suggests that carefully flipped learning does
allow teachers to achieve what might be an overarching goal for most: a more connected, more
stable, more dynamic, and more personalized classroom learning experience (Strayer, 2012).
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
26
CHAPTER 3: Project Design
Learning Theory
Responding to Prejudice, which has been designed to be delivered according to flipped
teaching principles, relies on several learning theories. Very simply put, behaviorism holds that
an instructional stimulus will trigger a learning response (Harasim, 2012). Next, cognitivism
suggests that between stimulus and response something occurs which is worthy of educator
attention (Harasim, 2012). That something is the activation of and building upon schemata
(Harasim, 2012). Under cognitivism per Gagne, it is imperative that instruction follow nine
steps: 1) hooking attention, 2) stating the learning objective, 3) activating prior knowledge, 4)
providing new information, 5) guiding learning so as to enhance long-term memory, 6) students
demonstrate understanding, 7) providing feedback on step six, 8) formal assessment, and 9)
promoting memory and transfer of what has been learned (Harasim, 2012). Next, in contrast to
behaviorism and cognitivism, constructivism most significantly shifts emphasis to the role of the
learner who constructs "their own understanding and knowledge of the world" (Harasim, 2012,
p. 60) through personal experience and reflection. This very simplified summary of the major
schools of learning theory shows that, from school to school, progressively greater and greater
emphasis is placed upon the active learning intentions of the student as the key to successful
instruction. The understanding that students must travel through a continuing process of
disequilibration and requilibration to gain new learning (cognitive structures) is an important
tenet of constructivism (Harasim, 2012). The instructor's role changes as well, from purveyor of
information to coach and conjurer of the active learning environment.
The instructional unit at hand most predominately features cognitivist and constructivist
learning theory elements, although it must be stated that the boundary between these two schools
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
27
is at times indistinct. Gagne's nine steps all appear in flipped teaching as described in this paper,
if not always in one linear sequence; and flipped teaching emphasis on active student
construction of knowledge through deliberate practice in a social learning context comprised of
teacher and peers, face-to-face and online, is decidedly constructivist.
Project Design
This unit has been designed in backwards fashion per McTighe and Wiggins (2004) to
address an overarching essential question, "When faced with prejudice, how do people
successfully respond?" The "end" learning objectives are grade-level Common Core standards in
reading and writing, and the assessment products have been designed to demonstrate the meeting
of those objectives along with student construction of an answer to the essential question.
This design process harmonizes with the oft-cited ADDIE (analysis-design-developmentimplementation-evaluation) model. Student needs have been analyzed, a meaningful context and
appropriate learning objectives for learning identified, and a sequence of learning activities
designed and developed. The unit will be implemented with students in the coming 2013-2014
school year. Evaluation of the design is ongoing with feedback from subject matter experts
(SMEs) and usability testers, and final evaluation of the unit itself will take place at the
conclusion of the implementation phase. Final evaluation data will be provided as results of a
student survey, two performance products, and designer/instructor reflection.
Procedure
This unit has been designed for a diverse group of 18 8th grade students at a public middle
school in San Jose, California. This group is comprised of special education students with mild
to moderate disabilities including autism, specific learning disability, emotional disturbance, and
Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) (see Table 1). Approximately one fifth of these
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
28
students are also English language learners (ELLs). All but one are reading a year or two years
below grade level. By virtue of their life circumstances, many of these students have first-hand
experience with prejudice.
Target User Characteristics
middle school students
many are avid video game players
80% read below grade level
75% male
50% have specific learning disabilities
45% have Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder
20% English language learners
10% have autism
5% carry the designation "emotionally disturbed"
~90% have routine computer access at home
Comments
only basic academic experience with technology (word
processing, PowerPoint)
used to conventions of this medium
simple, clear, brief language needed
require chunking of content and tasks,
and specific, frequent feedback
require clarity of task and purpose delivered with brevity
plus chunking of
content and tasks
require clarity of language in their ZPD for academic
vocabulary
display a low frustration threshold
group work needs to be carefully structured
display a low frustration threshold
group work needs to be carefully structured
display various levels of comfort with technology
generally
Table 1. Characteristics of the target audience for Responding to Prejudice.
Learning goals are as follows: 8th grade language arts student skills and understanding will
grow in specific ways described below.
1. Students will understand that writing is shaped by author's task, specific purpose, and audience
when the same theme is explored in different ways.
2. Students will learn to recognize the elements of writing that vary according to author's chosen,
specific purpose and audience.
3. Students will add to their "reservoir of literary and cultural knowledge, references, and
images" through "wide and deep" (California Department of Education, 2013, p. 49), careful
reading of fiction and nonfiction.
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
29
4. Students will grow in their proficiency with technological tools and "attend to the ethical
responsibilities required by these complex environments" (NCTE, 2013, para. 2).
Common Core standards-based learning objectives identified at the outset of the design
process are as follows below.
1. After reading a grade 6-8 level text, eighth grade resource language arts students will be able
to identify the author's task and purpose [as "express and reflect," "inform and explain",
"evaluate and judge," "inquire and expore," "analyze and interpret", or "take a stand/propose a
solution" (Gallagher, 2011)], and justify their identification in a paragraph that cites at least three
supporting pieces of evidence from the text and that scores a 3 or higher on a 4 point rubric.
CCSS.ELA.RI.8.6. (California State Department of Education, 2013).
2. After reading two or more texts on the same topic or theme, students will be able to analyze
how differences in text structure, tone, and word choice contribute to the authors' purposes and
the meanings delivered as evidenced by completion of a compare/contrast mindmap and
accompanying essay that scores at least 3 on a 4 point rubric. CCSS.ELA.RL.8.5. (California
State Department of Education, 2013).
3. As the unit concludes, students will write an essay that demonstrates a self-selected purpose
(choices listed under item 1) and conveys what they have learned in answer to the unit's essential
question using a minimum of two, correctly cited and integrated sources that scores at least a 3
on a 4 point rubric. CCSS.ELA.W.8.2. (California State Department of Education, 2013).
4. Students will use Google docs to compose written pieces to be edited by teacher and peers;
students will provide thoughtful editing advice for at least one peer using Google docs with a
focus on how effectively purpose and audience have been considered. Student comments and
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
30
advice will score at least a 3 on a 4 point rubric. CCSS. CCR.W.6-12.4-6. (California State
Department of Education, 2013).
5. Students will create and then present a multimedia presentation (from a menu of choices) that
expresses the main ideas presented in their essay (see item 3) that scores at least a 3 on a 4 point
rubric.
6. Students will complete all online and in-class assignments and reading as evidenced by an
average of 80% or higher on all scored checks for understanding to be calculated one third, two
thirds, and three thirds of the way through the unit.
7. Students will adhere to the class-created code of online conduct as measured by teacher and
self checklist ratings.
With audience analyzed and learning objectives defined, this unit was designed to follow
the flipped classroom model. Specifically, out-of-class activities will be comprised of presenting
and briefly responding to new information which will provide (or activate) prior knowledge.
These activities will be housed on a website, www.msfoltz.weebly.com. Prior-to-class
instruction will take the form of teacher-created or -selected multimedia, image, or text sources
of information. Online checks for understanding are easily provided by Google forms; the results
of which can be quickly viewed by the teacher before class in accordance with JiTT. Each
student has their own Google drive account which will permit opportunities for real-time teacher
and peer editing of work, collaborative writing activities, and organization of learning resources.
In-class time will then be used to address student gaps in knowledge or misunderstanding
revealed by results of online checks for understanding according to PI principles. Moreover,
class time will be freed up for creation of high-cognitive-demand writer's workshop activities
punctuated by many opportunities for one-to-one writing instruction. Weekly socratic seminars
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
31
in which the essential question is revisited in light of new thinking can also reliably fit into the
sequence of instruction, as will close-readings of more challenging text passages. In short, the
flexibility of the flipped classroom model will permit the teacher to responsively use JiTT
strategies--and hopefully gain significant instructional traction with this group of students with
special needs.
Technology will enhance this unit in several important ways. First, it is hoped that the
documented benefits of forms of social media will extend to this opportunity to develop 21st
century communication skills. Specifically, students developing these skills can "write for a
social audience and hone their words in response to others, while becoming sensitive to both the
benefits and risks of expressing themselves online" (Warschauer, 2010, p. 4). A wikipage will
house an asynchronous discussion board for the class novel to be read as part of this unit. The
very recent novel, Wonder, by R. J. Palacio (2012) will provide a common thread for theme and
reading response. The reading level of this novel aligns with the independent reading level of the
majority of students in class. Further, the website www.todaysmeet.com will enable a
synchronous role play of students as Wonder characters. These uses of social media adhere to
suggestions from the literature, with a high-thinking activity occuring in the asynchronous form,
and a high-participation activity occuring in the synchronous form. Finally, each student will
create a rubric-scored multimedia performance product and an essay to culminate this unit.
Scores will suggest the degree to which students have learned what was intended to be taught
and developed answers to the essential question. Students will ultilize the multimedia format that
they prefer.
In accordance with GRR framework, reading and writing tasks will be progressively less
and less scaffolded as student progress allows. Students will apply what they have learned,
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
32
especially in terms of writing, with greater and greater assimilation of understanding of text form
and author purpose. Careful construction of a conceptual understanding of the essential question
undergirds the progressive transfer of responsibility to students. The web-based padlet.com
canvas on the ladder of prejudice that is created by the efforts of all is one example. A literal
framework (ladder) acts as a thinking map to organize events and ideas in conceptual categories.
This incorporates a kinesthetic element as well, since events/ideas recorded on "stickies" can be
repositioned via mouse.
As suggested by the review of literature, careful selection of out-of-class sources of
information must be complemented by in-class learning activities that are just as carefully
planned to ensure successful implemenation of this unit. Essentially all of the learning activities
that comprise this unit are resonant with Guidelines for ELA Instructional Materials
Development (Bunch, 2012). Some of these guidelines, developed for English language learners
but completely appropriate for any population of learners are as follows: 1) "begin with a potent
set of Common Core" standards (Bunch, 2012, p. 3); 2) design lessons to allow students with
interact with standards recursively; 3) provide various instructional pathways to encourage high
levels of access to all students; 4) choose fiction and non-fiction texts of various levels of
complexity; 5) focus on different aspects of complexity at different times; 6) provide chances for
activation and building of prior knowledge to allow text access; 7) give students chances to write
with different purposes; and 8) "utilize different participation structures" (Bunch, 2012, p. 3). A
brief glance at Responding to Prejudice demonstrates that all of these instructional design
guidelines have been followed in its creation.
Ethical Considerations
Actual use of this instructional unit poses potential ethical concerns in the areas of online
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
33
privacy, exposure to unintended web content, and inappropriate online student-to-student
communication. Most of these are obviated by the chosen tools themselves. The wikipage to be
used for the Wonder discussion board, for example, offers page-level security. Student work on
Google docs is similarly private according to "sharing" settings. Embedding YouTube videos on
the website, www.msfoltz.weebly.com, precludes the possibility of students viewing other
YouTube videos at the same time and location. The final concern will be addressed by student
creation of an online code of conduct for student-to-student communication; consequences for
failure to adhere to the code will be chosen and agreed to by students. All of the technological
tools employed in this unit (with the exception of padlet) preserve a thorough edit history for the
teacher to peruse should the need arise.
Alpha testing of this unit is being performed by the instructor, one SME, and the
instructor's family. No ethical concerns will arise from alpha testing.
Summary
In sum, Responding to Prejudice has been designed according to the ADDIE model and
the backwards design framework. Both the content and sequence of learning activities thus began
with their end--demonstrated attainment of Common Core standards-based goals and a greater
understanding of the issue of prejudice--in mind. Technology-based resources presented at
www.msfoltz.weebly.com run throughout the unit, allowing a flipped classroom approach to
highly signficant academic content. The end result hopes to be a captivating out-of-class element
synergistically combined with in-class work characterized by deep, deliberate practice of skills
and development of critical thinking. Seen through a constructivist lens, this unit will encourage
students to construct new understandings of the purposes of different forms of writing, several
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
instances of prejudice in their shared cultural heritage, and of ways in which people have not
only survived hardship but responded to it in dignified and successful ways.
34
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
35
CHAPTER 4: Project Evaluation and Discussion
The online portions of Responding to Prejudice, which comprise the heart of this project,
have undergone usability testing prior to implementation with students, which will occur outside
the realm of this capstone paper. Formative assessment measures run through the unit thanks to
JiTT and more, and two authentic, summative assessments will be administered at unit
completion. Apart from usability and academic measures, student effort, engagement, and
enthusiasm for flipped learning will also be assessed as they were addressed by the designer as
important dimensions affecting the learning process. Thus the various instances of assessment
will touch on all four of Kirkpatrick's Four Levels: reaction, learning, behavior (application of
learning), and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2009).
Project Evaluation
In this case, the end result of the instructional design process aspires to be a streamlined,
nearly seamless, and almost effortless web experience that synergistically complements the
content for students (not just the designer) it only makes sense to be sure that this has been
achieved. Ever-mindful of the possible perspectives of future users, a careful designer welcomes
a usability evaluation to witness those perspectives in action. Usability testing, writes
Mehlenbacher (1993), provides designers with information about design shortcomings that can in
turn point to "possible solutions to those shortcomings" (p. 211).
Usability is usefully broken into five defining facets, the "5Es" delineated by Quesenbery
(2001). A usable web interface is "efficient, effective, engaging, error tolerant, and easy to
learn" (Quesenbery, 2001, para. 6) . Efficiency has do with how quickly and how accurately a
given task can be accomplished, whereas effectiveness has to do with the extent to which user
goals are achieved as intended (Quesenbery, 2001). An engaging interface is easy to read, not
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
36
just in terms of accessible text features, but also in terms of the flow of content in a sensible and
non-frustrating presentation (Quesenbery, 2001; Williams & Tollett, 2006.) In this particular
case, error-tolerance will be characterized by navigation that aspires to follow common
expectations and therefore makes errors unlikely. This web interface can be called "easy to
learn" if students with differing levels of experience with computer technology are able to
accomplish all that will be required with a very minimal level of frustration and a negligible
learning curve.
After implementation, the unit will be evaluated by student survey (see Appendix A) found
on the final page at www.msfoltz.weebly.com, and by the scores earned by students on the two
performance products that will wrap up the unit. The learning objectives that initiated and shaped
the unit design set rubric-score goals for three pieces of writing (paragraph on author's purpose in
a given piece, a compare/contrast piece, and the final essay) and the multimedia project. Student
learning of content, work completion, and engagement will also be measured, with a goal of an
ongoing average of 80% or higher on online quizzes and graded checks for understanding plus a
goal of 80% of assignments completed. With support to boost and maintain student motivation
purposefully built in to the unit, effort measures provided by xp progress graphs and Class DOJO
will be provide important metrics of the student experience. Student adherence to the online code
of conduct will also be measured, primarily for student benefit, by teacher and self-rating
checklists at the appropriate time.
Data Presentation
Five users took part in usability testing of the website that houses the unit, Responding to
Literature. Four completed two given tasks and completed a survey immediately thereafter; they
ranged in age from 16 to 54, and in computer-familiarity from beginner to expert. One SME
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
37
completed the same tasks in front of the designer and "talked aloud" as they did so. A great deal
of valuable, actionable information was gained from both processes.
Post-Use Survey Questions on the the 5Es
1. I was able to go this fast AND accomplish my given tasks.
2. I took about this many wrong turns getting my tasks done.
3. I was able to find the "Wonder" discussion board...
4. I found the multimedia presentation on the purposes of
writing _____________ .
5. I was able to RESPOND to the presentation as directed
_______________ .
6. I found the website ____________ engaging.
7. In terms of visual appeal and impression, I sound the
website to be ____________ appealing.
8. Please check the boxes of the visual elements that you
found particularly appealing.
9. Overall, I found this website _____________ easy to use.
10. Overall, I found the website design to be __________ .
Responses
as fast as I wanted
pretty fast
pretty slow
frustratingly slow
0
1-2
3-4
right away
after some looking
after a lot of looking
after a wrong turn
right away
after some looking
after a lot of looking
after a wrong turn
right away
after some looking
after a lot of looking
after a wrong turn
very
sort of
not at all
extremely
sort of
not at all
colors
images
menu on left side of page
"Wonder" discussion pages
"Ladder of Prejudice" wall
"Invictus" trailer
Voki avatar frames
incredibly
pretty
sort of
not at all
transparent and noticably elegant
good because I didn't have
to think about it
just okay
a little frustrating
Table 2. Compliation of post-use survey results provided by four respondents.
100%
0%
0%
0%
25%
75%
0%
75%
25%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
21%
17%
17%
17%
13%
13%
4%
75%
25%
0%
0%
75%
25%
0%
0%
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
Talk-aloud Script Questions and Prompts
How would you rate your computer
experience on a scalre of 1-10, with 1 being
a complete novice and 10 being an expert
Have you ever participated in an online course of
study?
When you are online, what websites do you use
most, and what do you use them for?
Here is the home page for the website.
What is the title of the unit?
What is its purpose?
What would a student involved in this unit be
thinking about or doing?
(Screen removed.) What did you notice first?
What did you like or dislike?
How would you describe the overall feel and tone?
(Respondent given two tasks: to be able to post a
response to the "Wonder" discussion board and
find a way to respond to the Prezi as directed for
week 1.)
After the tasks, the following questions were asked:
* "How did the ease of completing this task compare
to that of typical web work you have experienced
before?"
* "What did you enjoy about the work you just did?"
* "What was not as enjoyable?"
38
SME Responses
9
No
The Dartmouth (school) website, Facebook,
teacher- and education-related blogs and various websites
like Edutopia. I use them
to communicate with friends and peers; I am always looking
for new teaching ideas. I also shop online for just about
everything.
Responding to Prejudice.
(Respondent reads from the home page.)
They will be thinking about this big topic, writing, and
reading about prejudice.
Visually, I love the design. The simple drawing of the dove
and the colors. The clean look and succinct writing.
Again, the colors and the way they go together. The overall
look and the menu on the left.
Beautiful, welcoming, clear and easy.
(Note: the respondent did a lot more than the two given
tasks due to curiousity about the multimedia elements.)
* This was very easy.
* I liked the real-time modeling in the Prezi (voiceover).
* I liked how the Voki was like taking your teacher home
with you.
* I enjoyed all of it, especially the variety of the sources.
* I enjoyed everything. The only slightly confusing thing
was having to use the back arrow to get back sometimes.
Table 3. Talk-aloud prompts and responses of the SME during observed interaction with the
website.
Discussion
Despite being overwhelmingly positive, the alpha testing results presented in Tables 2 and
3 did point to a few concerns with the website design. The four users who completed the two
tasks independent of the designer quickly confronted the obstacle of privacy settings on the
"Wonder" discussion board housed on an off-site wikipage. Once this was rectified, they were
quickly able to leave a response as requested. This was actually a flaw in the design of the
usability testing, not of the website itself as students will not encounter this difficulty. One user
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
39
had difficulty getting to the weekly "Wonder" response pages as demonstrated in their response
to survey question three. As a result, the on-screen website directions were changed to make it
very clear what needs to be clicked in order to access them.
Sitting alongside the SME who consented to the talk-aloud testing process yielded more
actionable information. As she read the screen directions for task completion, it became clear
that referents needed to be moved to the same frame as their references in the directions, as she
had to scroll down past the directions more than once to access a button. Further, as she read a
large chunk of on-screen directions, it became obvious that they would be more clear if they
were divided visually. As a result of this test, then, much of the week one page was re-arranged;
the same principles were applied to the other pages as well. During testing it also became
obvious that leaving the website in order to access a survey or a file, sometimes to a new window
and sometimes not, was troublesome. Accordingly, the designer added on-screen information in
a new color, rusty red, briefly stating that the user should use the back arrow to return to the unit
website when appropriate. It is assumed that when a new tab opens, returning to the website will
not prove difficult.
In conclusion, both forms of usability evaluation resulted in actionable information that
should improve the website's functionality for users. Moreover, usability testing results suggest
that the designer's goal of creating an engaging and nonfrustrating web-experience that enhances
the content seems to have been accomplished as evidenced by the results displayed in Table 2.
For example, 100% of users found the website to be "extremely easy" to use and "very
engaging." It can be concluded that, prior to beta testing, the Responding to Prejudice website
exemplifies all of the 5Es--it is efficient, effective, engaging, error-tolerant, and easy to use.
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
40
Limitations
The primary factor limiting evaluation of this unit is the impossibility of witnessing it in
action with target students prior to the filing of this capstone paper. The fact that many types of
assessment measures designed to gain information on multiple facets of this learning experience
have been embedded in the unit does, however, promise a strong likelihood of obtaining
meaningful data.
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
41
CHAPTER 5: Summary and Conclusion
This flipped language arts unit, Responding to Prejudice, has been designed for middle
school students with mild to moderate disabilities that hinder their learning. It is hypothesized
that many of the strengths of a flipped learning experience recommend its use with this audience
despite a relative lack of specific research on flipped learning generally and with such
populations specifically. Further, the new CCSSs signal changes in the direction of language arts
instruction at all levels of K-12 teaching. Literary and informational texts of varying degrees of
reading challenge should be, according to the CCSSs, made available to students for "close"
reading that is attentive to "a text's craft and structure to determine how those affect meaning and
tone" (IRA, 2012, p. 2.) Under the CCSSs, students are next taught to use "the information and
ideas drawn from texts as the basis of one's own arguments, presentations, and claims" (IRA,
2012, p. 2). This unit represents a convergence of the flipped model of teaching and the CCSSs
in what is intended to be an engaging experience that will encourage deep thinking and
respectful discourse both online and in person--in true 21st century fashion.
Conclusions
The subject of this paper is the web-based portion of the unit, Responding to Prejudice,
which is found at www.msfoltz.weebly.com. As a flipped unit, the "fast-paced interaction and
dialogue that happens in the face-to-face setting" is augmented "with an online learning
environment that gives students space to take in new ideas" and begin to "carefully express their
thoughts on the subject" (Strayer, 2012, p. 172). Research suggests that recent forms of flipped
learning marked by the inclusion of interactive technologies are enabling teachers "to create
learning communities that are more connected and more stable than we have seen in the past"
(Strayer, 2012, p. 172).
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
42
Research has highlighted the importance of providing coherence between the online and
the face-to-face portions of flipped teaching (Strayer, 2012). First exposures to new material via
multimedia sources are presented online in advance of classroom expansion or application of the
same ideas. Between these two events, successful flipped teaching inserts checks for
understanding that serve two purposes: students are held accountable for performing the online
work and student understanding (or lack thereof) is registered. Using JiTT principles, the teacher
is ready to begin face-to-face instruction knowing what students understand well or are
struggling with. Using technology, teachers thus become more attuned to the needs of students.
Long-known hallmarks of robust and effective classroom instruction such as GRR and
differentiation become more workable than ever before. This reality harks back to Prensky
(2012) who wrote, "digital wisdom is a two-fold concept, referring both to wisdom arising from
the use of digital technology to access cognitive power beyond our usual capacity and to wisdom
in the use of technology to enhance our innate capabilities" (p. 202). It is fervently hoped that
this technology-driven unit will propel the target audience toward acquiring "wisdom" about
their world and in themselves.
Implications for Teaching
Implementation of this unit may allow some conclusions to be drawn about its overall
effectiveness and that of flipped teaching with similar populations generally. With careful
attention lavished on the coherence between the online portions and what will become the inclass portions, on adding features to enhance student motivation, and on including checks for
understanding to enable JiTT, most salient features highlighted by the literature have been
embedded. The importance of careful evaluation of student learning both in the midst of and at
the end of the unit is readily apparent. Evaluation will take the form of a post-unit survey, two
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
43
performance products, and measurement of student work completion. At the unit's close,
designer/instructor reflection will provide another dimension to assessment.
Strayer (2012) usefully observed that flipped classroom instruction can occur along a
spectrum of possibilities. One extreme might be giving "students an opportunity to view course
content outside the classroom in a number of different formats" while still providing an in-class
familiar experience of lecture followed by homework or learning activity (Strayer, 2012, p. 192).
The other extreme might be viewed as the most radical: "introduction to course content only out
of class" partnered by "only learning activity in class" (Strayer, 2012, p. 192). During the
implemenation of this particular unit, the flexibility allowed by the flipped model will permit the
instructor to nimbly tailor the proportion of out-of-class to in-class exposure to content versus
learning activity according to student performance indicators. It is the initial intent to expose
students to new ideas via multimedia or other resources housed online and institute a
reader's/writer's workshop environment in class. Foundational supports for these in-class
structures will be carefully laid.
Implications for Further Research
Given a mindset that sees technology "as a way to vastly improve teacher-student
interactions that go on inside" (Prensky, 2011, para. 15) the classroom, the result of flipped
teaching should be a measurable increase in student learning. Future research on the flipped
model should, as Bishop and Verleger (2013) suggest, "objectively examine student
performance...with both traditional and concept-inventory style problems" (para. 34), and take
the form of studies of the same course material presented over the same length of time in flipped
and nonflipped (control) classroom settings. Strayer (2012) offers that more research on the topic
of optimal ways to structure the proprotional and conceptual relationships between the online
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
44
and in-class sections of a flipped course would be beneficial. Another facet of flipped classrooms
that seems ripe for study is that of media choice. As Robert and Dennis (2005) submit, a lack of
research on "media's ability to evoke a change in understanding and the paradoxical impacts of
using rich media high in social presence" (p. 19) exists. In sum, educators desiring to flip their
instruction would benefit from guidance from the research community on how to match forms of
multimedia to instructional goals, how to meaningfully relate the in- and out-of-class portions of
teaching in terms of time and activity, and how to motivate students to reliably complete the outof-class work (which is accompanied by accountability measures) among other topics.
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
45
REFERENCES
Berne, J. (2010). Giving feedback on student writing. Retrieved from
http://www.ldonline.org/article/36072/
Berrett, D. (2012, February 19). How "flipping" the classroom can improve the traditional
lecture. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/
article/How-Flipping-the-Classroom/130857
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research.
Retrieved from http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/20/papers/6219/download
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski. K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence
predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an
intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263.
Bonk, C. J. (2008). YouTube anchors and enders: The use of shared online video content as a
macrocontext for learning. Retrieved from http://www.publicationshare.com/
SFX7EED.pdf
Brame, C. J. (n. d.). Flipping the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.cft.vanderbilt.edu/
files/Flipping-the-Classroom.pdf
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (1999). How People Learn: Brain,
Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brunsell, E., & Horejsi, M. (2013). Flipping your classroom in one take. The Science Teacher,
80(3), 8.
Bunch, G. C. (2012). Guidelines for ELA instructional materials development. Retrieved from
http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Guidelines%20for%20ELA%20Instructional%
20Materials%20Development.pdf
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
46
California Department of Education. (2013, March). Standards for English Language Arts,
6-12. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results.
American Journal of Physics 69(9), 970-977.
Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment
physics class. Science, 332, 862-864. doi:10.1126/science.1201783
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2006). Creating literacy-rich schools for adolescents. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2010). Preparing students for master of 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca
& R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 220-240).
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Flumerfelt, S., & Green, G. (2011). Using lean in the flipped classroom for at risk students.
Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 356-366.
Fulton, K. P. (2012). 10 reasons to flip. The Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 20-24.
Harasim, L. M. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. New York, NY: Routledge.
Herried, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of
College Science Teaching 42(5), 62-66.
Hrastinski, S. (2008, November 17). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning.
EDUCAUSEreview online, 31(4), 1-7. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/
ero/article/asynchronous-and-synchronous-e-learning
International Reading Association Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Committee. (2012).
Literacy implentation guidance for the ELA Common Cores State Standards.
Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/Libraries/association-documents/ira_ccss_
guidelines.pdf
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
47
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2009). The Kirkpatrick Four LevelsTM: A fresh look
after 50 years, 1959-2009. Retrieved from http://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/Portals/0/
Resources/Kirkpatrick%20Four%20Levels%20white%20paper.pdf
Mazur, E. (2009). Farewell, lecture? Science, 323, 50-51. doi:10.1126/science.1168927
McTighe, J. & Wiggins, G. (2004). Understanding by design: Professional development
workbook. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Medina, J. J. (2008). Brain rules. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.
Mehlenbacher, B. (1993). Software usability: Choosing appropriate methods for evaluating
online systems and documentation. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/users/b/
brad_m/web/research/usability93.pdf
NCTE. (2013, February). The NCTE Definition of 21st Century Literacies. Retrieved from
http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentdefinition
Novak, G. M. & Middendorf, J. (2004). Just-in-time teaching. Retrieved from
http://www.pkal.org/documents/JustinTimeTeaching.cfm
Palacio, R. J. (2012). Wonder. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Pearson, P., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Education Psychology, 8(3), 317-344. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X
Prensky, M. (2011). A huge leap for the classroom. Educational Technology. Retrieved from
http://marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-EDTECH-LearningCatalytics-Nov-Dec-2011FINAL.pdf
Prensky, M. (2012). From digital natives to digital wisdom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Quesenbery, W. (2001). What does usability mean: Looking beyond "ease of use."
Retrieved from http://www.wqusability.com/articles/more-than-ease-of-use.html
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
48
Robert, L. P. & Dennis, A. R. (2005). Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice.
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(1), 10-21.
Schunk, D. H., & Cox, P. D. (1986). Strategy training and attributional feedback with
learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 201-209.
Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation,
and task orientation. Learning Environment Research, 15, 171-193.
doi:10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom. Questia.com
Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/the-flippedclassroom/
U. S. Department of Education. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online
learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
Wagner, D., Laforge, P., & Cripps, D. (2013). Lecture material retention: A first trial report
on flipped classroom strategies in electronic systems engineering at the University of
Regina. Proceedings of CEEA13 Conference. Retrieved from
http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/4804
Warschauer, M. (2010). Invited commentary: New tools for teaching writing. Language,
Learning, and Technology, 14, 3-8. Retrieved from http://lit.msu.edu/vol14num1/
commentary.pdf
What is differentiated instruction? (n. d.). Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.om/teachers/
article/what-differentiated-instruction.
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
49
Wiest, D. J., Wong, E. H., Cervantes, J. M., Craik, L., & Kreil, D. A. (2001). Intrinsic motivation
among regular, special, and alternative education high school students. Adolescence, 36,
111-126.
Williams, R., & Tollett, J. (2006). The non-designer's web book. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.
Willis, J. (2011, May 24). How to plan instruction using the video game model. [Web log post].
Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/how-to-plan-instruction-video-game-modeljudy-willis-md
RESPONDING TO PREJUDICE
50
APPENDICES
Appendix A
End of Unit Student Survey
End of Unit Survey