1. Daniel C. Moos, PhD Caitlin Bonde

2. Overview Introduction Introduction to flipped classrooms Theoretical framework to examine learning Prior empirical research Rationale for study Overview of Study Method & procedure Results Discussion Daniel C. Moos, PhD Department of Education Gustavus Adolphus College AERA 2013

3. Introduction to Flipped Classrooms (I) “…what is traditionally done in class is now done at home, and that which is traditionally done in home is now completed in class” Bergmann & Sams, 2012, pg. 13

4. Introduction to Flipped Classrooms (II) Nonlinear: Student control pacing of content delivery: Meet individual cognitive needs Multiple representations: Dual Coding Theory: Auditory and visual channels Learning Styles (visual, auditory) Class time: Increased opportunity for collaborative activities  Are these benefits realized?  Mixed findings on learning product, limited research on learning process Potential Benefits

5. Context: Hypermedia Learning Daniel C. Moos, PhD Department of Education Gustavus Adolphus College AERA 2013 Non-linear Multiple Representations

6. Theoretical Frameworks Social Cognitive Approach (Zimmerman, 2000)

7. Summary of past research SRL highly predictive of learning outcomes in variety of contexts with various developmental groups (Bembenutty, 2011; Butler, Cartier, Schnellert, 2011; Cleary & Sandars, 2011; Cleary & Platten, 2013; DiBenedetto & Bembenutty, 2013; McPherson & Renwick, 2011; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2013) ….particularly true with hypermedia (Azevedo et al. 2010, 2011, 2012; Greene et al. 2013; Moos, 2010, 2013, 2014) Many students, including undergraduates, do NOT adequately self-regulate their learning in nonlinear environments with multiple representations (Moos & Stewart, 2013) Videos share inherent design features with hypermedia: Nonlinear; Multiple representations … Similar SRL challenges when learning with a video designed for a flipped classroom? Can embedded SRL scaffolds facilitate learning?

8. Research Questions Daniel C. Moos, PhD Department of Education Gustavus Adolphus College AERA 2013 What self-regulatory processes predict students’ control of video? To what extent do embedded prompts affect SRL? To what extent do embedded prompts affect learning outcomes? To what extent do embedded prompts affect instructional efficiency?

9. Participants & Measures (I) Participants (N = 32) 20 females (63%) ; 12 males (37%) Age Mean 19.93 (SD = 0.92) Small sample due to time intensive nature of experimental procedure and think-aloud coding Measures/ Coding and Scoring Prior knowledge/ Learning Outcomes: Mental Model Essay (Reliability =.78) Mental effort: Likert scale at the end of the video (typical measure for instructional efficiency)

10. Participants & Measures (II) SRL: Think-aloud data (approximately 14 hours of audio and video from Silverback) + “This makes total sense…” Understanding - + - “I don’t get this…” “That diagram is totally irrelevant” “That had really good information” Content “I remember talking about Behaviorism in Psychology” Prior Knowledge Activation PLANNINGMONITORING

11. Participants & Measures (III) Pause/Restart STRATEGIES Take NotesSummarizeReview Notes RewindMake an inferenceRe-read SRL: Think-aloud data (approximately 14 hours of audio and video from Silverback)

12. Pretest Posttest Walkthrough & Directions Video designed for flipped classroom Prior Knowledge SRL Learning Outcomes Procedure

13. Intervention SRL Learning prompts: Planning Phase: What do you already know about motivating students? What questions do you have about motivating students? What strategies do you think will be effective while learning about motivation in this video? Monitoring Phase: What information have you learned so far? Is there anything presented so far that you do not understand? Reflection Phase: What did you learn about motivating students? What questions (if any) do you have about the information presented and/or is there anything that you did not understand in the video? Do you need to go back in the video and fill any gaps in understanding?

14. Results : Research question #1 Monitoring of Understanding (-) significantly predicts the frequency with which participants paused and restarted the video Monitoring of Understanding (-) and Content Evaluation (+) significantly predict the frequency with which participants replayed a portion of the video What extent do embedded prompts promote self- regulated learning?

15. Results : Research question #2

16. Results : Research question #2, continued

17. Results : Research question #2 (& #4), continued

18. Results : Research question #3 x

19. Discussion What do we want to know? Do students pause and replay the video when they are struggling with the content? What processes lead students to pause and replay the video? Can embedded prompts support SRL processes? Participants in control condition rarely monitored their learning/ activated prior knowledge Embedded SRL prompts: positively affected both learning processes and outcomes did not affect mental effort  Incorrect perception that “digital natives” inherently understand how to learn with technology Robust body of research suggests undergraduates do not adequately self-regulate their learning, particularly with technology Future Directions: Currently examining prompting different SRL phases (monitoring only, planning only)

20. Acknowledgments: Caitlin Bonde Contact Information: Email: dmoos@gustavus.edu Website: homepages.gac.edu/~dmoos