Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
READS
21
1 author:
Kim Sydow Campbell
University of North Texas
35 PUBLICATIONS 295
CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
608847
research-article2015
Article
Abstract
Flipping originated in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, where
didactic transmission of conceptual knowledge has been the standard pedagogy.
Flipping has resulted in additional focus on procedural knowledge within class
meetings. This article argues that business and professional writing pedagogy, which
already focuses largely on procedural knowledge within class meetings, would benefit
from flipping because it could create an additional focus on conceptual knowledge
outside of the classroom. The article explains why we need to teach conceptual
foundations, why video is a good choice for that teaching, and what challenges we
face in creating those instructional videos.
Keywords
business writing, curriculum design, feedback, instructional interventions, knowledge
types, lectures, video, writing pedagogy
Introduction
Flipping is big. A Google search for the phrase flipped classroom in July of 2015
identified around 2.5 million results, an impressive number considering the earliest
references to it appear to be the now-famous 2006 YouTube videos by Salman Khan, a
2006 PowerPoint presentation (Tenneson & McGlasson, 2006), and a 2007 dissertation
(Strayer, 2007). In simple terms, flipping refers to inverting the in-class and out-ofclass activities of students (Lage, Platt, & Treglia, 2000). To understand the popularity
1University
of Alabama, USA
Corresponding Author:
Kim Sydow Campbell, University of Alabama, Box 870225, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0225, USA.
Email: kcampbel@cba.ua.edu
of flipping, it is important to note its originators were all involved in STEM (science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics) teaching. Because of the poor showing of
U.S. students in international comparisons of math and science competence, STEM
educators are under tremendous pressure to improve learning as measured by the
Programme for International Student Assessment (Ostler, 2012).
To explore the potential of flipping for business and professional writing education,
this article answers four questions: (a) What types of knowledge are emphasized in
teaching across disciplines? (b) Why do we need to teach conceptual knowledge about
business and professional writing? (c) Why should we use video to teach conceptual
knowledge? and (d) What are the challenges to flipping conceptual foundations of
business and professional writing?
Flipped Classrooms
the utility of science not to present science as too crassly materialistic and without higher
virtue. (p. 583)
STEM pedagogy was primarily focused on national security concerns by the post
World War II period (DeBoer, 2000). This focus, along with the growth of knowledge
from sponsored research in STEM areas, resulted in a default pedagogy of transmission consisting of too much repetition, copying notes from the board and a lack of
space for students to engage personally or discursively with the subject (Osborne,
2007, p. 176). Labs were created to provide active learning experiences about topics
like cell organization in biology, but didactic transmission of knowledge via the lecture has been standard practice. As Osborne (2007) wrote about the worldwide situation, science is taught as dogma and not as a body of knowledge to be approached,
discussed, and evaluated (p. 182).
In stark contrast, writing instruction in the United States has deep classical roots,
going back through the British educational system to the Roman practices focused on
Greek literature and rhetoric. Classical education may have taken place within a clear
power hierarchy, but it also demanded active student participation: recitation, Socratic
discussion, in-class writing, and other activities (Clarke, 1959). At the start of the 20th
century, an emphasis on professional preparation meant college English faculty began
teaching writing for journalism, public relations, agriculture, law, engineering, and
business; eventually, many formed or moved into other academic units across campus
(Adams, 1993). Regardless of its academic home, writing instruction has continued to
emphasize active student participation. Whether you visited a business and professional writing classroom in 1898 (Cuban, 1984), 1958 (Wallace, 1958), or today, you
would be unlikely to witness a meeting-long lecture by the instructor.
There is evidence that flipping adds to, rather than simply inverts, pedagogy in
STEM disciplines. From a comprehensive review of flipped classroom research,
Bishop and Verleger (2013) have concluded,
The flipped classroom label is most often assigned to courses that use activities made up
of asynchronous web-based video lectures and closed-ended problems or quizzes. In
many traditional courses, this represents all the instruction students ever get. Thus, the
flipped classroom actually represents an expansion of the curriculum, rather than a mere
re-arrangement of activities. (p. 4)
Thus, for flipped classrooms in STEM disciplines, there is now space during class
meetings to apply, analyze, and evaluate (Krathwohl, 2002) conceptual knowledge,
and that means a new focus on procedural knowledge.
Because of its close connection to both the humanities and to professional practice,
business and professional communication naturally leans toward a pedagogy focused
on procedural knowledge. As Brame (2013) wrote, The flipped classroom approach
has been used for years in some disciplines, notably within the humanities (What is
it? section, para. 1). One study of flipped classrooms across diverse disciplines (STEM,
social science, and humanities) discovered that students in the humanities course
perceived the flipped classroom as inauthentic because they were already engaged in
activities focusing on active, procedural knowledge inside the classroom (Kim, Kim,
Khera, & Getman, 2014). In order to provide evidence that flipping has potential value for
our business and professional communication classrooms, we need to identify what conceptual knowledge our students need. That will be the focus of the following section.
Flipped Classrooms
organization without intention or awareness (Sternberg & Horvath, 1999). As educators, our obligation is to make such knowledge explicit for the other writers. The situation certainly suggests more instruction of the conceptual foundations of our feedback
would be beneficial for business and professional writing students, especially if it
could be delivered outside of class meetings.
Flipped Classrooms
No doubt one of the reasons research has not provided unequivocally positive
results for video lectures in flipped classrooms (DeSantis, Van Curen, Putsch, &
Metzger, 2015) is that designing and producing video is a new skill for faculty.
Instructional designers at one university noted that most videos, like my initial videos
of live lectures, embody a primarily transmissive or didactic approach because they
are relatively straightforward and efficient for teachers and institutions to create
(Thomson, Bridgstock, & Willems, 2014). Thomson etal. (2014) provided four guidelines to making effective educational videos:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Flipped Classrooms
My experience confirms that those who are most resistant to conceptual material tend
to be the worst writers.
Learning foundational concepts of any sort is not easy or fun. As Ericsson etal.
(1993) explained,
Let us briefly illustrate the differences between work and deliberate practice. During a
3-hr baseball game, a batter may get only 5-15 pitches (perhaps one or two relevant to a
particular weakness), whereas during optimal practice of the same duration, a batter
working with a dedicated pitcher has several hundred batting opportunities, where this
weakness can be systematically explored. . . . In contrast to play, deliberate practice is a
highly structured activity, the explicit goal of which is to improve performance. Specific
tasks are invented to overcome weaknesses, and performance is carefully monitored to
provide cues for ways to improve it further. We claim that deliberate practice requires
effort and is not inherently enjoyable. Individuals are motivated to practice because
practice improves performance. (p. 368)
For motivational purposes, it is crucial that my students deliberate practice with concepts is linked to their future goals or activities. For example, when I return feedback
on my students diagnostic (preinstruction) writing, I use a rubric with links to relevant
videos2 and highlight those I have identified as areas for their personal development as
successful professionals.
For me, resistance from neither my colleagues nor my students has been sufficient
to deter me from offering my students the deliberate practice that is necessary for their
professional success. I have found solace in the work of educational psychologists,
who use empirical evidence to refute the urban legend pervading contemporary education that novices know best what they need and should be in control of their own learning (Kirschner & van Merrinboer, 2013).
10
Conclusions
I began this article by clarifying the roots of the flipped classroom within STEM fields
because their disciplinary pedagogy of didactic transmission through lectures has a
distinct history from that of business and professional writing. For flipped classrooms
in STEM disciplines, a focus on procedural knowledge of concepts inside the classroom is an addition to, rather than an inversion of, standard instruction. In contrast,
because of our roots in classical education, business and professional writing pedagogy already focuses on active student participation inside the classroom.
I presented evidence we are wrong to assume our students have the requisite conceptual knowledge to use our feedback on their writing performances. I also noted
that, while useful, rubrics and handbooks are incomplete solutions to the feedback
quality problem. Because discussing all of the relevant, conceptual foundations for
writing in our classrooms is impossible, more out-of-class instruction is warranted.
Thus, building conceptual knowledge through videos also represents more addition to
than inversion of our business and professional writing pedagogy.
I ended with an explication of three challenges to flipping instruction of conceptual
foundations for our business and professional writing students: (a) identifying and
developing conceptual materials to flip, (b) designing and producing instructional videos, and (c) overcoming faculty and student resistance. While the challenges are real,
the potential rewards are great.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Notes
1.
2.
References
Adams, K. H. (1993). A history of professional writing instruction in American colleges: Years
of acceptance, growth, and doubt (SMU studies in composition and rhetoric series). College
Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Alred, G. J., Brusaw, C. T., & Oliu, W. E. (2011). The business writers handbook (10th ed.).
New York, NY: St. Martins Press.
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: Reading and writing as
natural language activities. Language Arts, 60, 168-175.
11
Flipped Classrooms
12
DiRienzo, C., & Lilly, G. (2014). Online versus face-to-face: Does delivery method matter for
undergraduate business school learning? Business Education & Accreditation, 6(1), 1-11.
Dixon, Z., & Moxley, J. (2013). Everything is illuminated: What big data can tell us about
teacher commentary. Assessing Writing, 18, 241-256. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2013.08.002
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97-107.
doi:10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., Tesch-Romer, C., Ashworth, C., Carey, G., Grassia, J., . . .
Schneider, V. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.
Ferris, D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers philosophies and practices.
Assessing Writing, 19, 6-23. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.004
Fielden, J. S., & Dulek, R. E. (1984). How to use bottom-line writing in corporate communications. Business Horizons, 27(4), 24-30.
Glaser, R. (1983). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge (Technical Report No. PDS6). Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a130532.pdf
Gold, D. (2008). Rhetoric at the margins: Revising the history of writing instruction in American
colleges, 1873-1947. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1987). Synthesis of research on teaching writing. Educational Leadership,
44(8), 71-82.
Howard, R. M. (2002). The fraud of composition pedagogy: What I learned from writing a
handbook. In 53rd Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and
Communication (pp. 3-17). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED462717.pdf
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 16, 148-164. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and
educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2, 130-144. doi:10.1016/j.
edurev.2007.05.002
Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped
classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. Internet and Higher
Education, 22, 37-50. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.003
Kirschner, P. A., & van Merrinboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban
legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48, 169-183. doi:10.1080/00461520.201
3.804395
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Experiential learning theory. In S. J. Armstrong & C. V.
Fukami (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development
(pp. 1-59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Blooms taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41, 212-218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kryder, L. G. (2003). Grading for speed, consistency, and accuracy. Business Communication
Quarterly, 66(1), 90-93. doi:10.1177/108056990306600112
Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an
inclusive learning environment. Journal of Economic Education, 31, 30-43.
Marx, R. D., & Frost, P. J. (1998). Toward optimal use of video in management education:
Examining the evidence. Journal of Management Development, 17, 243-250.
Middendorf, J., & Kalish, A. (1996). The change-up in lectures. National Teaching &
Learning Forum, 5(2), 1-5.
Morton, A. (2009). Lecturing to large groups. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.),
A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice
(3rd ed., pp. 58-71). New York, NY: Routledge.
Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on December 2, 2015
13
Flipped Classrooms
Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer
feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37, 375-401. doi:10.1007/
s11251-008-9053-x
Ortiz, L. A. (2013). A heuristic tool for teaching business writing: Self-assessment, knowledge transfer, and writing exercises. Business Communication Quarterly, 76, 226-238.
doi:10.1177/1080569912466438
Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3, 173-184.
Ostler, E. (2012). 21st Century STEM education: A tactical model for long-range success.
International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 2(1), 28-33.
Pagel, S., & Westerfelhaus, R. (2005). Charting managerial reading preferences in relation to popular management theory books: A semiotic analysis. Journal of Business
Communication, 42, 420-448. doi:10.1177/0021943605276803
Parker, F., & Campbell, K. S. (1993). Linguistics and writing: A reassessment. College
Composition and Communication, 44, 295-314.
Parr, J. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2010). Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching and learning and student progress. Assessing Writing, 15, 68-85. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2010.05.004
Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of
instructional media. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(1), 53-64.
Riley, K. (1988). Speech act theory and degrees of directness in professional writing. Technical
Writing Teacher, 15, 1-29.
Riley, K., Campbell, K. S., Manning, A., & Parker, F. (2011). Revising professional writing
in science and technology, business, and the social sciences (3rd ed.). Hilton Head, SC:
Parlay Press.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 175-189.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97-118). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Schullery, N. M., Reck, R. F., & Schullery, S. E. (2011). Toward solving the high enrollment,
low engagement dilemma: A case study in introductory business. International Journal of
Business, Humanities and Technology, 1(2), 1-9.
Schultz, H. (2013). A hybrid recursive model for teaching and learning business writing.
Business Communication Quarterly, 76, 82-104. doi:10.1177/1080569912466255
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication,
33, 148-156.
Star, J. R. (2000). On the relationship between knowing and doing in procedural learning. In B.
Fishman & S. OConnor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth International Conference of the Learning
Sciences (pp. 80-86). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Starcher, K., & Proffitt, D. (2011). Encouraging students to read: What professors are (and
arent) doing about it. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
23, 396-407.
Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (1999). Tacit knowledge in professional practice: Researcher
and practitioner perspectives. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Still, B., & Koerber, A. (2010). Listening to students: A usability evaluation of instructor commentary. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24, 206-233.
doi:10.1177/1050651909353304
14
Strayer, J. F. (2007). The effects of the classroom flip on the learning environment: A comparison of learning activity in a traditional classroom and a flip classroom that used an intelligent tutoring system (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.
send_file?accession=osu1189523914&disposition=inline
Suchan, J., & Colucci, R. (1989). An analysis of communication efficiency between highimpact and bureaucratic written communication. Management Communication Quarterly,
2, 454-484. doi:10.1177/0893318989002004002
Sundeen, T. H. (2014). Instructional rubrics: Effects of presentation options on writing quality.
Assessing Writing, 21, 74-88.
Telg, R. (2009). Producing your own video program. Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/
wc022
Tenneson, M., & McGlasson, B. (2006). The classroom flip. Retrieved from www.fontbonne.
edu/upload/TheClassroomFlip.ppt
Thayer, A., Evans, M. B., McBride, A. A., Queen, M., & Spyridakis, J. H. (2010). I, pronoun:
A study of formality in online content. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication,
40, 447-458.
Thomson, A., Bridgstock, R., & Willems, C. (2014). Teachers flipping out beyond the online
lecture: Maximising the educational potential of video. Journal of Learning Design, 7,
67-78.
Villanueva, V. (Ed.). (2003). Cross talk in comp theory: A reader (2nd ed.). Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Wallace, J. W. (1958). The reference paper and in-class writing. College English, 19, 166-167.
Walvoord, B. E., & Anderson, V. J. (2009). Effective gradings: A tool for learning and assessment in college (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Williams, J. M., & Bizup, J. (2014). Style: Lessons in clarity and grace (11th ed.). Boston, MA:
Longman.
Wolfe, J., Britt, C., & Poe Alexander, K. (2011). Teaching the IMRaD genre: Sentence combining and pattern practice revisited. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 25,
119-158. doi:10.1177/1050651910385785
Young, J. (2012, January 24). The LectureFail project. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-LectureFail-Project/130085/
Yunxia, Z. (2000). Building knowledge structures in teaching cross-cultural sales genres.
Business Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 49-68. doi:10.1177/108056990006300405
Author Biography
Kim Sydow Campbell is a professor of management communication in the Culverhouse
College of Commerce. As a linguist who studies workplace language, she earned the title of
Kitty O. Locker Outstanding Researcher from ABC. She served as editor of the IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication for 10 years.