You are on page 1of 6

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=-_Xp3yNNStw
This lesson demonstrates the concept of a flipped method of instruction; instead of
having a lecture-style class and then solving problems as homework, students first watch a
recording of the theoretical aspects of the lesson then spend the class time solving problems.
An area in which this model of instruction has potential to be superior to a traditional
classroom is in the introduction of new vocabulary. The teacher mentioned that he uses the
recordings to introduce new mathematical terms, so that the students can pause and re-watch
if they dont fully understand the meaning initially. This essentially allows for unlimited
take-up time; a component that is vital to the process of questioning ("Asking effective
questions: Provoking student thinking/ deepening conceptual understanding in the
mathematics classroom.", 2016). There are also potential downsides to this approach, as
students are not able to ask the teacher for further elaboration if the recordings definition is
not adequate for them. There is also little opportunity for the teacher to get feedback from the
students when solving problems; open-ended questions, a highly important type of
questioning ("Asking effective questions: Provoking student thinking/ deepening conceptual
understanding in the mathematics classroom.", 2016), in particular would be difficult to pose
in this format of instruction.
It was good to see the teacher providing some explanations for the results obtained by
the null-factor law, as well as anticipating mistakes the students will make on the multiple
choice question and providing explanations as to why the students may arrive at these
incorrect answers. This demonstrates a level of Anticipatory Thinking; a key component of
PCK for mathematics (Hauk, Toney, Jackson, Nair & Tsay, 2014). An important part of the
teacher-student communication process that was absent from this video was the teacher
asking students who failed to obtain the correct answer to explain their reasoning. Doing so
would have allowed the teacher to gain insights into the students thinking, and would have
demonstrated a Knowledge of Discourse (Hauk et al., 2014).

Providing a visual aid for the learning goals and the intended outcomes was a good
thing to see, as the students would be able to refer to this throughout the duration of the
lesson, helping them determine whether or not they were making sufficient progress, and also
demonstrates knowledge of the content and curriculum (Hurrell, 2013). An area in which the
teachers verbal communication could have been improved was when he talked to the
whiteboard; this is an easily-fixed mistake, but it is important to make every effort to allow
communication to be clear. Other than the few areas for potential improvement, the teachers
communication methods appeared to be adequate, as there was little to suggest that the
students were not clear on any of the subject matter.
The main area in which this lesson differs from a traditional lesson is the flipped
nature. The decision to flip the classroom is in itself potentially a method of increasing
engagement; Clark (2015) found, in a study of a US high school, that students generally
considered learning mathematics in a flipped classroom to be more interesting than traditional
approach. The level of engagement the students have in this particular class is somewhat
difficult to determine, due the editing of the video, but the post-class interviews with the
students appear to have a desirable impact on engagement.
Other than the flipped nature of the classroom, the most prominent feature of student
engagement was the use of the USB remote voting system. Perhaps the most comparable
alternative is using a show of hands. The use of the technology may be superior for a few
reasons. With a show of hands, students may often base their decision on that of their peers,
whereas the remote voting system is more likely to produce a true reflection on the answers
the students arrived at. Additionally, the instant production of a graph of solutions is an
example of technology helping to explore authentic data; something recommended by Goos,
Stillman, & Vale (2007) as a component of teaching mathematics with technology. Finally,
there is the simple matter that the students appeared to be more interested in the lesson when
the remote voting system was used.

The main area in which engagement was lacking is similar to the area in which
communication could be improved (although this, again, could be due to the editing of the
video not giving a complete picture of the lesson as a whole). It would have been nice to see
more interaction with the students throughout the lesson, as the snapshots of the teacher
providing one-on-one instruction appear to simply involve the teacher telling the student how
to solve a problem, rather than getting input and giving feedback.
Based on the reactions of the students in the post-lesson interview, this lesson appears
to have been successful in engaging the class, something that was at least partially attributed
to the flipped model of instruction. As this agrees with Clarks (2015) findings on the
subject of engagement, it would be interesting to see how this model of teaching affects
student engagement across a wider range of schools.
It is difficult to judge the quality of the content in this video, as there is little of the
actual problems shown. The few problems that were worked through as a group appeared to
be those that only a lower order of understanding is needed to solve in terms of Blooms
Taxonomy (Anderson & Sosniak, 1994). An area for potential improvement would be if a
higher-order problem be solved with the group, so that the students can make links between
the various mathematical concepts, as doing so can help to improve mathematical
understanding (Goos, Stillman &Vale, 2007).
While the flipped classroom approach has been shown to improve engagement
levels, Clark (2015) found no significant change in student learning when using the
alternative method of teaching. Such an approach could certainly be successful, although it
may take some time for the students to adapt to such a teaching approach. The lack of change
in student learning found by Clark (2015) may be due to this reason, and with greater time to
adapt to the new method of instruction the students might have improved.
The differentiation of the content was good to see. As the teacher pointed out himself,
the idea of presenting the same material in the same way for all students is a poor idea. It is
difficult to further analyse the quality of the differentiated tasks, but the idea of curriculum

differentiation is strongly supported by research (Arzhanik, M., Chernikova, E., Karas, S., &
Lemeshko, E., 2014; Evans, 2015).
Simulating exam conditions has both good and bad points. The main benefit of such
an environment is that students are better prepared for the actual exam conditions, which is
likely to reduce stress experienced. On the negative side however, is that short, pure
problems have been shown to be less effective than rich mathematical tasks (i.e.
mathematics problems that require multiple mathematical processes to solve) in increasing
mathematical understanding (Goos, Stillman & Vale, 2007; Widyatiningtyas, Kusumah,
Sumarmo, Sabandar, 2015). Given that the teacher stated that there was roughly six months
until the final exam, it was perhaps too early to be teaching to exam conditions, as the
students may have benefitted more from conceptual questions than from multiple choice
questions.
The activity used for students who were advancing rapidly (the find someone who
task) appeared to involve students working collaboratively in order to solve problems, which
is a good thing to see. Working collaboratively allows students to learn from each other,
essentially diagnosing and treating the areas of mathematical weakness, and also generally
results in a greater level of engagement with the subject matter (Killen, 2013). For the
students who were struggling with the material, it is even more difficult to analyse the quality
of their content, as very little was shown other than them using Khan Academy. With
appropriate instruction, this method of learning can certainly be successful, but it is
impossible to judge the quality of the instruction based solely on the video.
Finally, it was good to see the teacher provide a whole-class summary of how the
lesson went, as this provided feedback for the students as to whether or not they were on the
right track with their learning.
Overall, this lesson appeared to be successful, and the flipped model of instruction
appears to have been successful in this instance. Such a method of instruction could

potentially be more widely utilised, but, as stated previously, it may take some time for the
students to adjust to an alternative means of learning.

References
Anderson, L., & Sosniak, L. (1994). Blooms taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective. Chicago,
IL: National Society for the Study of Education.
Arzhanik, M., Chernikova, E., Karas, S., & Lemeshko, E. (2014). Differentiated approach to
learning in higher education. Procedia, Social and Behavioural Sciences, 166, 287291.
Asking effective questions: Provoking student thinking/ deepening conceptual understanding
in the mathematics classroom.. (2016). Ontario Ministry of Education. Retrieved 8
August 2016. Retrieved from
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/CBS_AskingEffectiv
eQuestions.pdf
Clark, K. (2015). The effects of the flipped model of instruction on student engagement and
performance in the secondary mathematics classroom. Journal of Educators Online,
12(1), 91-115.
Evans, D. (2015). Curriculum adaptations. In A. Ashman (Ed.), Education for inclusion and
diversity (5th ed., pp. 102-129). Melbourne: Pearson Australia.
Goos, M., Stillman, G., & Vale, C. (2007). Teaching secondary school mathematics:
Research and practice for the 21st century. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Hauk, S., Toney, A., Jackson, B., Nair, R., & Tsay, J. (2014). Developing a model of
pedagogical content knowledge for secondary and post-secondary mathematics
instruction. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 2, 16-36. doi:
10.5195/dpj.2014.40
Hurrell, D. (2013). What teachers need to know to teach mathematics: An argument for a
reconceptualised model. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(11), 54-62.
Killen, R. (2013). Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from research and practice (4th ed.).
South Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia.
Widyatiningtyas, R., Kusumah, Y., Sumarmo, U., & Sabandar, J. (2015). The impact of
problem-based learning approach to senior high school students mathematics critical
thinking ability. Indonesian Mathematical Society Journal on Mathematics
Education, 6(2), 30-38.