Flipping to Teach the Conceptual Foundations of Successful Workplace Writing

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285545625

Flipping to Teach the Conceptua Conceptuall Foundations of Successful Successful Workplace Writing Article · January January

2016

DOI: 10.1177/2329490615608847

READS

21

1 author:

Kim Sydow Campbell University of North Texas 35 PUBLICATIONS

295

CITATIONS SEE PROFILE

Available Available from: Kim Sydow Campbell Retrieved on: 09 August 2016

research-article2015

Flipped rly Classrooms BCQXXX10.1177/2329490615608847Business and Professional Communication Quarte

Article

Flipping to Teach the Conceptual Foundations of Successful Workplace Writing

Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 1 –14 © 2015 by the Association for Business Communication Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2329490615608847 bcq.sagepub.com

Kim Sydow Campbell1

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: [email protected]

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on December 2, 2015

2

Business and Professional Communication Quarterly

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?

What Types of Knowledge Are Emphasized in Disciplinary Pedagogies? Research in developmental psychology and cognitive science identifies “the possession and utilization of an organized body of conceptual and procedural knowledge” as the key to thinking and problem solving (Glaser, 1983, p. 12). Conceptual knowledge has also been called declarative knowledge and knowledge about a topic, while procedural knowledge has been called deep knowledge and knowledge of a topic (Day, Arthur, & Gettman, 2001; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). Star (2000) argued convincingly that both conceptual and procedural knowledge can be deep, as well as superficial. Because of their closer connection with a professional practice, disciplines like business and professional writing naturally lean toward a pedagogy focused on procedural knowledge of topics like message organization, while disciplines like biology lean toward a pedagogy focused on conceptual knowledge of topics like cell organization. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Krathwohl, 2002) and Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle (Kolb & Kolb, 2009) support the distinction between conceptual and procedural knowledge. To illustrate, the discipline of biology is primarily concerned with conceptual knowledge about mitosis, which is different from medicine, which has a related concern with procedural knowledge of choosing a chemotherapy dose that will inhibit mitosis. The basic conceptual knowledge of biology is clear by scanning the table of contents for a basic textbook. However, the conceptual knowledge for medicine is presented somewhat differently in a textbook, where the emphasis is on how biochemistry is involved in understanding human diseases. Regardless of when and how conceptual knowledge is presented to students, there is evidence that it has a causal relationship with procedural knowledge (Rittle-Johnson & Alibali, 1999). Clearly, pedagogic norms differ by academic area (Berthiaume, 2009). STEM pedagogy has a relatively short history. As DeBoer (2000) wrote about the beginnings of science education in 19th-century Europe and the United States, The humanities were firmly entrenched as the subjects that were thought to lead to the most noble and worthy educational outcomes. Scientists had to be careful when arguing


3

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


4


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.

Why Do We Need to Teach Conceptual Foundations for Writing? Every teacher of business and professional writing knows that our raison d’être is developing our students’ procedural knowledge—even if we do not label it that way. But what conceptual knowledge forms the foundation for that procedural knowledge? One window on our discipline’s conceptual knowledge is the feedback we provide students on their writing performances. For example, if I tell my student the tone or the organization of her draft email is not likely to be effective in meeting her goals, I am providing formative feedback intended to diagnose a gap between her current and the ideal performance. I intend the use of terms like “tone” and “organization” to transform knowledge of those concepts into instruction for this individual student in her current performance (Parr & Timperley, 2010). I pursue the connection between conceptual knowledge and the quality of feedback on student writing in this section. Research has established that writing teachers often provide feedback that is unclear and unusable (Crews & Wilkinson, 2010; Ferris, 2014). In a small but instructive study, think-aloud protocols of 12 students processing teacher feedback on a business and professional writing assignment revealed that 40% of the total usability problems identified were related to conceptual understanding ( Still & Koerber, 2010). Researchers provided the following examples: •

•

•

Two students commented that they did not know the meaning of the term verb tense. When asked about this problem during the posttest interview, both students confirmed that they were not familiar enough with this grammatical concept to make the fix themselves and would prefer that the instructor indicate the correct verb tense instead of just pointing out the error. One student commented that he did not know the meaning of pronoun reference. He confirmed in the posttest interview that he was unfamiliar with the term and would prefer that the instructor offer a specific recommendation for correcting the problem. One student commented that she did not know what the instructor meant by tone. When asked about this comment in the posttest interview, she claimed to have a general understanding of the term but did not know how to improve that aspect of her writing (Still & Koerber, 2010).

Not surprisingly, these students rarely attempted to interpret or use comments they found unclear. We can conclude that simply naming the category of problem in our feedback is unlikely to help our student writers.


5

Flipped Classrooms

To improve feedback quality on writing performance, as well as teacher efficiency (Kryder, 2003), instructors have long recommended rubrics. Use of rubrics promotes learning and improves instruction partly because it makes foundational concepts explicit (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007). Research shows the use of a common rubric in multisection writing courses increased the quality of feedback ( Dixon & Moxley, 2013). Sadly, rubrics may be too vague to be useful to learners (Hyland, 2007). Furthermore, in an insightful review of the research on rubrics for writing instruction, Sundeen (2014) wrote, “Although we may believe that it is a ‘given’ that rubrics elements are explicitly taught to students prior to beginning a writing task, the literature does not support this assertion” (p. 84). If I assign a low value/score for tone or organization on a rubric with feedback on my student’s draft email, I assume she understands the concepts well enough to discern their relevance to improving her document. If I have not taught her about reader-focused tone or bottom-line organization because I assume she entered my classroom with the relevant conceptual knowledge, I have probably made a mistake. Explanations of feedback, including its conceptual foundations, influence an immediate performance and also translate to learning that influences future performances (Ellis, 2009; Nelson & Schunn, 2009). To explain concepts like reader-focused tone or bottom-line organization, many instructors refer students to outside sources (e.g., handbooks, etc.). Unfortunately, one writing handbook author lamented their inherent limitations (Howard, 2002). To be comprehensive, handbooks and usage guides must limit the amount of information they provide about any one concept; this has resulted in what some have labeled reductive rhetoric (Gold, 2008). In the best of cases, my student writer would find a definition and a brief example for a concept like bottomline organization in a handbook. While this might be sufficient to remind the student of concepts she has already learned, it will not be enough instruction to help her learn the conceptual foundations if she has not done so previously. To summarize, conceptual knowledge about business and professional writing is assumed, especially in our performance feedback, but not often explicitly taught. Because those concepts are unclear to students, our feedback is often unclear and unusable. Rubrics are incomplete solutions to the feedback quality problem because explanations are critical for many students. Referring to sources like handbooks is an incomplete solution because their explanatory content is generally more informative than instructive. To make matters worse, creating those explanations ourselves for individual student performances requires significant amounts of time, growing exponentially with the number of writers we are coaching. Discussing such conceptual foundations in our classrooms would be ideal since we know that feedback on individual performances should reinforce what has been covered in the classroom (Sommers, 1982). The challenge is that the amount of knowledge (both conceptual and procedural) required to develop into a competent apprentice writer is too vast to talk about comprehensively in a single college course. In addition, that knowledge is unevenly distributed among the students in each of our classrooms. Some writers acquire tacit procedural knowledge of concepts like reader-focused tone or bottom-line


6


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.

Why Use Video to Teach Conceptual Knowledge? For the reasons noted above, I have created dozens of videos to support my teaching. 1 Let me briefly explain how I settled on video as the tool for flipping instruction in conceptual foundations. Regardless of their discipline or other pedagogical beliefs, instructors tend to agree that students learn best when first exposure to conceptual knowledge occurs prior to its use within the classroom (Ben-Hur, 2006; Walvoord & Anderson, 2009). This has been the impetus for assigning out-of-class readings from textbooks or other written resources. Sadly, my own students’ noncompliance with assigned reading appears to be the norm (Berry, Cook, Hill, & Stevens, 2010; Starcher & Proffitt, 2011). Along with reading, the lecture has a long history as a technique for building conceptual knowledge. It is worth noting that negative comments about lecturing, for example, in the LectureFail Project (Young, 2012), focus primarily on presenter performance quality: vocal characteristics, nonverbal behaviors, organizational structures, visual aids, and so on (Morton, 2009). With one important exception, I have rarely lectured about anything in a business/professional writing classroom, including conceptual knowledge, for as long as 15 minutes. The exception involved an experimental approach with a weekly 50-minute mass lecture attended by hundreds of students, accompanied by weekly labs/studios with smaller groups. That time period was the impetus for my own journey into flip ping. I began recording my live lectures with Tegrity in 2008 to accommodate students in the course who wanted to review them when absent, doing homework, or studying for an exam. Although the educational success of lecturing is now widely disparaged, the basic tenets of the flipped classroom as developed within STEM do not include eliminating them. Instead, lectures covering foundational STEM concepts are made available to students outside of class meetings, normally as video (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Osborne, 2007; Ostler, 2012). Video has been used in education since the 1920s (Reiser, 2001). Historically, videos’ most common pedagogic aim in business education has been to enhance student affect, most notably attention arousal or motivation (Marx & Frost, 1998). However, there is growing evidence that undergraduate business students prefer to view conceptual material via out-of-class video rather than completing assigned reading or attending live lectures (e.g., DiRienzo & Lilly, 2014; Schullery, Reck, & Schullery, 2011). For me, the success of video is tied to the fact that it can deliver a learning scaffold on demand or just in time, when students are engaged in some activity for which conceptual knowledge is foundational or explanatory (Campbell, 2012).


7

Flipped Classrooms

What Are the Challenges to Flipping Conceptual Foundations? Now that I have presented my argument that using video to flip the instruction of conceptual material underlying performance feedback would be a welcome addition to business and professional writing pedagogy, let me document the challenges to doing so.

Challenge 1: Identifying and Developing Conceptual Material The choice of concepts to flip should be determined by gaps in students’ knowledge. One of the most significant gaps in my own students’ procedural knowledge of business and professional writing shows up in every diagnostic assignment—getting the bottom-line message in the right place for workplace readers. Likewise, nearly all of my students struggle with achieving a businesslike tone. Thus, the conceptual foundations for bottom-line organization and reader-focused tone were priorities for my own efforts at video development. Once concepts are identified, you have to develop materials to teach them. Specialized handbooks (Alred, Brusaw, & Oliu, 2011) or workbooks focused on revision (Williams & Bizup, 2014) are potential sources. Because I am committed to providing evidence-based instruction, I have based my videos as much as possible on published research: for bottom-line organization (e.g., Campbell, Brammer, & Ervin, 1999; Fielden & Dulek, 1984; Pagel & Westerfelhaus, 2005; Suchan & Colucci, 1989) and readerfocused tone (e.g., Brown & Levinson, 1987; Campbell, Riley, & Parker, 1990; Riley, 1988; Thayer, Evans, McBride, Queen, & Spyridakis, 2010). My own videos supplement a revision workbook that contains explanatory material and exercises based on an overlapping body of research (Riley, Campbell, Manning, & Parker, 2011).

Challenge 2: Designing and Producing Videos There are many resources available to address this challenge (e.g., Deakin Learning Futures, 2014; Telg, 2009), probably including instructional technology experts on your own campus. The technical tools I have used to create and produce videos are widely available and relatively low cost because they can be purchased with educational licenses. I have primarily used Prezi Desktop, a cloud-based presentation software, to create the visual components. Camtasia Studio 7.1 was used to record audio on a laptop computer with a microphone and also to edit the audiovisual recording and produce the videos as mp4 files, which can be hosted on an institutional site (e.g., a learning management system) or another website, such as YouTube. The time required to design and produce instructional videos is significant. Many instructional designers use estimates from a survey of nearly 4,000 designers conducted by Chapman Alliance, which found each minute of basic (noninteractive) audiovisual content required between 50 and 125 minutes to create (Chapman, 2010). Before you begin flipping with video, you should know what the institutional rewards for your time commitment would be.


8


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 et al. (2014) provided four guidelines to making effective educational videos: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Tell (show!) a visual story. Present with authenticity (requires on-camera confidence and presence). Keep it short and to the point (average YouTube video is ~4 minutes). Give context and align purpose outside the video itself.

When I began this flipping journey, my videos reflected only my attempt to be a good live presenter, which meant managing vocal characteristics, nonverbal behaviors, organizational structures, visual aids, and so on (Morton, 2009). After I realized my live lectures were not nearly as narrative or as visual as they needed to be to work as stand-alone videos (Guideline 1), I began planning them differently and recording them in my office in 2012, gradually replacing the ones recorded live. I attempted to overcome the limits of my live lectures by framing each video with a story about a specific document. For example, my video on tone revolves around an email from a financial services company to customers. Authenticity took care of itself when I was recording lectures I gave in front of a live audience (Guideline 2). However, when I began producing video tutorials from my office, I made a conscious choice not to record my “talking head,” partly because of my lack of experience on camera. Instead, I wrote a script in which I spoke to students as if they were present and practiced performing the voice-over before recording the audio that plays with the animated visual content. I have room for improvement where video length is concerned (Guideline 3). Over time, their length has decreased—from around 45 minutes for the lectures recorded live to under 15 minutes for the recorded tutorials, the time limit research suggests is the maximum for an adult attention span ( Middendorf & Kalish, 1996). I have produced one conceptual video with PowToon (also free for educators), which runs in around 8 minutes. For my next video, I will follow the guidelines by cutting more content and moving all contextual information out of each video and onto the surrounding webpage (Guideline 4), which should reduce the playing time of each by at least a couple of minutes.

Challenge 3: Overcoming Resistance One reason our students lack conceptual knowledge about writing is that explicit instruction in foundational writing concepts has been a controversial pedagogic choice for U.S. faculty at all levels since the 1970s (Howard, 2002; Villanueva, 2003). Writing


9

Flipped Classrooms

experts have said focusing on grammar or style, for example, is counterproductive (Hillocks, 1987). Similarly, instructional scaffolding should be provided without “extensive analysis of component skills” (Applebee & Langer, 1983, p. 168). Nevertheless, some business and professional communication scholars do incorporate a conceptual approach into their pedagogy (e.g., Ortiz, 2013; Schultz, 2013; Yunxia, 2000). The key seems to be recognition that conceptual knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for gains in procedural knowledge ( Parker & Campbell, 1993; Sternberg & Horvath, 1999). Partly because most of my students have not learned the conceptual foundations underlying writing feedback before they enter college, some resist learning them in my classroom. Many do not automatically concede their own struggles. As other business and professional writing instructors have noted, however, We found, ironically, that some of the students who complained the most about the remedial nature of the exercises were students who did not complete them correctly. Perhaps not surprisingly, these were also some of the students who produced the weakest writing in our classes. (Wolfe, Britt, & Poe Alexander, 2011, p. 148)

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 et al. (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 Merriënboer, 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.

Many of these videos can be viewed at http://proswrite.com/videos/. Readers can view a sample at http://proswrite.com/2014/08/18/3-guidelines-for-coachingnovice-workplace-writers/.

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 writer’s handbook (10th ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin’s 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

Ben-Hur, M. (2006). Concept-rich mathematics instruction: Building a strong foundation for reasoning and problem solving . Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/ books/106008.aspx Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012, April 15). How the flipped classroom is radically transforming learning. The Daily Riff . Retrieved from http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/how-theflipped-classroom-is-radically-transforming-learning-536.php Berry, T., Cook, L., Hill, N., & Stevens, K. (2010). An exploratory analysis of textbook usage and study habits: Misperceptions and barriers to success. College Teaching , 59(1), 31-39. doi:10.1080/87567555.2010.509376 Berthiaume, D. (2009). Teaching in the disciplines. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice (3rd ed., pp. 215-225). New York, NY: Routledge. Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research (Paper ID #6219). In 120th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Atlanta, GA: American Society for Engineering Education. Brame, C. (2013). Flipping the classroom. Retrieved from http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub pages/flipping-the-classroom/ Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics: 4). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Campbell, K. S. (2012). Just-in-case and just-in-time use of a video lecture-tutorial to teach students to manage tone in professional writing. Journal of Organizational Behavior Education, 5, 135-144. Campbell, K. S., Brammer, C., & Ervin, N. (1999). Exploring how instruction in style affects writing quality. Business Communication Quarterly, 62(3), 71-86. Campbell, K. S., Riley, K., & Parker, F. (1990). You-perspective: Insights from speech act theory. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 20, 189-199. Chapman, B. (2010). How long does it take to create learning? Retrieved from http://www. slideshare.net/bchapman_utah/how-long-does-it-take-to-create-learning?ref=http://www. chapmanalliance.com/howlong/ Clarke, M. L. (1959). Classical education in Britain: 1500-1900. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Crews, T. B., & Wilkinson, K. (2010). Students’ perceived preference for visual and auditory assessment with e-handwritten feedback. Business Communication Quarterly, 73, 399-412. doi:10.1177/1080569910385566 Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 18901980. Research on teaching monograph series. New York, NY: Longman. Day, E. A., Arthur, W., Jr., & Gettman, D. (2001). Knowledge structures and the acquistion of a complex skill. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 , 1022-1033. Deakin Learning Futures. (2014). Using audio and video for educational purposes. Retrieved from http://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/179013/Modules_1-4_Using_ audio_and_video_for_educational_purposes-2014-02-28.pdf DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 37 , 582-601. DeSantis, J., Van Curen, R., Putsch, J., & Metzger, J. (2015). Do students learn more from a flip? An exploration of the efficacy of flipped and traditional lessons. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 26 (1), 39-63.


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 Merriënboer, 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 Bloom’s 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.


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. O’Connor-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 aren’t) 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 compari son 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.


Flipping to Teach the Conceptual Foundations of Successful Workplace Writing

Recommend Documents