Flipped learning and parent engagement in secondary schools: A South Australian case study

Abstract

Parent involvement in and engagement with children's learning has been shown to strongly influence student achievement, engagement, motivation and school completion. However, parent involvement decreases once students reach middle school, as subject content gets harder, the number of teachers increases, and students are less likely to share their homework and learning with parents. To this end, the flipped learning (FL) approach has received growing attention, with evidence of improved higher order thinking and collaborative skills and increased transparency for parents. This paper explores school leader, parent, student and teacher perceptions of the FL approach, through the lens of a 1-year case study of two rural South Australian schools, in order to uncover how the approach affects parent engagement. Findings reveal that, whilst stakeholders feel that the flipped approach is beneficial for absent students, to reinforce content and increase student responsibility, it has not yet improved transparency for parents, with a disconnect between what schools think parents know and are engaging in, and the actual level of parent engagement in student learning. Recommendations for schools implementing the FL approach are provided against a bioecological model, adapted for this study. of students, teachers and parents, this paper is an important addition to the literature, drawing together research on student engagement, parent involvement and engagement and FL, through a sociocultural lens. Literature review Student engagementDeveloping and enhancing student engagement (SE) is a key goal of educators and it has been the subject of much debate in educational research, owing to its complex and multifaceted nature (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008;Eccles, 2016). For the purposes of this study, SE is defined as: the energy and effort that students employ within their learning community, observable via any number of behavioural, cognitive or affective indicators across a continuum. It is shaped by a range of structural and internal influences, including the complex interplay of relationships, learning activities and the learning environment. The more students are engaged and empowered within their learning community, the more likely they are to channel that energy back into their learning, leading to a range of short and long term outcomes, that can likewise further fuel engagement.

Facilitating Student Engagement Through Educational Technology: Towards a Conceptual Framework

“…The exosystem includes the wider social structures that impact on the learner, such as educational institutions, the media, government, the world of work and social services, and the macrosystem encompasses the wider economic, social, legal, political and educational systems in which the other systems are located. This model was used, in conjunction with Schwab's (1973) framework of curriculum redevelopment, to develop a bioecological model of influences on student engagement, as the theoretical framework for a case study on flipped learning in secondary classrooms (Bond, 2019). The interconnected dimensions of curriculum, students, teachers and milieus (school, classrooms, family/parents, community) within Schwab's (1973) framework, as well as the inclusion of technology by Willis et al (2018) in their study of parent engagement with their child's learning, allowed the first author to visualise more easily the interconnected, fluid relationship between the external influences on student engagement.…”

“…This has had implications for families, especially those in rural areas where the NBN has yet to roll out and/or who cannot afford to buy credit on pre-paid Internet dongles or mobile phones. For example, within a case study on the flipped learning approach in rural South Australia (Bond, 2019), a lack of access to the NBN has contributed to reduced parent engagement with students' learning and within the school community, as well as having had a direct impact on students' ability to engage with their learning.…”

“…This includes institutional policies on teacher professional development and the expectation of technology use within teaching and learning (Gerick, Eickelmann and Bos, 2017), policies about staffing of classes (Hill and Tyson, 2009), which may impede the development of effective relationships between educators, students and their families, as well as policies on student technology use, such as Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) programs (Adhikari, Mathrani and Scogings, 2016). It is particularly important to remain cognisant of potential digital divide issues (Adams Becker et al 2018), including student ownership and use of devices that are incompatible with institutional devices, as this can impact participation and engagement (Bond, 2019).…”

“…as well as their access to the Internet (Beckmann, 2010;Bond, 2019), and thereby affect their attitudes towards technology (Hollingworth et al 2011). Therefore, it is vital that low-cost hardware and software are made available to students and families, to reduce this digital divide (Adams Becker et al 2018;Daniels and Holtman, 2014), but also that institutions conduct needs analyses, so as to deepen understanding of real and potential barriers for students and families (Education Endowment Foundation, 2018; Goodall and Vorhaus, 2011).…”

“…critical thinking and learning from peers). Using the first author's flipped learning case study as an example (Bond, 2019), the bioecological model was used to frame the results and identify recommendations for schools on successful flipped learning implementation. A new model was then presented, which clearly reflected the influences pertaining to that particular case study.…”