Research Article

One Tool With Multiple Uses: An Innovation Configuration Map of Flip in Education

Loretta Catherine Donovan 1 * , Erin Besser 1 , Tim D. Green 1
More Detail
1 California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, USA* Corresponding Author
Journal of Digital Educational Technology, 2(3), 2022, ep2208, https://doi.org/10.30935/jdet/12521
Published: 10 October 2022
OPEN ACCESS   1050 Views   850 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Flip (formerly Flipgrid) was developed almost 10 years ago as a tool to allow opportunities for engagement and social presence in a virtual learning environment. Recently, we have seen an explosion of Flip’s use by PreK-adult educators, and not surprisingly, literature focused on use, frequency, and implementation strategies. What is missing from the literature is a systematic analysis of what Flip integration looks like on a broader scale. Through the development of an innovation configuration map, this study sought to describe the ways in which educators as a group use the educational application, Flip. Results show three configurations of Flip integration. Each configuration has a unique value for teaching and learning. Despite these three unique configurations, there are also uses of Flip that are consistent across all configurations. Understanding the big picture of integration allows for informed decision-making and prepares one for examining the impact of integration. Implications of these findings extend to those planning professional development and administrators wanting to promote ubiquitous uses of technology in schools.
Keywords: innovation configuration map, Flipgrid, technology integration, innovation adoption

CITATION (APA)

Donovan, L. C., Besser, E., & Green, T. D. (2022). One Tool With Multiple Uses: An Innovation Configuration Map of Flip in Education. Journal of Digital Educational Technology, 2(3), ep2208. https://doi.org/10.30935/jdet/12521

REFERENCES

  1. Aloni, M., & Harrington, C. (2018). Research based practices for improving the effectiveness of asynchronous online discussion boards. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 271-289. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000121
  2. Arsenis, P., Flores, M., & Petropoulou, D. (2021). Enhancing graduate employability skills and student engagement through group video assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(2), 245-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1897086
  3. Baron, P., & Corbin, L. (2012). Student engagement: Rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(6), 759-772. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.655711
  4. Barry, S. (2012). A video recording and viewing protocol for student group presentations: Assisting self–assessment through a Wiki environment. Computers and Education 59(3), 855-860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.008
  5. Bartlett, M. (2018). Using Flipgrid to increase students’ connectedness in an online class. eLearn, 2018(12), 9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3302261.3236703
  6. Belvis, E., Pineda, P., Armengol, C., & Moreno, V. (2013). Evaluation of reflective practice in teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 279-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2012.718758
  7. Bennett, S., Dawson, P., Bearman, M., Molloy, E., & Boud, D. (2017). How technology shapes assessment design: Findings from a study of university teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 672-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12439
  8. Berry, S. (2019). Teaching to connect: Community-building strategies for the virtual classroom. Online Learning, 23(1), 164-183. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1425
  9. Brady, M., Devitt, A., & Kiersey, R. A. (2019). Academic staff perspectives on technology for assessment (TfA) in higher education: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3080-3098. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12742
  10. Christianson, M., Hoskins, C., & Watanabe, A. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of a videorecording based self-assessment system for academic speaking. Language Research Bulletin, 24, 1-15.
  11. Crook, A., Mauchline, A., Maw, S., Lawson, C., Drinkwater, R., Lundqvist, K., & Park, J. (2012). The use of video technology for providing feedback to students: Can it enhance the feedback experience for staff and students? Computers & Education, 58(1), 386-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.025
  12. Delmas, P., & Moore, P. (2019). Student perceptions of video-based discussions in online and blended learning. In Proceedings of the E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1280-1286). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  13. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Heath.
  14. Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hartley, K. (2010). An examination of one-to-one computing in the middle school: Does increased access bring about increased student engagement? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(4), 423-441. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.42.4.d
  15. Donovan, L., Green, T., & Mason, C. (2014). Examining the 21st Century classroom: Developing an Innovation Configuration Map. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(2) 161-178. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.50.2.a
  16. Dousay, T. A., & Weible, J. L. (2019). Build-A-Bug Workshop: Designing a learning experience with emerging technology to foster creativity. TechTrends, 63(1), 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0364-8
  17. Drinkwater, M. J., Gannaway, D., Sheppard, K., Davis, M. J., Wegener, M. J., Bowen, W. P., & Corney, J. F. (2014). Managing active learning processes in large first year physics classes: The advantages of an integrated approach. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 2(2), 75-90. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.2.2.75
  18. Dwyer, D. (1994). Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow and what we have learned. ASCD. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr94/vol51/num07/Apple-Classrooms-of-Tomorrow@-What-We’ve-Learned.aspx
  19. Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C, & Sandholtz, J. (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45-52.
  20. EdGlossary.org. (2016). Student engagement. https://www.edglossary.org/student-engagement
  21. Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadikb, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 2(59), 423-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
  22. Fahey, S., Moura, K., & Saarinen, J. (2019). The educator’s guide to Flipgrid. https://static.flipgrid.com/docs/Flipgrid_eBook_ 2nd_edition.pdf
  23. Grayson, K. (2015). Face time: Vidku chief design officer Charles Miller. Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal. https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/print-edition/2015/04/24/vidku-chief-design-officer-charles-miller.html
  24. Green, T., Besser, E., & Donovan, L. (2021). More than amplifying voice and providing choice: Educator perceptions of Flipgrid use in the classroom. Tech Trends, 65, 785-795.
  25. Green, T., & Green, J. (2017). Adding voice and video to online discussion. Tech Trends, 62(1), 128-130.
  26. Gunuc, S., & Kuzu, A. (2014). Factors influencing student engagement and the role of technology in student engagement in higher education: Campus-class-technology theory. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 86-113. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.44261
  27. Hall, G. E. (2010a). Technology’s achilles heel. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 231-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782550
  28. Hall, G. E. (2010b). Innovation configuration mapping. http://www.co-case.org/resource/collection/C8C83CF3-E07A-4129-83D9-1BD63458AAE0/IC%20Mapping%20Introduction%20Handouts.pdf
  29. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2020). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Pearson.
  30. Henriksen, D., Creely, E., Henderson, M., & Mishra, P. (2021). Creativity and technology in teaching and learning: A literature review of the uneasy space of implementation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 2091-2108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09912-z
  31. Henriksen, D., Henderson, M., Creely, E., Ceretkova, S., Černochová, M., Sendova, E., & Tienken, C. H. (2018). Creativity and technology in education: An international perspective. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 409-424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9380-1
  32. Henriksen, D., Hoelting, M., & the Deep-Play Research Group. (2016). Rethinking creativity and technology in the 21st century: Creativity in a YouTube world. TechTrends, 60(2), 102-106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0047-2
  33. Hiebert, E. H., Quellmalz, E. S., & Vogel, P. (1989). Writing. A research-based writing program for students with high access to computers. Advanced Technology Group. https://www.academia.edu/70577583/Writing_A_Research_Based_Writing_Program_for_Students_with_High_Access_to_Computers_ACOT_Report_2
  34. Johnson, M., & Skarphol, M. (2018). The effects of digital portfolios and Flipgrid on student engagement and communication in a connected learning secondary visual arts classroom. https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed/270
  35. Kiles, T. M., Vishenchuk, J., & Hohmeier, K. (2020). Implementation of Flipgrid as a self-reflection tool for student engagement–A pilot study. INNOVATIONS in Pharmacy, 11(4), 15-15. https://doi.org/10.24926/iip.v11i4.3340
  36. Loveless, A., Burton, J., & Turvey, K. (2006). Developing conceptual frameworks for creativity, ICT and teacher education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2005.07.001
  37. Lowenthal, P. R., & Moore, R. L. (2020). Exploring student perceptions of Flipgrid in online courses. Online Learning, 24(4), 28-41. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2335
  38. Lowenthal, P., Borup, J., West, R., & Archambault, L. (2020). Thinking beyond Zoom: Using asynchronous video to maintain connection and engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 383-391.
  39. Mango, O. (2019). Students’ perceptions and attitudes toward the use of Flipgrid in the language classroom. In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1970-1973). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  40. Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2018). Student perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies that enhance instructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 52-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.003
  41. McMahon, B., & Portelli, J. P. (2004). Engagement for what? Beyond popular discourses of student engagement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(1), 59-76. https://doi.org/10.1076/lpos.3.1.59.27841
  42. Miller, S. C., McIntyre, C. J., & Lindt, S. F. (2020). Engaging technology in elementary school: Flipgrid’s potential. Childhood Education, 96(3), 62-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2020.1766677
  43. Mishra, P., & Henriksen, D. (2018). Creativity, technology & education: Exploring their convergence. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70275-9
  44. Murphy, K., & Barry, S. (2016). Feed-forward: Students gaining more from assessment via deeper engagement in video-recorded presentations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 213-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.996206
  45. Nayir, F. (2017). The relationship between student motivation and class engagement levels. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 17(71), 59-78. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2017.71.4
  46. Ostashewski, N. (2020). Building a community of inquiry in an online graduate course: Does Flipgrid help? In Proceedings of the Innovate Learning Summit 2020 (pp. 390-393). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  47. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observer. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
  48. Stone, C., & Springer, M. (2019). Interactivity, connectedness and ‘teacher-presence’: Engaging and retaining students online. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 59(2), 146-169.
  49. Stoszkowski, J., Hodgkinson, A., & Collins, D. (2020). Using Flipgrid to improve reflection: A collaborative online approach to coach development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 26(2), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1789575
  50. Sweeney, T., West, D., Groessler, A., Haynie, A., Higgs, B. M., Macaulay, J., & Yeo, M. (2017). Where’s the transformation? Unlocking the potential of technology-enhanced assessment. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 5(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearnininqu.5.1.5
  51. Tugrul, T. O. (2012). Student perceptions of an educational technology tool: Video recordings of project presentations. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 133-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.026