That isn't very precise, though. If 99% of the lectures are watched in video format at home, but one day the teacher lectures in class... is that not flipped? I would consider any classroom to be flipped if the majority of lecture-style concept explanations are experienced at home.
The Science article didn't say anything about videos. It's all about interactivity in the lecture hall. I think that part of the Vanderbilt piece wasn't written carefully.
I don't know what the point of your post is. I feel it's a bit accusatory toward me, as though I somehow misrepresented the link I posted. I understand the shortcomings of the data, but it does speak to the idea that a flipped classroom is doomed from the start, which seems to be a popular opinion around these parts. Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression.
Sorry; I'm not trying to be accusatory. I'm actually treating you like a peer in science, which is a compliment. Scientists criticize each other's ideas all the time. This is how good science is supposed to work. If you aren't used to it, it can be offputting. But once you get used to it, you start to really appreciate the colleagues who aren't shy about finding holes in your logic. I just sent a manuscript out to 3 people an hour ago and asked them to rip it apart.
I meant it.But like I said, preliminary data can be so seductive, and yet so wrong. This is why it's called
preliminary and why it's dangerous to draw conclusions from it. IMO, that mini-study was good as a first step toward getting an answer to a question, but was in no way an answer or even a reliable hint.
