Point worth making more than once, here--
Val and I are both scientists. We were both trained to interact over ideas in the same semi-confrontational sort of manner.
Apologies if that seems rude or aggressive; it really isn't intended that way.
Oh, and yes, yes, yes to Mazur's interactive approach.
MOST of my successful peers/colleagues who teach STEM at the post-secondary level (and many at the secondary level) wouldn't dream of doing things any other way.
It just flat out WORKS best for the widest swathe of students.
I'm going to quote my own post from a page back, because there is something that I needed to clarify in it.
hat hybrid approach has a LOT to recommend it.
The ideal, from a research/evidence-based perspective is:
a) live lecture (30% of class meeting time)
b) available content for student learning OUTSIDE of class time, including assessments, textbooks, videos, digital flashcards, simulations, etc, etc, etc (though security and integrity are huge barriers in assessment, as are ways of including highest levels of Bloom's taxonomy in assessment without a human-human interaction),
c) 'flipped' classroom time-- time to apply concepts learned in a and b; (70% of class meeting time).
That's roughly how I ran my classrooms as a college professor. It's roughly how the most talented of my DD's teachers ran THEIR classes, though they were frequently hampered significantly by the platform which mandated far less classroom time than was actually necessary for 90%+ of students.
That is NOT a pure "flipped" classroom, however. It differs in two particulars:
1. students are given INITIAL instruction by a live instructor who can 'check in' with students in real-time regarding their preparedness and foundation for tackling the material being presented as they observe, and
2. it relies heavily on a 'back-and-forth' approach, not a purely linear/flowcharted one re: learning. It's more integrated, and relies on a wider variety of learning modes. Textbooks or other print materials are also an integral part of this model.
I'll also note that most students prefer live demonstrations to watching them on YouTube.
The reason? As one helpfully pointed out,
there was always the possibility-- but not the guarantee-- that I'd set something on FIRE. It was engaging because of the lack of predictability, in other words.
Given that my DD and other students have made similar statements about live/interactive instruction periodically, I think this may be a real thing that keeps students engaged in LIVE presentations that doesn't exist in recordings.
