Gifted Issues Discussion homepage

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/in-flipped-classrooms-a-method-for-mastery/
In ‘Flipped’ Classrooms, a Method for Mastery
By TINA ROSENBERG
New York Times
October 23, 2013, 11:15 am 280 Comments


This column was

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/turning-education-upside-down/
Turning Education Upside Down
By TINA ROSENBERG
New York Times
October 9, 2013, 11:45 am 348 Comments

******************************************************

If students in a flipped classroom are at very different levels, people may wonder why they are in the same class. Some of the 5th graders may belong with 3rd graders and some with 7th graders. Schools don't want to do this, as it would make for awkward conversations with parents of students who are behind their same-grade peers.

Schools are rewarded for 5th grade students doing well on the the state 5th grade math tests, but not for 5th grade students doing higher level math. This removes an incentive for letting advanced students study topics beyond what is tested in their grade.

What is making it feasible is the flipped classroom, the illusion that "learning" can be fully automated using modern technology, canned instructional "modules" and in-line multiple choice testing to "evaluate understanding" which only REALLY seems to work with some subjects and some students...

There. Fixed it for her.

This article makes it sound like mastery learning (which I do think is ideal) is only feasible with a flipped classroom. She should visit a Montessori.

^ +1.

Discussion format classrooms ALSO make this possible. Colleges have used this method for a very long time. About a thousand years, give or take.

Very relevant perspective here: http://moreorlessbunk.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/dear-flipped-classroom-messiah-squad/

Our district has been flipping classrooms as a pilot program and I think they fully intend to implement it district wide at some point. Not sure how I feel about it. For math at least, really nothing can be worse that what they are doing right now. Everyone gets the same math lecture in class and the same worksheet every day.

Oh I get it. "Flipped classroom" is just a kind of homeschooling.

If the initial premise is that differentiated, mastery-based education is an ideal, then what does the ideal classroom look like that meets that need?

How is adequate differentiated instruction going to take place?

I think "flipped" is a bit trite and over-extended into its own definition. Setting that aside, it isn't at all clear how you get to mastery-based without looking a bit flipped?

I've wondered this a lot. Even reflecting on my childhood, or looking at my son and his math interests. It is really hard to see the fair balance in the mix. If you have 20 kids each working at a different pace on different material, in an hour do you give each 3 minutes of direct instruction at their level?

That's a cluster with N=1. What if in the class of twenty your cluster size averages 4? But there are 8 clusters: 4 clusters of 4 and 4 clusters of 1. Do you divide the hour by 8 or by 5? Do some kids get 12 minutes of instruction at their level because they are in a cluster of four and some get 3 miutes? Or is it 7.5 minutes per cluster?

What if you take "home" out of the equation? What would in class flipping look like? 30 minutes of lecture to the middle area while outliers do independent video + reading, then 30 minutes of floating support while kids do problems and experiment or whatnot?

:ROFL:


Why.... yes. Yes, it is.

Flipped classroom done right can be a great way of taking advantage of technology and allowing teachers to work more individually with students. I don't think it is a good idea for children as lectures aren't the traditional way children learn in a classroom anyway. The only way I could see it is if kids are watching entertaining learning videos at home. I have been using some version of flipped classroom techniques at the University level for over a decade. The idea is that let students do things they can do best alone at home like watch lectures, read etc. and use the classroom time for group work and application of the principles etc while the teacher is available and can walk around and interact with the students and busy students don't have to figure out when they can meet to do group work. I fear this is not how the principle will be applied and will be a disaster for children.

Just curious how you think it would be applied?

And what is the lowest level grade that it would work (if done correctly)?

The problem in STEM classes is that the MAJORITY of the time investment is in practice and wrestling with the material in practical and personal terms as a student.

It's how you master that material rather than just MEMORIZING it.

So the problem that I see is that 3-5 hr a week just isn't enough time to DO that.

That's about enough time to get a foundation in place under expert guidance-- see a few simple examples, practice the single-step skills in class, and then get turned loose to try it yourself before coming back to see what needs tinkering.

I'm seriously NOT seeing what is wrong with that.

The process that I used in teaching students was:

1. students READ before class

2. Lecture-- with examples and ending most often with a 'test-drive' problem that I STARTED in class and gave tips for finishing-- followed by posting the solution in an hour or two outside my office (or online, now)

3. Lab-- I taught my own labs, circulated with students and answered questions, mostly Socratically.

4. Homework sets-- NOVEL and DIFFICULT. Group work was encouraged, but not mandated.

5. In-class assessments with lecture-- open-notes, and simpler than homework questions.

Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with that approach, which required as much of ME as it did of the students-- but which also produced genuine mastery in about 80% of students who made it through the class.

It wasn't "flipped" though students were expected to be active participants in class and lab, and were expected to do much more than "take notes" at that point-- more like "clarify" what was unclear after doing the preparatory reading.

I don't think that purely flipped classrooms CAN work for most students, though-- there isn't enough class time to allow for the amount of time that those students need to put into things.

I also echo Chana's statement above that I've not seen a purely "lecture" setting in, ohhhh, about thirty years or so.

I just found this:

"At the end of the pilot phase, the assessments were examined. Although students shared a variety of reactions to flipped classroom, most were positive. All of the participating teachers wanted to continue flipping their math classes. Parents overwhelmingly reported in a survey that they thought their children were doing better in math than in the past, enjoyed math more, and wanted their children to continue with the flipped classroom approach. Results from standardized tests in September and January were compared with 6 control classrooms. Although there was no statistical difference in scores between the flipped classes and the control classes, the flipped classrooms ended up about 2 weeks ahead on the pacing calendar. In other words, with no sacrifice in performance, students in the flipped classes covered more of the curriculum in the same amount of time."

So now they are expanding it into many more grade 4-6 classrooms for math. My kids aren't there yet, but I feel like I'm looking forward to it (assuming I don't pull them out of the district). I think whether it works or not, depends on the subject. I would also want to make sure they let kids move ahead at a rapid pace if they are able. That would be one of the main benefits.

I am not really in favour of anything that increases the amount of work done at home or puts more responsibility on parents. It will increase the disadvantage of those without educated parents or resources.

Exactly. It's homeschooling.

There is no reason to assume this will be the case, though. Teachers often "release" material gradually, and the work in class is typically still group work...

Well I am in favour of home schooling by those willing and able. But not forced home schooling for those not willing or able because the teachers think it is a good idea for them.

A virtual school in the home is not homeschooling, per se. A parental choice to homeschool invokes a model in which the parent is in charge. School-dictated, compulsory use of technology in the home (as being discussed for a government school's "flipped classroom" in which students watch instructional videos on a computer in the home) may open the doors to widespread governmental oversight and monitoring of families in the home. On another recent thread it was mentioned that schools have the ability to remotely activate video cam and microphone and track websites visited. Parents may wish to be aware if this is being done, including checking school policy for notifications in terms of use, privacy policy, academic honesty policies, etc.

blackcat, I think some of the sentiments following my comment give a hint. I am not an expert on early childhood beyond being in the middle of raising 4. What I have figured so far for most students up until 6th grade, all schoolwork can and should be done in school. There is more than plenty enough time. Schools waste too much time. Kids have enough time to both watch videos and do group or individualized work with teacher help.

The detriment to kids is this whole movement to streamline learning. Public schools are costly and the remedy is in the wrong direction. Technology cannot teach children who do not yet grasp the technology or the human communication that went into the technology (I am not sure if I am verbalizing this sufficiently) but early learning comes from interaction with people, technology is a supplement. Once a child has developed a social grid to interpret communication, technology is a better tool for communicating information and interaction for learning, but it still has its limits. While technology can measure correct answers, it still cannot really measure comprehension and cannot really teach application. Where it can do so at a limited basis, it would still be very expensive to develop.

Well said.

I've said I don't know what I think about it and I'm sure there are pros and cons, but I think one important benefit is that kids can watch the video over and over if they don't get it the first time. Parents can watch it as well in order to understand the way the material is taught to help their child. My kids have brought home homework that I did not understand because I did not learn math the same way. The math mountains with the little dots going up the side. The "sticks and circles" to show place value. So sometimes the kids are on their own. With a video, I can watch it so I understand how it's being taught. Is it homeschooling? I don't see how it's different than a parent assisting a child if they are stuck on their homework.
And the teachers DO interact with the kids on the material the next day, but not in a lecture-format. They can figure out which kids are stuggling and focus on them, and allow the rest of the class to move ahead or learn the topic more in depth. It's not like kids are doing everything on their own at home, like an on-line school. By taking the "lecture" out of it, it removes so much of what is wrong with the current system....for instance my DS having to sit everyday and listen to "what is 5+2" questions in a group when he is way beyond that and doesn't need to hear it over and over and over again.
For some subjects like English or Science, I don't think it would work as well. But I think it's probably fine for math.

But still-- how many people extolling that particular virtue (you can watch it over and over!) truly understand that this makes the video no different, in reality, than a textbook, which may also be read again and again?

I'm guessing that relatively few people have TRIED learning completely from canned video for any length of time. Trust me-- it's NOT a good idea.

Why not? Well, because the video can't answer questions.

I've watched this part four times. I'm just not understanding why you chose to do step 2 this way.

With a live teacher, that question is answered immediately. With a video, the misunderstanding may derail learning for a LONG time.

BTDT, got the teeshirt. This is why I say that I know that my DD isn't an autodidact. Sometimes she can figure this kind of thing out-- but more often than not, it takes a live expert.

Why not just skip to the chase and do that part FIRST, rather than disconnecting the real learning in favor of passive exposure ahead of time?

I have a suspician that those who can learn easily from a lecture will also learn easily from a video but those who struggle in a classroom will struggle even more with a video. It can be played again and again (and a textbook can be read againand again) but what is usually needed is for the problem to be explained in a different way not again and again.

But mostly I agree with the position that the child spends enough time at school and more efficient use of time would be a better approach.

At Khan Academy there is a forum for each video where students can ask and answer questions.

I agree that a knowledgeable teacher lecturing on a topic that all her students

(1) have the necessary background and intelligence to understand AND
(2) have not already learned

may be better than a video on the same topic, since the teacher can answer questions in real time, pose questions to gauge understanding, and can observe the reactions of the students.

The problem is that students in a classroom have differing levels of background knowledge and intelligence, so there may be no single lecture that is appropriate for all of them. This would be true even in schools that practiced subject acceleration and ability grouping, and within-class disparities are even larger when there is no acceleration or ability grouping.

In addition to sending our children to school, we pay for outside classes with live instruction in academic subjects, music, and sports, and we will pay a lot for such instruction at college for the three. But the children also learn from software such as EPGY and ALEKS.

I'll admit that only the oldest has been able to use teaching software independently since age 9. The younger ones need a parent around to keep them on task and answer questions. All three of them often ignore the 1-minute videos by Professor Suppes on EPGY and proceed to the problems. Apparently they prefer to learn by trial and error.

No, I don't think it would derail learning for a long time because the next day the kid is supposed to go into class and ask the teacher about Step 2. Or the teacher can see that the kid does not get it based on the kid answering questions wrong on the quiz. And then the teacher can work with that kid one-on-one or in a small group of kids that don't get it. I never raised my hand and asked why something was done the way it was done in math or said "I don't get it" in the middle of a lecture. I don't really remember anyone who did. I just took it home and struggled with the textbook. There was very little opportunity to interact with the teacher one on one in class or talk to other kids.

I'm all in favor of removing boring lectures and class discussions geared "toward the middle" in the classroom. The same topics are reviewed over and over and over to everyone so that everyone finally understands the concepts. I cringe to think of how much time my kids are going to waste in the classroom listening to the teachers talk about things they learned a long time ago. I'm surprised more people here on a gifted forum don't agree.

A lot of people here do do homeschooling.

I teach one partially flipped (heterogeneous methods, carefully constructed) college class. I'm well aware of the pros and cons.

I would just not assume that most teachers would actually do well-differentiated small-group or individual discussion during that classroom time. Most flipped classrooms have everyone doing exercises during classroom time, but they are usually the SAME exercises for everyone.

It depends entirely on the skill of the teacher. And I don't think most teachers have the skills (it really does take a serious skill set) to differentiate well. I don't think this model, in itself, changes that in any substantive way.

Anyone remember SRA cards? That's how I got elementary math, working almost entirely on my own. The problem was when I got to middle school and they put me back where I thought I should be...

It would need to be something that's carefully designed, so that the teacher is able to differentiate. But I wouldn't just automatically dismiss it as a bad idea. I think it's a bad idea only if they do it wrong, rather than the way it was intended. My preference would be that schools ability-group. So if my kid in first grade is ready to go to third grade math, they put him in a group with other kids learning third grade math. But it's not happening and probably never will, so the flipped classroom at least sounds like an improvement over what is being done now, where DS is sitting with the rest of his class on the floor writing problems like 7-2 on his whiteboard every day while the teacher lectures.

The theory is sound but difficulties lie in the implementation. The best online course providers are managing to do a creditable job. DS10 can finally go his own pace in his online algebra course. However, the course is not just video lectures and multiple choice assessments; there are plenty of teacher graded essay problems and required regular one-on-one teacher-student discussions. The students also collaborate a number of times during the course and can participate in discussion forums. Tutoring and review sessions are also available throughout the course. It's just so nice that DS can move on when he is ready and not when he has completed a certain number of problems or when the rest of the class has caught up. Technology like email and skype are wonderful learning tools.

I have to wonder if flipped classrooms make teacher time in class more inefficient because the teacher's search costs of grouping like questions rises. Along the lines of Zen Scanner's earlier comments, if 5 students have the same question but are unable to stop the teacher in real-time to voice their question, how long does it take the teacher to first identify the students with similar questions and, second, actually address the underlying misunderstanding? It's not like students will line up based on the time in the video where their questions first arose.

I think flipped classrooms ignore the path dependency of learning. Learning, IMO, arises from an endogenous dialogue between the student and teacher, and flipped classrooms assume there is a fixed linear path for learning for all students. It sounds like the method could, if used incorrectly, actually become less adaptive to individual needs than traditional methods. I also echo DeeDee's concern that the model over-assumes teacher ability to effectively differentiate.

I can see some advantage to my kids although I expect it would just mean they spent most of the class reading as they would have finished the work. But my kids are a very small proportion of the class and I don't believe that the possible advantages to my kids outweigh the disadvantages to kids who a) don't have a computer ar home or don't get to use it because big brother/uncle/cousin/dad is playing games on it, 2) live in environments where doing schoolwork is considered as being available to mind the baby/run to the shop/do something useful, 3) the child needs to work in the evenings (this is obviously older kids but the child might be minding kids all evening too.

I am not in favour of further disadvantaging this disadvantaged. If they want to flip some specific classrooms that is fine but it should be optional.

Interesting article on flipped classrooms:

http://www.ascd.org/publications/ed...ipped-Classrooms-Is-Still-Coming-In.aspx

In our district the teachers in the pilot program were pretty unanimous about liking the flipped classrooms (for math) and the kids and parents felt positively overall, as well. If a kid doesn't have access to a computer at home, there are other options.

Thanks for sharing this.

That is precisely what happens.

MOST college STEM laboratories are taught as more-or-less "flipped" and always have been.

It is incredibly inefficient, however-- because you'll answer the same question about four to six times in a four hour lab-- each student requiring a 15 minutes explanation while their classmates wait for you.

My personal experience suggests that ONLY struggling students get teacher-time in that model. Now, the argument can be made that this is appropriate, but I think (as parent to a giftie) that this is morally WRONG. Advanced students who are NOT struggling to master the basics ought to get some love from the expert, too, KWIM?

The other thing that a flipped classroom does is deprive students of the opportunity to learn from the questions of classmates-- or to simply check their own understanding (by comparing their answer with the instructor's).

I'd argue that students who are at a predictable and uniform learning readiness and background knowledge are least in need of an expert live teacher-- that's sort of the point, that canned video makes a series of assumptions about preparation and level of ability to learn at a particular pace and with a particular level of detail offered. Those assumptions are not necessarily true for non-normative students.

If you have a class of 30 students, it may well be that four of them have a single question about the same thing because of a common feature in their background as learners.

OR-- two of them may want to know if {alternative viewpoint} is equally valid, in light of {other information}. Perhaps one wants to know if the current topic is correctly associated with {this other thing} via {mechanism/connection}.

Those are the kinds of things that make class interactions with a subject expert highly worthwhile, and truly-- far richer than a canned video watched at home with the TV on for background noise.

I'm sad that so few people have apparently experienced an open- or soft-lecture format, where pauses for reflection/interaction/application are common. A supportive environment like that is REALLY superior to either a pure lecture or a completely flipped classroom, IMO. It's better for both tails, and WAY better for the center of the distribution, too.

I also think that it does a better job of fostering a positive learning community-- which DRASTICALLY improves teaching efficiency-- where students communicate with one another dynamically about class material.

I think that it is tempting to assume that flipping a classroom results in self-pacing, but that is NOT the case.

Nor is it the case that flipping classrooms makes differentiation or ability-grouping easier or more likely.

But many times in my career as a student I felt like I was one of the few who came to class having read the material that was asked to be read (speaking of undergrad and graduate school college level here). I assume many people read the book but not necessarily on the time schedule requested. If you asked students to read the material AND watch a lecture before class...I can only imagine that I there would be even less who had done the all the prep work.

What online algebra course is this?

At university I very rarely had time to read screeds of material before classes. After all I had 6 to 10 courses at any one time and there was no co-ordination of workload. Usually things got done in order of due date. I did preread labs and prewrite the bits I could - that way I could knock the lab report out in the same day and cross it off the list.

I just occurred to me how much easier some things must be now with computers and the internet (computers did exist but they weren't really used and most people didn't have them.

That's what I think, too.

I occasionally teased my students that if they walked out of the local Borders having just dropped $100 on a book, not a one of them would wait until they even got it HOME to crack it open...

I knew that only about half of them read the text. Or did any other kind of preparation for coming to class, quite frankly.

I'm with puffin on having options. Each option may offer significant benefits for different kids and their families. Not sure how options would work... teacher A is holding regular class, teacher B is holding flipped class... families choose which option they prefer and make a 1-year commitment?

I'm wondering how this may reflect in research? My hunch is that both groups would perform better than a control group (students in the previous year, students who did not make a choice). An improvement in performance may occur simply because these families made a choice and feel something at stake in making it work. An improvement in performance may also occur because they chose a learning system which best suited their needs, learning style, etc.

I agree with you blackcat. I wouldn't read too much into the verbose comments of a few self-declared experts on this forum. For some, the flipped classroom and its success is a point of insecurity. I suppose this comes from the apparent contradiction between the success of the flipped programs and the belief that students can't learn that way.

It seems to me that some people are really over-emphasizing the importance of the possibility for students to interrupt a teacher's lecture with questions. There are so many reasons that this doesn't really happen in practice. When you don't understand a topic, you usually don't know what it is you don't understand about it.

I'd love some further information about "so many reasons" why it doesn't happen.

I am truly puzzled as to what those might be, and how they are particular to an unflipped classroom. I can think of only one reason why it doesn't happen in practice; an instructor who steamrolls through material and is intolerant of disruptions... er-- much like a video recording.


While self-paced learning IS a good differentiation tool, I'm not entirely convinced that flipped classrooms generally support (much less encourage) this.

The danger that I see in flipped classroom pedagogy is that without checks and balances on the process and training for teachers, a mixed-ability classroom could become (probably of necessity) purely about the needs of the slowest learners in that classroom. Quite probably the slowest learners who are also disadvantaged by having a home environment that doesn't support flipped methodology (as noted upthread) will be the students needing the MOST teacher-time. Without providing differentiation, this could well make things even WORSE than they currently are for the fastest learners. Flipped classrooms also require a much lower student-teacher ratio to work well.

Has anyone here had direct experience with a flipped model with their HG+ child(ren) in a standard brick-and-mortar setting?

The flipped experiences that my DD has had (virtual school-- so EVERY class is "flipped" basically, and some are really no-instructor) support the following observations:

a) without differentiated material, it's just as problematic as any other instructional model-- and in some ways worse (over-analyzing material/assessments) mixed ability classes still don't meet the needs of anyone but the middle of the distribution. (This isn't a problem with either flipped/unflipped, by the way-- but a problem with mixed ability classrooms).

b) students STILL come to class unprepared to work-- then the teacher spends the time on remedial instruction rather than anything that well-prepared (or faster) students can actually use.

I'm also skeptical that instructional video modules (presumably mass-produced by curriculum developers) will be high quality. If textbooks are as poorly produced as they seem to be these days, then why would videos be better? My daughter has experienced that with both Connections and Pearson content.

I also have concerns about "you don't know what you don't know" in both traditional models, and this is one reason why I think that a hybrid approach tends to be the best overall model for the vast majority of learners (no matter their ability). Again, though, it's not something that works with a high student: teacher ratio.

Hey I've got a great idea for a "flipped classroom" in Physical Education. Kids could exercise for two hours a day at home. And then in PE class they could sit around and ask the PE teacher questions. I bet those kids would be fitter than they are now, which just goes to show what a great use of classroom time that would be.

LOL.

Individual and societal health may be improved by emphasizing lifelong fitness, learning how one's body type may be conducive to a different selection of exercise activities or sports, understanding the role of nutrition, hydration, etc on overall health. Having groups of kids run a mile on hot asphalt while growing dehydrated does not seem to provide "physical education"...?

*Applauds*

Actually-- I agree, indigo.

Much of what happens in "PE" class does little to promote a lifelong habit of personal activity and it's certainly not adapted to individual preference or needs.

I think that what most critics are concerned/suspicious about is that it seems to be just the latest FAD in education philosophy.

The more troubling thing about that is that good educators have always used in-class applications/discussion/activities in order to promote learning, and have always (or nearly so) included outside-of-class reading, research, or exercises to better utilize class time-- which begs the question--

where have these educational theorists been observing and spending their time, eh?

Probably not in those classrooms, right? And what is it with this need to embrace EXTREMES?? How much more evidence will it take before those rolling out educational "change" finally figure out that extremes (in testing-obsessed teaching, in homework, in pedagogy, etc) really do NOT work for very many students at a time?

I do sort of shake my head at that. There doesn't seem to be any major push to keep what is working for the students for whom it IS working, while offering up solutions for the others (for whom it isn't). Nope-- one ring to bind them all, as it were.

Where I worry about that most (as a parent) is that this attitude treats ALL students as roughly interchangeable parts in the machine, and deviations simply don't compute. This is what we've found in my DD's flipped/virtual experiences. The exception is with highly skilled teachers who are willing to be more flexible than the curriculum intends. Otherwise, she masters "the curriculum" in short order, (without much depth, of course-- because there isn't any in "the curriculum" which is intended to serve as a checklist for ALL students) and then waits... and waits... and waits... for classmates.

I understand the criticism, but I think you need some exposure to modern PE classes- this is exactly what they do. Our kids still spend some time learning traditional sports, but the majority of the time is spent on fitness and/or playground type games, even at the middle school level. They learn how to use the fitness center (treadmills and ellipticals, weights, etc) and focus a lot on outside activities that translate easily to life after school. We haven't gotten to the high school level yet, but I understand they can choose between various units that include Archery. Orienteering, snowshoeing, aerobic dance, in-line skating, tai-chi, etc. And yes, they do have lots of teaching about fitness and nutrition/health, though a good portion of that happens in their mandatory health classes.

DD9 has a flipped math classroom (4th grade, doing 5th grade curriculum in a HG program). She spends fractionally longer watching videos at home than she used to spend on her math homework. She does not take notes on the videos (which she is supposed to do), but the teacher has been giving her a pass on that because her understanding is good. She has complained about the low level of many of the videos, but she still (mostly) watches them. One benefit that I see is that she doesn't have a chance to lose her math homework if she does it and turns it in during class.

Please consider that what you describe may not be implemented universally; There is not Common Core PE.

Agree completely. I don't even see why some people would elevate it to the level where it even needs a name.

Great point!

Even some students at residential universities are watching videos instead of live lectures, as materials created for online courses are used in regular classes, as described in this article:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/10/31/harvard-classroom-virtual-learning/
The Harvard Classroom, Digitized
By AMNA H. HASHMI and CYNTHIA W. SHIH
Harvard Crimson
October 31, 2013

Some students do not like the virtual classes, but the comment by "Mary Smith" at the site suggests that many live classes are
being ruined by distracted students:

My brother is a physics professor and teaches a General Physics or Physics 101 course in a big lecture hall. He says that the back 1/3 of the room is tuned out, on their phones, talking to each other, with some kids even sitting in the back behind the chairs having a sort of Pow Wow while he's teaching. He had a different professor come in and sit in the back to see what would happen (everyone knew this was a professor), and it had no effect. They just didn't care.

He said he gave half the class D's or F's because they didn't even do the work.

I honestly think a flipped classroom would work beautifully for my autodidact children to learn math concepts and other quantitative, applied work. I DO NOT think it should be used for nonquant subjects, and I see how it would be a disaster for students with different learning styles. Also, I feel bad for teachers. Many probably do not want to do this and many are likely not suited to it.

I personally would probably like it if I could speed up the lecture speed. I don't like lectures, because people talk too slowly. I have trouble watching TED talks. I would rather read a transcription.

I run a partially flipped humanities classroom-- they read and do a limited amount of A/V viewing/listening work outside of class, and are held responsible for that material when we do discussion-based activities in class. This is not the only way I teach, even within this class I change it up a lot, but it's one tool, and it works really well for the particular population I teach.

Nobody should be forced to flip a classroom who prefers teaching another way. Nobody should feel like if they "flip" some aspect of the course they have to do the whole thing that way. Nobody should be put in a position to change their teaching methods without (informal or formal) professional development to support that change.

There is serious professional development involved in doing this well-- in designing a course well, not just in "flipping." IMO there are a lot of people who are assuming that the answer is the delivery strategy, when really the answer is having sufficiently trained teachers who CAN CHOOSE the right delivery strategy for their particular students and material, and who CAN ADAPT on the fly when something doesn't work for a particular student.

The folks who are looking for the answers in tech are just getting it wrong, IMO. The answer is in the teaching. My two cents.

DeeDee, this is why I'm sort of puzzled by the buzz around this-- because MOST of my colleagues were doing a partially "flipped" thing as long ago as the early 90's, whatever we were calling it. I was taught that way in the 80's... so I'm unconvinced that this is new-- other than the technology, of course. But that makes me suspicious that there is probably monetization or profit-motive at the bottom of this, just like with MOOC's. I think that it is PROBABLY being done with the idea that if a single "expert" can deliver "high quality video content" then mere adjunct/TA corps can address in-class learning, and it will be cheaper. That's my cynicism talking.

I agree with you. Bad teaching doesn't become "good" because a class is flipped, and good teachers have been using hybrid models quite deliberately for a very long time. I can't imagine how anything else can work, really. How do you teach students about the Crimean War if they haven't read or watched anything on the subject prior to class?



I also strongly prefer transcripts to audio or video-- for the same reason. So does DD.

I can process written input about 3X faster than audio. I know this because I've checked it with Coursera videos which DO have the option to run video at increased rates. I can watch video at about 1.5x (and I cannot take notes by hand that fast), but this is still only about a third of how rapidly I can read, and my retention is better via reading. On the other hand, my retention is still BETTER for what I write, and for me the easiest way to take notes is from a live instructor talking in real time.

Big lecture hall settings are part of the problem-- and always have been, IMO. I really think that the key to better teaching is teaching TEACHERS better skills, and then shrinking class sizes so that they can do it.

We used to refer to that huge lecture setting (for lower division Chem) as "the dog and pony show." You only really had 90%+ attention rates when there was imminent danger of death or permanent injury involved. Why do you THINK professors do all those wacky demonstrations?? My DH refers to this as the "Mr. Bill Effect."

IMO, unless you are incredibly charismatic (like a rock star), I think that there is a limit to the class size that a human being can reasonably engage. For me, it's somewhere around 45-55 students at least at the post-secondary level. My DH has a more charismatic style-- he's able to work a group that is larger, perhaps 70-90 students at once.

I've never seen anyone that could actively engage the majority of a 200+ seat lecture hall without fire, electricity and/or explosives. Yes, I've taught classes this large. The problem is that most of those types of classes are "requirements" that the majority of the students would prefer to NOT be taking. SO they'd rather be any number of other places in the first place, and they really don't care about (or perhaps even "like") the subject. It's not in their major, so you (as a teacher) are nothing to them, and they have little reason to be polite to you. Questions are just not enough for the back 1/3 of such a room. I've thought that footshock platforms in the back 1/2 of the classroom might do it, but that seems extreme. (I'm kidding-- but it WOULD add that element of risk.)

Social media just provides a way to be disgustingly obvious about being unengaged. Previously, students doodled... or worked on something for another class... or wrote out grocery lists. Picked their nails. Chatted with one another. Slept. I once saw a classmate who made wire-wrapped jewelry in classes where she didn't feel like taking notes. Her explanation? "It keeps me awake. The professor ought to be glad." This was a graduate course, by the way. Er-- why, no-- this student did NOT pass her preliminary qualifiers.

Annnnnnd HK has just hit on why I want my kids to go to a small college.

... and it's the reason why we want our DD in an "honors" college which is self-contained.

It's where she belongs, since it's what gets her the Socratic style and the small classes.

What is "honors" college?

Do honors college kids get all their classes in that format? I'm pretty ignorant about how it all works. Surely you'd want to take some classes outside of it?

Some public universities have "honors colleges" with higher admission requirements where students take some classes together, especially in the first two years. The web site for the University of Massachusetts at Amherst honors college is https://www.honors.umass.edu/ . A recent article about it is

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...udents/1RxFMCmMGHMW7msppvEoTO/story.html
New complex elevates UMass honors program
By Marcella Bombardieri
Boston Globe
OCTOBER 14, 2013

Usually, these are specialty admission programs housed and administrated independently by a larger university.

They have higher (often-- MUCH higher) admission standards, and may be extremely competitive to get into. Students in honors colleges may have special (smaller) classes, be allowed to register before other students, etc. Students usually are expected to do undergraduate research, international study, and seminars as part of the honors program. Special advising, events, dorms, and study areas on campus are other frequent perks. The quality of the programs varies tremendously however-- so caveat emptor, like anything else in higher ed.

The nice thing is that at many flagship public Unis, the tuition differential is really small. So the programs are like the 50-60K a year "private college" experience, but at a price-tag more like 16-25K. We've opted to go this route because with a child who has interest in STEM, we were stuck looking at options of: a) very elite undergraduate schools, with elite admissions frenzy and elite pricetags to match, b) HUGE flagship unis in order to get research opportunities in areas of interest, or b) sacrificing areas of research interest to get small classes and Socratic instruction.

The Honors College DD chose as her top pick avoids A, and gets both B and C without major sacrifices in either one. Of course, they admit only about the same % as Stanford or HMC, so it isn't like we avoided all of the downsides with A, but at least it's not 55K annually, either, and the institution offers a lot of merit aid to boot, making undergraduate VERY low cost in spite of being at a flagship Uni.

I'll PM you so as not to take things too far off-topic.