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.


Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.