Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments Flipped classrooms

It's still not clear why this isn't possible WITHOUT the 'new/shiny' method, though.

NONE of what we know to be true from research about learning bears out the notion that any of the 'new/disruptive' technology is really being leveraged to do anything... well, novel. Not really.

I'm pretty sure this video learning method would be a complete disaster for me. My husband always laughs at me because I can't remember anything and I mean ANYTHING from any movies we've seen. He will remember all the details for the next 10 years and I don't know the story or even the fact I have seen the movie before! BUT if he gives me the name of the movie, I'm sure I'll pull out all kinds of details about it from my brain like the cast, storyline, background production details and the country the movie was shot at solely because I have READ about it somewhere. I can read textbooks, I can read online texts, but play a video or audio for me and I'll be zoned out before you count to 3! lol

No first hand knwowledge here... At first, I was thinking wow that sounds interesting. Might work. Sorta sounds like college.

But then I realized it only looks nice on paper, and it flies in the face of the very skills that define a good or great teacher.

A great teacher is a storyteller of knowledge. A storyteller is different than an author in that they have an immediate performative task. They are aware of their audience and they energize their audience, dynamically change their content, etc. The storyteller also learns from their audience as to what is effective, interesting, difficult, and becomes better at their craft.

Val there is no good research on flipped classrooms that I'm aware of. That doesn't mean research isn't underway; I'm sure it is. However, research take time to develop (acquiring funding, conducting the research, interpreting the results, the peer review and publication process, the public vetting of studies once they appear in print). The process takes much longer, unfortunately, than fads take to spread across classrooms.

I agree with 22B. A mixed approach is by far the best, albeit this is anecdotal evidence based on my own experiences as a teacher of writing, literature, and women's studies and as a parent whose child's school has double periods of math and language arts where formal instruction (lecture) and workshop (independent and group work with peer and teacher support) are a part of every class session.

That's the point, though-- good teachers have ALWAYS used a moderate/combined approach, in every discipline that I'm familiar with.

There is a give-and-take, a sort of dance between instructor and students and material-- and it's unique and ephemeral. Recordings do not-- and cannot-- capture it, no matter how gifted the instructor him/herself might be. Because it's "flat" without the student interaction.

I'm reminded of the poignant editorial from some months past-- in which the author explains that even in a "lecture" format, a live instructional space is very much a dynamic exchange. It moved me to tears-- because I am so frustrated that we would undervalue something so precious.


Would one GIVE UP live theater as "inefficient" relative to television or film? It's fundamentally a different experience, right? Actors certainly say that there is no comparison, and as a theater supporter, so would I. No two performances are ever identical-- not even in the best theaters in the world-- and that is where the magic happens.

Why do fans still clamor to go to LIVE sporting events? They could watch it later on their TiVo, but many people would say that is an anemic substitute for the "real" experience.

WHY?


http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jun_10/article05.htm

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/50929/1/Karnad_Student_use_recorded_2013_author.pdf


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1495235/

http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/williams.html

http://www.iamse.org/artman/publish/printer_406.shtml

Please note that most of the research into whether or not recorded instructional modules are "effective" is based on research in post-secondary settings.

Interestingly, students THINK that the recorded snippets/lectures are more effective and efficient, but the data does NOT bear that out in most instances. It works okay for memorization-based material. But little else.

The problem with canned instruction isn't easily resolved, and it's fundamental among students who are not autodidacts, and there fore require, you know-- instruction:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-reality/2012/07/22/gJQAuw4J3W_blog.html While I don't agree with everything in that article, it's got some interesting points. Fundamental among them is that while YouTube and Khan, etc. have made viewing instructional content EASIER for students...

that on-demand "instruction" doesn't necessarily help them to understand that, no, THIS is the part that they don't completely understand, and that is why this seems confusing. There is NO substitute for a teacher who is paying attention to HOW students are thinking about material. While flipped classrooms are great for revealing those gaps-- they are not very good at remediating them to start with.

And there is a good chance of it enhancing the current mediocracy, by chasing the dynamic and engaged teachers away.

I wonder if performance studies is a required course for teachers.

This is a great synopsis of the problems inherent in "flipping" classrooms-- or reducing instructional delivery to prerecorded lectures for any purpose, actually:

http://devlinsangle.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-problem-with-instructional-videos.html

This flipped classroom concept seems like a very convenient way to shift the burden of teaching away from the teacher and onto the student.

Exactly.

It's an appropriate model for pretty capable students who have learning supports internalized or more broadly available to them as they go, but it's not a good idea for students who struggle already.

On the other hand, really great teachers have never struggled with that 'third way' identified up-thread-- the notion of not using up so darned MUCH class time with fluff/nonsense and therefore having plenty of time to: a) cover the material and b) ask students to use that material. But beyond a certain level you can't get it ALL into class time. I think that the problem is that with NCLB/CC testing-testing-testing mandates, this idea is going nowhere-- there IS no class time anymore for this idea or any other.



YES. This is already happening, incidentally-- this is PRECISELY the model that virtual charter schools use. Parents are 'learning coaches' (Yeah right-- whatever-- we're the ones TEACHING our kids... and everyone who knows anything about the model knows that-- at most-- the "teachers" do about 25% of the 'teaching' for the vast, VAST majority of students... only kids like my DD find that extremely truncated instruction 'adequate' and that's because they are able to drink from the fire-hose once a week, basically.)

I do think that bringing the actual WORK of learning back into classrooms (rather than sending it all home) is a good idea. I do. But something gonna have to go to make room for it. Personally, I think that I'd like for it to be test prep.

I may be in the minority here, but I am very hopeful about the concept of flipped classrooms, and how it can help accelerated learners. Among the benefits of the flipped classroom are the following:

1) Each student can advance at their own pace. They can watch whichever lecture is appropriate for them, whether or not a single other student in their class is ready for it.

2) The lectures can be rewound and the explanation of difficult concepts can be watched again and again until the student understands, or formulates the appropriate question to ask in school the next day.

3) There can be different video lectures that teach the same concept done by different teachers with different styles. Some teachers may like to do hands-on demonstrations, while others use visuals, and others talk it out. With lectures done in many different styles, students can identify their preferred style, but watch presentations in other styles when concepts are difficult to grasp in their usual style.

4) None of the video lecturers should be particularly bad. The same can't be said about every classroom teacher. FWIW, I don't think Khan is a very good lecturer, and his videos could certainly benefit from more planning, and editing. (This is my opinion based on videos a bit more advanced than anything a gradeschooler would be watching, though.)

5) I got interrupted and lost my train of thought.