Gifted Issues Discussion homepage

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.