Gifted Issues Discussion homepage

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.