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.
