<p>I’ve had one class like this. I didn’t really like it, mostly because the lectures the professor posted were longer than the class was each week. Because he wasn’t constrained by his allotted, scheduled class time, he would go off on tangents that were interesting to him but that weren’t necessary for the lecture. If he hadn’t been doing the “classroom flipping,” I think he would have been forced to efficiently present the material that really mattered without talking about a bunch of side topics that weren’t as important.</p>
<p>At my school, I only know of one professor that is trying this method, and from what I’ve heard, many students don’t enjoy it. The idea is that the professor has recorded lectures that students watch at home, and then lecture time is used as a problem solving session. Students can ask questions, work through problems, the professor can do problems on the board, etc. Some of the critiques I’ve heard is that students feel like they’re pulling double duty by watching the lectures at home and then attending “lecture” (which is theoretically more like a problem solving section) during the day. Other students have said that they feel like they “aren’t getting their money’s worth” by not having the professor lecture to them live. I’ve never taken this professor before so I don’t have any first hand experience with it, but I think with everything in education, it can be really great for particular types of students if it’s done right.</p>
<p>From what I’ve heard, this type of model really isn’t designed to be done with really long lectures and large classroom sizes, which is how it’s being used at my school, at least. I personally love the idea, if the problem solving sessions are done well with a lot of opportunity for questions and individualized help and the videos are streamlined so that you don’t have to spend hours watching every lecture. I personally hate going to lecture unless the professor is a particularly engaging speaker. I feel like lecture is something that’s really “one size fits all” and if you watch it at home, you can skip parts you understand, rewind parts you don’t, or watch the lecture in multiple sittings (if it’s a long video). There’s also the potential for more interaction with your professor, rather than less, but this will probably depend on a multitude of factors, like how big the class is, are there multiple sections, how engaged are the students, etc. </p>
<p>So I’m mixed on the idea, and I think it largely depends on how effectively the teacher does it. I don’t know of any universities that do this as a whole. It’s more one a professor by professor basis (like at my school), and I doubt it will usurp the traditional classroom model. But it’s something that can be really effective, I feel, if it’s done well. Maybe not so much at the university level, but perhaps in K - 12.</p>
<p>Students nowadays spend so much time interacting through various media that I wouldn’t be surprised that they may prefer this form of teaching. The advantage is that if you miss something or don’t understand something at first, you can rewind and watch the lesson again, and again if you need to. </p>
<p>I took a Coursera course through Stanford and the videos the prof used were the same videos she would use for the actual class at Stanford. So the concept is being used there as another poster pointed out. However, the key for it being successful is that the videos not to be too long otherwise it become a sleep inducer rather than a academic tool. The format was (1) Video lesson, (2) Quiz, (4) Q & A, (3) Test. Rinse and repeat. I think it was pretty effective.</p>
<p>I once talked to a med school prof that had prepared and recorded a particularly important lecture. He claimed that the organized lecture approach was as effective in 20 min as a full class. I joked that I bet it took all day to record/produce - he laughed and said longer.</p>
<p>Is there no value in having a professor give a live lecture while entertaining student questions and comments? I think the live interaction is important. It is valuable to hear how a professor thinks through the answer to a question. Professors often post their powerpoint slides and notes online for students to review later. I prefer this model.</p>
<p>The “flipped” classroom means that the academic world only needs one good English-speaking professor to record lectures and the rest can write or do research. Parents will only have to pay a few hundred dollars for tuition because faculty salaries will be eliminated. Classroom buildings will no longer be needed. Campuses will no longer be needed. You can give your kid the experience of living on their own by sending them to summer camp where they can sail and collect flowers. Or, simply ask them to move into their own apartment when they turn 18.</p>
<p>As far as mentoring homework sessions is concerned, that can be done by grad students or advanced undergrads and it can be done online. College will become much more affordable. No parent in their right mind would pay $100K for homework monitors or to have students talk to each other for 4 years. You’re crazy if you are willing to pay big bucks for canned lectures and study sessions. What is tuition for if it isn’t lectures?? Live lectures are the only things worth the money.</p>
<p>College students rarely seek out professors unless they are in academic trouble. It is wishful thinking if you believe flipping will increase faculty contact. If students weren’t forced to show up for class, most would never see a professor.</p>
<p>Professors are not necessary to execute flipped instruction.</p>
<p>Faculty and students who favor flipped classrooms are simply afraid of hard work. Learning takes concentration and hard work. Students mostly want to play and the flipped classroom is more like play.</p>
<p>For those interested, the lecture and drill approach is sometimes called “direct instruction” and has been shown to be more effective than other approaches. With recorded lectures, you don’t get the questioning and drill.</p>
<p>[Direct</a> instruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_instruction]Direct”>Direct instruction - Wikipedia)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2012/Clark.pdf[/url]”>http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2012/Clark.pdf</a></p>
<p>[Direct</a> Instruction: The Most Successful Teaching Model](<a href=“http://www.jefflindsay.com/EducData.shtml]Direct”>Direct Instruction: The Most Successful Teaching Model)</p>
<p>"One large study that parents really should know about is Project Follow Through, completed in the 1970s. This was the largest educational study ever done, costing over $600 million, and covering 79,000 children in 180 communities. This project examined a variety of programs and educational philosophies to learn how to improve education of disadvantaged children in grades K-3. (It was launched in response to the observation that Head Start children were losing the advantages from Head Start by third grade.) Desired positive outcomes included basic skills, cognitive skills (“higher order thinking”) and affective gains (self-esteem). Multiple programs were implemented over a 5-year period and the results were analyzed by the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and Abt Associates (Cambridge, MA). The various programs studied could be grouped into the three classes described above (Basic Skills, Cognitive-Conceptual, Affective-Cognitive).</p>
<p>The program that gave the best results in general was true Direct Instruction, a subset of Basic Skills. The other program types, which closely resemble today’s educational strategies (having labels like “holistic,” “student-centered learning,” “learning-to-learn,” “active learning,” “cooperative education,” and “whole language”) were inferior. Students receiving Direct Instruction did better than those in all other programs when tested in reading, arithmetic, spelling, and language. But what about “higher-order thinking” and self-esteem? Contrary to common assumptions, Direct Instruction improved cognitive skills dramatically relative to the control groups and also showed the highest improvement in self-esteem scores compared to control groups. Students in the Open Education Center program, where self-esteem was the primary goal, scored LOWER than control groups in that area!"</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wouldn’t be too sure about this. We are, after all, seeing a generation which prefers virtual to real communication.</p>
<p>It also solves budget and pension problems. At the high school level, speaking from my experience in my state ¶, there is a massive push for standards-based everything, including common exams. Wouldn’t the best way to standardize be to have one great set of instructional lectures for every class? The future of school may well be hundreds of kids sitting in front of dozens of screens (or their own screens, in well-off districts) with a few teachers/peacekeepers/babysitters scattered around.</p>
<p>I’m taking grad classes in Penn State’s World Campus right now. Hate it, but then I’m old.</p>
<p>I began hearing about this last year in an NPR segment about Eric Mazur. It doesn’t sound like less work to me because it requires extensive planning for how the learning objectives will be covered outside of class. It could certainly be a good experience in classes where students are highly motivated and capable since it would allow for time to discuss the more interesting and challenging concepts. I teach at a community college and the wide range of student abilities would make it more problematic, IMO.</p>
<p>[“Flipped</a> classroom” teaching model gains an online community | Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences](<a href=“http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2012/02/flipped-classroom-teaching-model-gains-online-community]"Flipped”>"Flipped classroom" teaching model gains an online community)</p>
<p>My son’s “flipped” class was college physics 1. There were no recorded lectures. You were to read the book, do the homework and then come to class prepared to discuss the issues you had IN YOUR GROUP. There was a professor, but he expected you to work out the problems in your group. And this was a weed out class! My son was happy with a B which was above average for his class. Physics 2 is taught the same way and my son is hoping to never have another class like this again. He felt why were we paying for a prof when he had to teach himself the material.</p>
<p>I agree with you, PSU85MOM; and the really ironic thing is that the professor is probably regarded as “innovative” in teaching, by the university administration.</p>
<p>I have several times nominated a truly outstanding professor at my university for state or national teaching awards. He gives traditional lectures–and the student reaction to the lectures is incredibly positive. (I kept a file of student comments to use in support of the nominations.) His grading is difficult, too, so that’s not the explanation for the students’ positive reaction. Neither is he particularly funny. He just has an obvious love of the subject and a real gift for explaining it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Beware the trend of mistaking insults for argument.</p>
<p>^^ It wasn’t intended as an insult. And, it shouldn’t be construed as an insult if it is true. Years of media barrage have dulled the minds of todays college students. Their excitement has to be generated from the outside; there is little of significance going on between the ears. Ideas don’t excite them. They have trouble sustaining attention. We have a generation with attention deficit disorder. They can’t pay attention for 15 minutes let alone 2 hours. That’s what college professors deal with. Reading comprehension is lacking. Memory skills are lacking. Listening skills are lacking. The mind is a muscle that has to be exercised and it isn’t being exercised sufficiently in middle schools and secondary schools (or in the home). College students should be able to absorb information efficiently from reading and listening. The amount of learning that can be achieved per unit of time by “doing” or “discovery” is much less. Yes, hands on learning is a great supplement (as it is in lab courses) but inefficient as a primary method of learning. Give and take between students and faculty is also an important part of the process.</p>
<p>Those who get drunk or stoned regularly aren’t helping the situation…</p>
<p>Taking a course from a lousy teacher is a torture. I always believe that a teacher who does not know how to teach has no right to grade hard because students have to learn themselves. </p>
<p>I am in favor of providing the recorded lectures from the best teachers for students to view in the classroom. Reserve 1/3 of the time for questions and answers. In this case, the class teacher can design the tests, coordinate the grading, monitoring the TA’s. For most lower level college science courses, it should work. Perhaps, it can help to lower the tuition.</p>
<p>My teacher used flipped classroom in math this year and I liked it a lot. He is a really good teacher and this form of teaching gave him the posibility to help us develop inividually, plus studying for exams was much easier when you could rewatch the lectures and proofs as well as less homework. It’s a great and very effective method, where you still learn a lot as you get the basics down at home and then are able to spend more time on complex problems in class.</p>
<p>PSU - I have a lot of issues with “group” assignments and group learning. I am not paying for other kids to teach my kid, and god forbid your kid get stuck with dumber kids in his or her group.</p>
<p>College – Yes, you were insulting. Many kids do want to learn, but want a well prepared professor to help them, not a video. “Flipping the classroom” depends on a lot of things working, and many parents and questions question how well this will work.</p>
<p>My D had a class in HS that was like this. It was not a positive experience. I can see it working in a course that is normally strictly lecture, but not for classes that should include discussion.</p>
<p>I took a lot of classes that effectively worked this way and it was the ideal situation for me. I learn best a very specific, individualized way, and having the tools provided to me to work with at my own pace on my own schedule, supplemented with structured time to discuss and problem solve in a more traditional classroom setting, is ideal. I am capable of paying attention for several hours straight, listening, taking notes, reading, etc. I CAN learn that way. But for me, that is inefficient because I end up spending that time PLUS whatever I have to do on my own time to learn my way in order to really grasp the material.</p>
<p>But I’m not sure why this method is considered “flipping.” I took a course where students were assigned to groups the first day of class, and each week a different group taught a different section of the course for their main grade in the class. The professor did almost no teaching herself the entire semester. That, imo, is flipping. Reviewing a lecture on your own time with the ability to rewind and pause is not that much different from sitting in a lecture hall in terms of who is doing the teaching, and having that extra time set aside for classroom discussion IN ADDITION to having the lectures to review in advance at your leisure, I think, is great. </p>
<p>Many students lack the ability to learn when not spoonfed the material in a highly structured way, though, and I imagine they would have more difficulty. I imagine they would probably not be doing well in the kinds of courses that would work well for this style regardless of whether or not it is “flipped.”</p>
<p>I think the real “beware” here is the job market for our kids. I’ll be retired, but if we cut down teachers to one per subject (none, after the lessons are recorded) and have our kids sit in front of a computer screen all day, the only jobs will be in IT. Soon, the interaction will be virtual, as well, and probably farmed out to places where labor is cheaper. </p>
<p>Robot teachers and robot students. Sigh. </p>
<p>I’ve taken virtual and recorded classes as a motivated adult - and I’ve watched my kids take them as motivated children. Anyone who is motivated can learn through any method, but student motivation nationally is not very high. </p>
<p>What I really worry about is the art of it all. The art of teaching. The art of learning.</p>
<p>collegehelp, flipped classrooms are a controversial topic, difficult to do well, and subject to a lot of debate in education circles. Simply coming in here and pronouncing that everyone who disagrees with you (faculty and students) is “simply afraid of hard work” is an insult.</p>
<p>Educators who choose to ‘flip’ their classrooms are not lazy. In fact, it takes a lot more effort and time to work through projects in class, compared to providing a standard lecture. Flipped classrooms and other active-learning techniques were developed in response to countless studies that cite the abysmal knowledge retention rates among students who attend lecture-based courses. Now that the technology is available to allow students to easily watch pre-recorded lectures and/or ‘films’, as well as online sources and traditional textbooks, it makes sense to devote more class time to learning how to apply knowledge to specific problems and situations. Recent research that compares students’ ability to retain and apply knowledge in active-learning-based courses vs. lecture-based courses demonstrates that the former yields much more impressive results. This is particularly true in STEM courses that have traditionally assigned homework problem sets to be completed after each lecture. </p>
<p>As a college administrator, I am quite familiar with student (and parent) complaints that their professor “didn’t teach anything” when that teacher chose to flip their class, or engage in other active-learning techniques. This is the result of students being exposed to many years of lecture-based classes throughout K-12 and on into higher education. In fact, many of those students are so used to professors distilling the most important knowledge into lectures, that they seldom accomplish the assigned textbook readings or other out-of-class assignments. When such students encounter flipped-style classes, they find themselves somewhat at a loss on how to proceed; the in-class lectures that they depended on are no longer available (or have to be viewed outside of class time). The assignments and projects that were seldom completed now must be done in class under the eye of the teacher, and with cooperation of classmates. It is no wonder that such students feel discomfort. I have news for you all though: flipped classes and similar techniques are not just educational fads that will soon fade away. They are here to stay and are practiced ever more frequently by educators who care how much their students learn and retain.</p>