<p>^ Agree with everything, but the technology is not new. VHS has been available since the early 80s, and DVD for at least 10 years.</p>
<p>Keepit, haha, yes. Close to 40 years ago, my sister was a TA at Penn State. A leading professor gave a lecture twice a week over closed circuit TV. Groups of 30 students would sit in classroom. Every 20 minutes, there would be a break and a TA in each room would answer questions and once a week there would be a session with the TAs. In this situation, the professor had training sessions with the TAs, and monitored their performance.</p>
<p>40 years ago my college chem professor would put on a movie of himself teaching a chem class. (from another 30 years prior–guess chemistry didn’t change much except for the periodic table). The lights would go out and my eyes would close…</p>
<p>I like the idea of flipped classrooms. Good effective lecture videos do take much longer to make than just the hour spent lecturing and will vary greatly in quality (just like the professors themselves).
Overall, for a lot of subjects I don’t see a huge difference between “flipped” classrooms and when my teachers would say “Go home and read such-and-such because we’re discussing it tomorrow.”</p>
<p>If done right, this “hybrid” approach SHOULD work. You have the best lecturer recording the lectures, so the students can watch them when they are awake (vs. some students have trouble paying attention at 9 am classes). The prof can also check to make sure that each student actually watched each lecture (or at least had their laptop turned on for it).</p>
<p>You then have the class time used more interactively for discussion and answering of questions, in smaller class sizes.</p>
<p>However, the concept can go very very wrong.</p>
<p>To repeat, I do not think flipped classrooms are as effective as live lecturing and questioning. If, however, flipped classrooms ARE here to stay, then there will be no need for professors (and less need for administrators). Flipped class sessions can be managed by second-tier professionals (teaching assistants). Tuition costs will be dramatically reduced (good for parents, I suppose), the need for a single physical campus may disappear. Once the live lecture is gone, what’s left? A country club for teenagers combined with online learning? I can envision local school districts buying canned college lectures, creating their own post-secondary programs, and granting bachelors degrees.</p>
<p>I think the flipped approach appeals to some faculty because it is less work (like making a film versus performing daily on Broadway) and because faculty are confronted with the unfortunate reality that students need car chases, vampires, wizards, explosions, cell phones, and ipods to stay awake.</p>
<p>I don’t believe the flipped classroom has the intention of having kids just watch videos in class. The idea is they would be able to watch the video outside of class, try to get a good grasp of it, and then have a more interactive learning experience when they’re actually in the classroom.</p>
<p>Honestly, this is how most college classes I took worked. We’d have a lecture three times a week where we’d try to do our best to follow along with what was happening (minus the ability to rewind or pause so we could catch things we missed), and then there would be a recitation either run by a TA or the professor where we’d get to do actual problem solving. This is where the real learning took place, and we gained the abilities to solve problems and gain deeper understanding of the material. </p>
<p>Having a lecture blow by you at a million miles a second doesn’t always give you the time to ask a question. One of the first things I was taught for teaching isn’t to go, “Any questions ok good let’s keep going.” You have to ask if there’s questions and then wait 10 to 15 seconds to let people catch up and think, “Do I have a question? Yes, I do. What am I not sure about? Ok, I don’t get that thing from two minutes ago…now how do I ask about that? Am I the only person that’s confused? Well…nobody’s asking anything, I guess I can ask.” Top rate professors with an extensive knowledge of their field would actually become more valuable as students have a greater ability to ask questions than is afforded in a traditional lecture.</p>
<p>Despite the various postings in this thread, you still don’t seem to understand what constitutes a flipped classroom (<a href=“http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli7081.pdf[/url]”>http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli7081.pdf</a>). It is not merely providing recorded lectures. It requires more work from educators, not less, because the teacher must prepare a series of in-class projects and assignments and then work with students to complete them (as opposed to presenting a lecture that s/he has presented several times previously). When done properly, there are no so-called, “second-tier” teachers involved; the classroom teacher conducts the in-class projects, in addition to preparing the out-of-class lecture/film/reading assignments.</p>
<p>It is also more work for students, who must not only read/view the out-of-class assignments, but who must also come to class prepared to apply the concepts/knowledge learned via projects or lab work.</p>
<p>Flipped classes are more work-intensive for both faculty and students, and have proven in every case to yield higher levels of knowledge retention and ability to apply knowledge to applicable problems. Because class sizes must be limited to the number of students that a teacher can work with (35 max, ideally less), flipped classrooms and other active-learning classrooms will not yield greater teaching efficiency, lower tuition, or less need for buildings.</p>
<p>It is unfortunate when individuals have such a low regard for students that they feel that challenging them is not possible. It is also unfortunate when individuals reach a level of cynicism that all they can resort to is caustic comments about ‘country clubs’, ‘vampires and wizards’ and 'cell phones and ipods", when confronted with new and proven ways to change the way students learn.</p>
<p>“Flipped classes are more work-intensive for both faculty and students, and have proven in every case to yield higher levels of knowledge retention and ability to apply knowledge to applicable problems. Because class sizes must be limited to the number of students that a teacher can work with (35 max, ideally less), flipped classrooms and other active-learning classrooms will not yield greater teaching efficiency, lower tuition, or less need for buildings.”</p>
<p>every case? You’ve studied every flipped class in existence?</p>
<p>a GOOD on-line lecture or flipped class requires MORE of a GOOD instructor. It requires EFFECTIVE teaching. It’s GREAT when you experience good teaching. And that teacher will tell you a LOT of prep time goes into making a great class.</p>
<p>My only experience of ‘flipping’ occurred a few decades ago when my professor decided we would learn by reading the calculus text and doing the problems. He would correct the problems in class the next day. He was the laziest professor and it was my worst grade.</p>
<p>There seems to be some confusion about what constitutes a “flipped classroom”. There is no lack of classroom time on the part of the students or the teacher. From the article ALF linked to above, :</p>
<p>“The value of a flipped class is in the repurposing of
class time into a workshop where students can inquire about
lecture content, test their skills in applying knowledge, and interact
with one another in hands-on activities. During class sessions,
instructors function as coaches or advisors, encouraging students
in individual inquiry and collaborative effort.”</p>
<p>Those who have commented that there will be no or less class, no buildings, no faculty, etc. have misunderstood the concept. This model does not limit class in any way - it simply moves the lecture to homework in addition to the written or discussion work that takes place during the traditional, in-school class time. A few people seem to think the video lecture is watched in school - this is incorrect. My D who had a flipped class this year went to class for the same amount of time and on the same schedule as her other full credit classes. She simply watched the lesson at home, then worked and discussed and questioned during school. She learned a lot more by interacting with the teacher and her peers during class time than she would have by silently listening to a lecture in class while taking notes, then trying to figure things out on her own at home for homework, without the benefit of discussion, questions, challenging of her peers, different points of view, etc.</p>
<p>I don’t think there has been a definitive answer about whether students learn more from flipped classes or traditional lectures. I’d like to see some good research on this. A good research study would compare the two styles providing the same material in the lectures with the same professors using students who are carefully matched in academic performance, ability, and interests. Maybe compare different approaches to flipping as well. Then give all students the same exams and also ask for their subjective ratings of the two forms of instruction. Even then, the study would not be conclusive because this kind of research is very difficult to control. Educational research is always couched in probabilistic terms and always offers different interpretations. It isn’t like research in the “real” sciences like physics and engineering (ha). </p>
<p>When all you have to go on are anecdotes, pseudoexperts, and biased/bad research, I would recommend trusting your gut feelings and using your common sense.</p>
<p>So, in a flipped classroom. the students are doing exercises (like every class is now a “lab” class), talking to each other, going over homework, maybe the professor is circulating among 30 or so students. Ask yourself about the cost/benefits of this instructional model. You are paying maybe $40K per year for this. For that money, you could hire PhD tutors in various subjects to come to your home 40 hours per week for a year. You could educate all your children for about the same price as one. The problem would be in gaining access to labs and equipment in the sciences.</p>
<p>Ask yourself what you are getting exactly for that $40K. What is it that you expect the college to do? Do you expect the college to provide a room where your kid can do homework or whatever? Grab 10 minutes of the prof’s time? Are you paying for your kid to be associated with a brand when the college bestows its diploma? Where is the teaching? The pedagogy? The mentoring? Where does the learned professor mold your child’s mind? Where does the professor provide a service that only a professor can provide?</p>
<p>The flipped classroom would be ok if it were free.</p>
<p>Here is some evidence, referring to a circuits course at San Jose State using MIT online lectures with San Jose State faculty teaching the blended course.</p>
<p><a href=“Colleges Adapt Online Courses to Ease Burden - The New York Times”>Colleges Adapt Online Courses to Ease Burden - The New York Times;
<p>
</p>
<p>Similar improvements over prior semesters were found at my own university when they flipped the circuits course with locally produced videos. Courses that involve a lot of problem solving, like circuits, are well suited for flipping. Other kinds of subjects may not be. </p>
<p>And collegehelp wrote
</p>
<p>A good flipped course will give the student a lot more personal interaction with the professor than the usual sage on the stage style course.</p>
<p>
Even though I would personally not want to have video lectures of myself, and our department is not doing this (yet), I know some colleagues who have non-lecture courses where the students have to read the text and come to class to do problems, ask questions, etc. I really think you are off track here in suggesting that the professor is not providing anything to the students in these settings. It’s a different approach, not a non-existent approach.</p>
<p><a href="http://www..com/flipped-classroom/%5B/url%5D">http://www..com/flipped-classroom/</a></p>
<p>[The</a> Flipped Class: Myths vs. Reality - THE DAILY RIFF - Be Smarter. About Education.](<a href=“Thedailyriff.com”>thedailyriff.com)</p>
<p>[The</a> Flipped Classroom | Scoop.it](<a href=“http://www.scoop.it/t/the-flipped-classroom]The”>http://www.scoop.it/t/the-flipped-classroom)</p>
<p>[The</a> Flipped Classroom Model: A Full Picture | User Generated Education](<a href=“http://usergeneratededucation.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2011/06/13/the-flipped-classroom-model-a-full-picture/]The”>The Flipped Classroom Model: A Full Picture | User Generated Education)</p>
<p>[7</a> Myths about the flipped classroom, debunked ? Turn to Your Neighbor: The Official Peer Instruction Blog](<a href=“http://blog.peerinstruction.net/7-myths-about-the-flipped-classroom-debunked/]7”>http://blog.peerinstruction.net/7-myths-about-the-flipped-classroom-debunked/)</p>
<p>[Teaching</a> methods: An alternative vote | The Economist](<a href=“An alternative vote”>An alternative vote)</p>
<p>[The</a> Flipped Class: Shedding light on the confusion, critique, and hype - THE DAILY RIFF - Be Smarter. About Education.](<a href=“Thedailyriff.com”>Thedailyriff.com)</p>
<p>[Daniel</a> Pink’s Think Tank: Flip-thinking ? the new buzz word sweeping the US - Telegraph](<a href=“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/7996379/Daniel-Pinks-Think-Tank-Flip-thinking-the-new-buzz-word-sweeping-the-US.html]Daniel”>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/7996379/Daniel-Pinks-Think-Tank-Flip-thinking-the-new-buzz-word-sweeping-the-US.html)</p>
<p><a href=“Online Learning Is Growing on Campus - The New York Times”>Online Learning Is Growing on Campus - The New York Times;
<p>[Donald</a> Clark Plan B: Flip the classroom - every teacher should do this](<a href=“http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2011/03/flip-classroom-every-teacher-should-do.html]Donald”>Donald Clark Plan B: Flip the classroom - every teacher should do this)</p>
<p>Motherbear, I would ask lots of questions about that study. Were the students equivalent in every important way? Was the same material presented? Were there any extraneous differences between the two approaches? Were the grading standards the same? Were the faculty the same?</p>
<p>Your faculty were pretty quick to abandon the lecture style, don’t you think? Based on one study? No rational person would do that. Sounds like they were eager to get rid of the lecture approach. </p>
<p>And calling the live lecture approach “educational malpractice” based on this? That’s funny.</p>
<p>Let’s see, they compared the flipped approach with the live lecture style? It would have been good research design to also compare these individual approaches with the two combined. Why not provide live lectures with questioning and drill AND sessions where students engage in homework, discussion, and activities. These are not mutually exclusive approaches. It would combine the best of both worlds. All you would have to do is increase student contact hours with faculty (for which parents pay $40K) from 2.5 hours per week to 5 hours per week. That makes complete sense, doesn’t it? You mean your faculty didn’t consider that possibility?? I wonder why…</p>
<p>If you want to make faculty squeal, propose an increase in student contact hours.</p>
<p>Sylvan, I am not suggesting that faculty contribute nothing to flipped instruction. I am saying that, once developed, the flipped classroom doesn’t require PhD level professors. I am also saying that parents don’t get much for their money with flipped instruction.</p>
<p>Parents love their children very much. They want desperately to ensure a good life for their child. The college is saying to the parent: “Give me several years of your family income. We will allow your child buy books, study the books, watch canned lectures, provide a room where your kids can do homework and activities and talk with each other, give them exams, and then give diplomas to a percentage of your kids. Meanwhile, our faculty will spend the bulk of their time doing research and writing to enhance the reputation of the school and improve our brand. They will also spend a great deal of time creating the rules by which this is achieved.”</p>
<p>Does this sound like a good deal? Am I missing something?</p>
<p>What are you getting for sacrificing several years of income?</p>
<p>There are a few aspects of the flipped classes that I do not understand.</p>
<p>At the high-school level, do the videos last as long as a typical class? If they are shorter, is that because the teacher is actually saying only 30 minutes of worthwhile sentences in a 60-minute period? Suppose that all of the classes are flipped, and suppose that they are just 45 minutes, rather than 60, and suppose that a student is taking only 6 courses. Then the students are supposed to be spending 4.5 hours per day watching videos. How long do you seriously think that would last? </p>
<p>The typical student doesn’t spend that much time on homework. The very advanced students often do, but their time is better spent than watching teach-to-the-median instruction. If students can “skip ahead” in mathematics or science classes, then pretty soon the “class” the teacher is leading is very split in terms of the material being covered. In history or literature classes, the advanced student is stuck spending the full video length listening to the video–I suppose it could be played at Alvin-the-Chipmunk speed–rather than reading the same material, which goes much faster than the speed of speech.</p>
<p>At the college level, I am not sure that I understand the time balance, either. The students have to watch the video, and then they spend time working problems in class, and then what? The net time spent out of class working on a college course should be 2-3 hours per hour of what used to be lecture. In the sciences and mathematics, I think this is an underestimate. For the stronger students, it seems to me that the “flipped” class offers a net loss of efficiency. I think that the in-class sessions would inevitably involve a lot of forced time-wasting for the quicker students–either that, or attempting to explain the material to the other students. When there is group problem solving, in some cases documented in Physics Today, the group winds up reaching consensus on a complete misunderstanding. </p>
<p>When people write about students “passively listening to lectures,” I would grant that they may be describing many students. However, that is not what a student is supposed to be doing in math/science. The student is supposed to be following along, anticipating the next steps, filling in the gaps between the steps, noticing what is being left out, checking how the definitions or principles operate, and marking questions. It is actually supposed to be a very active process.</p>
<p>If the students are passive in lectures with a “live” professor, will they not be passive while watching a video?</p>
<p>Also, for the faculty, I am not sure that it is less work to make a video than to deliver a lecture. I think that television and films influence the level of polish that students expect from material in video format. When you look at the credits for films, you have an indicator of how many person-hours go into making something that will hold a person’s attention for 2 hours. Most universities don’t have the financial resources for anything very polished to be prepared, to say nothing of the staffing.</p>
<p>My understanding of Khan Academy is that it’s effective, but that the individual videos are relatively brief. I am not sure that the brevity would work with the amount and depth of material to be covered in a university course.</p>