I don’t think the intention is for the students to get ALL of the homework problems done in the class periods (at least mine would not be). On the one hand, students can benefit from having another student “explain” to them - we lived for study group. At the same time, the better student also gains from having to try to put the nebulous concept into words to make it concrete for someone else. On the other hand, some students may not acknowledge that Student X is correct (or feels less confident in the explanation than if given by the professor). Some really weak students will just protest that “you have confused me by saying something different than the video/professor/etc.”</p>
<p>
Freshman and sophomore courses don’t “require” PhD level professors now. They can be and often are taught by people at the master’s level. If the goal is student learning, understanding, and retention, how do you know parents are not getting their money’s worth? Can you definitively say that students don’t learn much with these methods?</p>
<p>^^ No, I can’t definitively say that students learn less through flipped classes. I wish there was a body of good research on this. I am someone who can be persuaded by sound evidence but I am also skeptical about the quality of educational research. It is a very challenging field to study. I’d much rather be in the lab than in the classroom.</p>
<p>I just know that the history of education is a string of fads that come and go. Teachers get exited about some new concept…until a new buzz appears. I also trust my personal experience. Students who have good reading comprehension and good listening skills can absorb 10 times as much information per unit of time as they can through discovery learning. Labs and other activities are very effective as a way to reinforce and elaborate what is learned through lectures and textbooks but only as a supplement.</p>
<p>This is all so complicated. Students bring so many variables into the learning situation. In a perfect world, every student’s brain would be fine tuned to absorb knowledge at a rapid pace and they would enjoy doing so. I would say the educational process can start to go wrong as early as conception. Teachers have to deal with the realities that students present them. By the time they start school, it can be too late. By the time they start college, work habits and learning skills are hard to change.</p>
<p>But, low expectations don’t help anybody. I perceive that flipping has lower expectations.</p>
<p>And then there is the ethical issue of taking parents’ money for an educational product. Are they getting their money’s worth? Are colleges doing a good job fulfilling their role?</p>
I look at this (of course) through the prism of physics, math, engineering-type courses where “learning” the material means actually being able to “do” problems. This takes more than just listening and/or reading to accomplish. It’s also where students have the most trouble. They watch the professor do it and maybe it looks easy, but when they try to do it themselves they struggle. </p>
<p>In the traditional lecture-based model the student struggles outside of class when the professor is not there. If the professor manages to get them trying to work problems in a classroom he/she may be able to address the issues one-on-one right there. I do think some students (as I myself did) need a different environment in order to focus on grasping a problem - without the pressure or distraction of a room of noisy classmates.</p>
<p>Also, there are many students who will not ask questions in front of a group for fear of looking stupid. But faced with the professor speaking in low tones directly face-to-face they are more likely to broach the question to address what they are not getting.</p>
<p>I calculated the percent of revenue from tuition and fees that is spent on instruction using data from the US Department of Education IPEDS website and came up with some pretty crazy numbers. Percentages ranged from 40% to 800%. I am not an expert on finance, so I don’t understand the numbers. Cooper Union has very low tuition revenue. Schools that are heavily science and engineering may have higher instruction costs. There is a moderate correlation between selectivity (SAT) and percent with more selective schools spending a higher percent on instruction.</p>
<p>Can anyone shed light on this? Instructional expenses must come from revenues other than tuition.</p>
<p>I was looking for data that shows how tuition money is spent. This is a somewhat different question than “What do I get for my money?”</p>
<p>40.1% Webster University
42.8% American University
43.3% Emerson College
45.6% Benedictine University
47.7% New Saint Andrews College
48.2% Franciscan University of Steubenville
48.8% Stonehill College
49.5% Gonzaga University
49.9% Northeastern University
49.9% University of San Diego
51.5% Fordham University
51.6% Washington College
51.9% Pitzer College
52.9% Santa Clara University
53.2% University of Portland
53.2% University of Denver
53.7% Middlebury College
56.4% Villanova University
56.9% Gettysburg College
58.2% Hampshire College
59.3% Chapman University
60.6% Kettering University
60.8% Skidmore College
61.6% Elon University
61.9% Lewis & Clark College
62.0% Rollins College
62.0% Bucknell University
63.0% Thomas Aquinas College
63.1% Dickinson College
64.0% Muhlenberg College
64.4% Southern Methodist University
65.8% Stevens Institute of Technology
66.4% Polytechnic Institute of New York University
66.9% Whitman College
67.4% Boston College
67.6% University of Dallas
67.7% Colby College
68.7% Tufts University
68.7% Colgate University
68.9% University of Puget Sound
69.0% Colorado College
70.0% St Olaf College
70.1% Wheaton College
71.3% Willamette University
71.3% George Washington University
71.9% Sewanee-The University of the South
72.2% Reed College
72.3% Transylvania University
72.8% Austin College
74.1% Kenyon College
74.2% Gustavus Adolphus College
74.4% Occidental College
74.6% Grove City College
75.0% The College of Wooster
76.5% University of Richmond
77.2% Barnard College
78.3% Baylor University
80.1% Trinity College
80.2% Macalester College
81.3% Kalamazoo College
81.4% Lafayette College
81.4% Lehigh University
83.6% St John’s College
84.0% Georgetown University
84.5% Bowdoin College
85.5% Centre College
85.8% Denison University
86.2% Southwestern University
86.5% Beloit College
86.6% Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
86.9% Rhodes College
87.5% New York University
87.7% Trinity University
88.4% Claremont McKenna College
89.7% Furman University
91.0% University of Tulsa
91.6% Carleton College
92.3% Wesleyan University
93.2% Hamilton College
94.1% Hendrix College
94.5% Cornell University
94.6% Carnegie Mellon University
95.7% Tulane University of Louisiana
97.8% Boston University
98.6% Dartmouth College
101.6% Brown University
102.4% Davidson College
103.2% Oberlin College
106.1% Amherst College
106.2% Haverford College
106.3% Brandeis University
108.9% Harvey Mudd College
109.2% Scripps College
109.3% Washington and Lee University
115.3% University of Miami
116.4% Northwestern University
117.3% Vassar College
120.7% Swarthmore College
122.9% University of Notre Dame
127.8% Bryn Mawr College
137.1% University of Pennsylvania
139.0% Case Western Reserve University
143.6% University of Southern California
149.2% University of Rochester
151.6% Williams College
158.2% Wellesley College
159.2% Grinnell College
160.1% Pomona College
162.1% Emory University
172.1% Harvard University
182.1% Yeshiva University
222.4% Brigham Young University-Provo
222.5% Rice University
224.9% Massachusetts Institute of Technology
244.7% Duke University
259.9% Columbia University in the City of New York
284.7% University of Chicago
301.2% Johns Hopkins University
341.0% Stanford University
351.5% Vanderbilt University
377.0% Princeton University
399.4% Washington University in St Louis
421.8% College of the Ozarks
608.0% California Institute of Technology
690.5% Yale University
817.9% Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art</p>
Faculty are concerned about the possibility of this scenario also. No one wants to spend a lot of time developing a product that puts them out of a job. </p>
<p>But this is an issue with administration, not the pedagogical concept. It is similar to replacing regular faculty with underpaid adjuncts or having graduate students serve as the main instructor of courses, both of which happen all the time.</p>
I don’t know the details of what they did in San Jose State–just what they said in the article, but it sounds like they ran different sections of the course with different approaches. At my university, the person who had taught the course for years in standard format taught it flipped and the average grade of the students was much higher in the flipped course than it had been in the past. There is no reason to think there was any significant different in the student population or the material taught. The faculty member might have been more enthusiastic because he was doing something new. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, on the ground in the real world (or perhaps I should say the real ivory tower), all these wonderful studies you expect just don’t exist. People try something new that they think, based on their experience will work, and if it gets better results, they keep doing it. Or do it next time with modifications that make it even better. “Better” is determined by grades compared to past years, feedback from students, etc. </p>
<p>And “my faculty” didn’t “abandon the lecture style”. A few people tried a new approach in a few classes where they thought it might work. They were not trying to do a study, just improve their class.</p>
Big research universities get millions in research grants. Some of that goes to paying faculty. At the local university, the highest paid faculty are the ones who teach in the Med school.</p>
<p>Thanks for your insights, sylvan and motherbear. Many college faculty are (or will be) parents of college students themselves and many will pay hefty tuition. How would YOU want your child to be taught in, say, science and math courses? In humanities and social science courses?</p>
<p>While late to the discussion, I want to add my two cents.</p>
<p>Flipping a classroom is HARD work for a professor. It takes me at least three times the preparation per flipped class period, perhaps more. </p>
<p>My recordings are briefer than my lectures would be – only about 20 minutes, and I try and convey the bare-bone basics of what I would cover in lecture in any particular class period. Where I hope my students find the value added is that in the classroom, I introduce real data that illustrate the principles that I have covered in lecture. If I were just straight-out lecturing, I would never, ever have a chance to cover the applications of the principles properly or in-depth at a pace that undergraduates can grasp it and have those ah-ha moments.</p>
<p>Not every student is as bright as you would hope them to be, and working through the data in my STEM-type subject, reminding students of what graphs are, reminding students of why the experiments were run, applying the principles that were given in the lecture is hard work. It is a huge leap for many, many undergraduates to go from memorizing to understanding and applying.</p>
<p>Do I totally flip the class? No. Do I flip the class once a week? I try to, but it is so incredibly time consuming that I don’t always make that goal. Does it always work? Absolutely not. But no, these are not canned lectures that could be shown to students with a monkey coming into the classroom to administer problem sets and busy work during class-time.</p>
<p>It takes a good deal of experience to be able to get students to think, and when done properly, it can be yet another effective pedagogical tool.</p>
<p>I am a college administrator and former long-time faculty member. I have paid two sets of hefty tuition to private schools for both of our kids, one in the Humanities, one in the Social Sciences. One of the reasons why I considered this investment to be worthwhile was the work our kids had to do in order to prepare for the discussions and projects that they accomplished during class time. They were probably exposed to classic lectures no more than 20%-25% of the time. As a result, they are more knowledgeable and more importantly, much better able to apply that knowledge, compared to many of their peers. </p>
<p>As other posters have noted, flipping classes and other active-learning techniques are less “efficient” and add to college costs, as professors can only work with small class sized for these techniques to work well. </p>
<p>This is not news to Science and Math teachers, as they have been holding ‘labs’ and conducting in-class projects or problem-solving sessions for at least the last century. So, not a fad.</p>
<p>I can believe that students gain understanding when they participate in discussions and projects. They acquire a deeper understanding BUT it is a deeper understanding of less knowledge. They sacrifice breadth. Broad knowledge of facts and information is important. Broad knowledge of facts and concepts is the raw material for thought. If you don’t know very much, who is going to take your thoughts seriously? Why engage in a discussion with someone who doesn’t know very much? Who will care what you think if you don’t have a grasp of information?</p>
<p>Colleges that promote the flipped classroom should follow the model of science and engineering education and ADD a recitation section not REPLACE the lecture. Otherwise, your “customers” are being shortchanged. If colleges love so-called “active” learning approaches then ADD additional time for it. And, do it without raising tuition. </p>
<p>By the way, what is more mentally active than listening carefully to a lecture by an expert? In what way is discovery learning more “active” in any sense than paying thoughtful attention to a lecture and asking questions. (Problem is, many students can’t focus for very long and can’t process what they hear effectively.)</p>
<p>And, who are the “customers” at a college? The customers are the people who pay tuition and the society in general that is served by the institution of higher education.</p>
<p>Society is general is also a big part of the problem. We live in a society that “eats its young”, so to speak. Our culture renders children incapable of taking full advantage of educational opportunities. That’s the fundamental problem. In particular, poor childrearing is the problem and this comes back to the “customer”, too…the parents. The “customers”, parents and society, are making it difficult for colleges to exercise their function.</p>
<p>It is horrible. My math class was like this for 10th grade. And the school had been doing it long enough that the teacher didn’t even know the subject matter anymore. She did not even know what was on the videos. All the home work was auto-graded. After that year, my mom re-taught me the entire year of math and then I enrolled in math elsewhere. Now, my siblings and I will never take math in the public schools again. Class times were spent socializing because we could not go the work in the classroom due to everything being on the computer, even the home work. It was a waste of my time to show up for that class. Many of the better students at my school just don’t take math beyond what they have to in the schools.</p>
<p>I would add that the parts of “society” that are “eating its young” are primarily the entertainment media, the advertising media, and the communications media. Also, drugs and alcohol. Lots of people are making lots of money at the expense of lots of young people. Its sad and maddening. Politicians lack the vision and will to address the problems. The public needs to speak up. We are self-destructing.</p>
<p>I’ve never been in a fully flipped class, but I’ve been in classes where lectures were recorded and posted online during or following class, and in classes where, due to there being big final projects, some sessions were optional - students could do work during the time either in the room or elsewhere, but there was no lecture.</p>
<p>I don’t enjoy doing my homework in class. I’m fairly picky about where and with whom I do my studying, and a lecture hall hardly seems like a comfortable place. But I’ve never minded watching lectures online instead of going to class. This is uniquely available for the huge classes at my school. The main class where I did this was my biology class. It has to be recorded and simulcast both online and to other rooms because there is no lecture hall large enough to fit all the students enrolled in it. Sure, if you watch online you don’t get to ask questions, but when there are 700+ students in a class, you’re not going to get to ask that many questions anyway. Also, the only reason that there are so many students is that the class is that it’s required, so most students aren’t interested enough to ask anything.</p>
<p>Responding to #68we are currently paying a lot of money for S to attend an elite private. In his major (not STEM), many of the courses are discussion based. Students are supposed read something ahead of time and then discuss it in class. This is considered a good thing. At the risk of opening up a can of worms, Ill say that one of the reasons for paying the money is so that these discussion classes will be filled with very smart peers.</p>
<p>All of the STEM courses he took happened to be normal lecture style classes, so I dont have any feedback from him on that but for a STEM course where the subject involves a lot of problem solving, I dont see all that much difference between a humanities discussion course and a flipped classroom other than that a video is involved instead of reading, and instead of discussions of a text they are problem solving. </p>
<p>In earlier posts, Ive pointed to experiments at two different universities where students in the circuit course (this is an electrical engineering course that is mostly problem solving using differential equations, is considered very difficult by students and usually has a pretty high washout rate) did much better in a flipped setting. Sure, this is only two cases, but still very persuasive, IMO. </p>
<p>Whether a flipped classroom will be effective will depend on the subject matter and the quality of the teacher. It also depends on the setup of the classrooma setup with rows of desks facing the front and nailed to the floor is not ideal.</p>
<p>This article from the Washington Post in 2009 might be relevant. Some educators apparently argue that some students are “visual learners”, others are “auditory learners”, and others are “kinesthetic learners”. The author of the article states that there is no evidence that students learn in fundamentally different ways.</p>
<p>"According to the theory, if we know what sort of a learner a child is, we can optimize his or her learning by presenting material the way that they like. </p>
<p>The prediction is straightforward: Kids learn better when they are taught in a way that matches their learning style than when they are taught in a way that doesn’t. </p>
<p>That’s a straightforward prediction.</p>
<p>The data are straightforward too: It doesn’t work.</p>
<p>It doesn’t work–not only for the visual-auditory-kinesthetic theory, but for many other learning styles theories that have been proposed and tested since the 1940s.</p>
<p>Researchers have been conducting experiments on learning styles for 50 years. They’ve been tested with the sorts of materials that kids encounter in schools. They’ve been tested with kids diagnosed with a learning disability.</p>
<p>There just doesn’t seem to be much evidence that kids learn in fundamentally different ways."</p>
<p>It might not work if the teacher does not apply it correctly, but when flipped learning is done correctly it yields numerous benefits. My pre-calculus class was flipped this past year, and our classes test scores were far better then our other classmates who did not have it flipped. The teacher makes or breaks the flipped experience, and for the teacher to be successful it requires just as much, if not more time dedicated to writing lesson plans and preparing classroom work. I know all of my fellow classmates loved the flipped classroom experience, and we are all disappointed about returning to the traditional classroom for calculus.</p>
<p>Our homework every night was to watch about a 10 minute video each night that covered our “learning target” for the day. Then in class we would have a computerized quiz that checked if we understood the concept or not. Once we passed it we could go on to the next assignment. When you miss class you don’t fall behind because everything is right there on your computer. You can work ahead if you understand the topic, and the teacher can focus on the students who don’t understand the material in class. Its much more personalized.</p>
<p>To clarify, we took the quiz in class, which was basically like a problem set students normally do out of a book. Instead of waiting till the next day to find out how you do on the homework, its instantly graded on the computer, and you can ask the teacher right there to walk you through any problems if you miss them. Its instant feedback, you automatically know what you miss and why you did!</p>