<p>What part of this approach required a professor? as opposed to a teaching assistant or some other professional? How much of this could have been done online? Do you think this justified your parents tuition payments? Were you getting your money’s worth? Could a much less expensive model of higher education achieve the same thing? Like a remote classroom at your local high school?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, your answer to the question you suggested is half of the answer. How many students go to high school, get spoonfed all the imformation, the teacher tells them what to write down, what to take notes on etc etc? The answer is a lot. With flipped, students must actually figure out what to write down and they are responsible for their own learning. Secondly, you can actually make sure you understand everything, when a teacher is talking in class, you can’t pause her and rewind and play that section again because you don’t understand it. With flipped, you can rewind and watch the video again, or go back over something so you can finish taking notes. Being responsible for your own learning is much more “active” of a learning system than sitting back in class listening to a teacher talk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have to have someone make the videos, and you have to have someone in class to answer questions over the topic. So many people that have not been in a flipped class have the misconception that the teacher does nothing all class period. That’s definitely not the case, my teacher never sat down, and was up walking around all the time talking to students and helping them when they have questions. She spent more time on our class, making videos, making quizzes, and preparing additional information, than she did on any of her other classes. I definitely was getting the value out of it, and I’m not sure why one would think that I wasnt. if i understand the material better, get a better grade, and become prepared for the next level of the subject, why would I complain about the method it was taught? Myself, and my classmates, felt as though we learned more than we would have in a traditional classroom, and our test scores showed it. I would take it again in a heartbeat!</p>
<p>If students are essentially teaching themselves, then why is college so expensive? Why don’t we find the best pre-calc teacher in the world, have that one teacher make the videos, and then have people available to answer questions online? There has to be a more efficient model for teaching and learning at the post-secondary level if what you are getting is a flipped classroom.</p>
<p>By the way, I happen to think PhD faculty are well worth the cost of tuition if you have the opportunity to hear how their mind works. Interacting with PhD faculty in person is what makes college worth the cost.</p>
<p>Regarding post #82, I was trying to make the point that it is wrong to call hands-on learning “active” because it creates the false impression that listening to a lecture is “inactive”. What is often “inactive” is the mind of the student, not the lecture. It is not a problem with teaching styles, it is a problem with students.</p>
<p>Some students have very active minds and are interested in ideas and imagination. More and more students, however, require a lot of external stimulation to get the brain working. I think the human mind becomes tuned to the environment it is usually in and the typical environment is filled with various media competing for your attention by providing lots of noise and visual fireworks. Students fall asleep when the level of external stimulation falls below that of a Hollywood action film. </p>
<p>There is an inverse relationship between the activity level of your mind and the amount of external stimulation you need. Inactive minds require more external excitement to stay awake.</p>
<p>I have perceived changes in the past 10-12 years.</p>
<p>collegehelp, I think I would better understand your arguments if you explicitly described what you think happens in a traditional lecture-style classroom. Or maybe a couple of cases - say, a 150-student general physics I course and a 24-student general physics I course. How are the PhD professor (which, as I mentioned above is not a requirement at this level) and the standard format integral to student learning, outcomes, etc.?</p>
<p>At this point you are just responding to scientific studies with anecdotes.</p>
<p>I personally am a junior in high school, so I’m not as experienced in the college implementation of flipped learning. All I can tell you is, if you are trying to state that college should be cheaper if students are learning by these methods, I guess why question is why? Students are learning the same things just a different way. That’s like comparing an low level employee at a fortune 500 company, to a employee at a local coffee shop and asking why they get paid the same thing (hypothetically). Is one doing more difficult work? That’s in the eye of the beholder. But they are both doing work, as are teachers that teach in both systems. Both teachers are working and trying to provide the best service they can to the student. </p>
<p>Now obviously I think the price of college these days is outrageous, but I’m not sure how flipped classrooms are being blamed for this.</p>
<p>Also, I think you might believe the misconception that flipped learning eliminates teacher student interaction. I can personally guarantee that that is not the case. I’ve had so many more in-depth discussions with my teacher this year, because the teacher doesn’t have to hurry through the material she needs to cover for the day.</p>
<p>Sylvan,
When I mentioned the value of the PhD professor, I was thinking more about upper division courses and graduate courses where research expertise might be helpful in explaining and critiquing research studies. In lower division courses, the PhD might not be as advantageous. Generally, I think the more education the better when it comes to teachers but not necessarily. Great teachers can have different credentials. Glad to have the chance to clarify…</p>
<p>Not sure about non-calc physics, but lecture style would involve explaining principles, deriving formulas, pointing out relationships, doing a few problems in class, things like that. Then there would be the hands-on labs IN ADDITION to the lecture.</p>
<p>I like this model of instruction because you get both the lecture-style class AND the hands-on lab.</p>
<p>My concern is more with the courses that don’t offer labs and that are moving toward flipped instruction in lieu of the lecture. Many of my larger science and non-science undergrad courses had recitation sections IN ADDITION to the lecture where you could ask more questions, go over homework, and so on. I think that was a good model.</p>
<p>23theman, many graduate programs are now offering more formal training to graduate students in teaching at the college level. Many college professors lack formal education in teaching, unlike your high school teachers.</p>
<p>
But I don’t really see these courses as being the type that will be using a “flipped” model so how does that relate to your concern about those lower level courses where the model is more likely to be useful? </p>
<p>And personally, if I were ever to teach an upper level or graduate physics course (not likely! :)), there is no way that I would do it the way my professors did. While I would not be using a flipped model, I would be using something different than the lectures they favored.</p>
<p>I’d have loved a flipped classroom in my graduate physics courses. The ability to rewind and rewatch some of the stuff my professors said would have been amazingly useful. Having them available to help us solve problems and understand concepts at a deeper level than a flyby at 500 miles an hour.</p>