@JB StillFlying and @85bears46 and @JHS There is a decent amount of literature suggesting that the format can be efficacious especially in the context of STEM courses. Usually most professors employing it use a hybrid format, and since a human is in control, it depends on the human implementing it. But there are apparently cases where even those who get high evaluations in a pure lecture format get better learning outcomes in the hybrid and flipped formats. I don’t know about non-STEM subjects, but it has been found that more active learning and problem driven/collaborative learning formats (even if not completely flipped) are more effective at getting students to do higher levels of learning beyond the lower divisions of Bloom’s taxonomy. And they have particularly shown effects in courses that are more quantitative, where students were trained in k-12 to do algorithmic approaches to problem solving (that is, memorize the process and repeat the process on the exam and out comes the right number), but not think about the conceptual underpinnings too much which is actually a serious problem in university level chemistry and physics courses, even at elite universities:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwslBPj8GgI
*Turns out our great test taking mainly translates to an ability to plug and chug and be obedient in many STEM focused courses.
The same logic is also being applied to lots of biology (and things like organic chemistry) where we were trained to kind of just memorize and regurgitate things or, at best demonstrate a sort of superficial understanding (because prior to the AP/IB exams where a lot of us are heavily coached for in a way unlike how a college classroom would work, HS and k-12 faculty tend to populate assessments with very low level items, and this trickles up to college and many faculty find themselves doing the same thing to a) make tests easier to grade and b) avoid resistance from students who aren’t used to doing higher ordered items on exams without heavy coaching). More active learning, pbl/cbl, and flipped versions tend to yield better results on higher level exam items. So often students don’t like it, or don’t feel as if they are learning from it (because we are programmed to believe we only learn by watching a professor work problems or passively copying notes), it often is better if you want to take the thinking to the next level.
My alma mater (Emory-I don’t know how to describe student culture there…weird. Like some purgatory land between an Ivy style approach and a Chicago approach. There seems to be an unexpected level of receptivity to unusually rigorous instruction/intellectual demands as long as the instructor has an excellent reputation for teaching, but there is a chunk of students that really do just “want it to be fun, entertaining, high yield for knowledge, and low stress”) has done the flipped/hybrid flipped classroom for most gen. chem sections for…2-3 years I want to say, as a part of the implementation of a completely redesigned undergraduate chemistry curriculum. They handle this partially by having the ALEKS system teach them the basics before they show up in the fall, and then they do small/no lecture and mainly focus on activities that build the conceptual and mathematical background needed to master certain concept. It seems generally well received (as in not wide spread resistance), and students do okay (by that, I mean, exam averages are typical for intro. STEM courses anywhere. Usually 70s, and if a particularly strong cohort or easier test, then 80s) on the exams despite them having more challenging content than in the initial curriculum.
The new one includes serious organic chemistry content towards the end of the first semester “general chemistry” course as well as a solid integration of organic reactivity to frame traditional gen. chem 2 concepts in the 2nd semester. Organic chemistry and the structural aspects of gen. chem aren’t that “plug and chug” oriented like a lot of the AP curriculum, so it is possible that students don’t resist because they view the in class work-sheets and activities as legitimate preparation for more conceptually focused problems and applications. If the problems were just math/“plug and chug”, I am sure they wouldn’t be as appreciative because they could probably just learn by sitting and copying notes/the problem solving process of the teacher. And I think you are correct about the interaction element. The instructors and TAs stay in the room during activities to mentor, lead, and sum up the activities. It isn’t a full “hands off” approach, but does put more onus on the student which can be uncomfortable. You alluded to the issue of content loss possible and that is always one thing mentioned in the literature about these formats because a lot of resources may just go towards managing the the classroom as opposed to delivering content. However, if planned well it works fine (by the end of the 2nd semester, they actually got to an interesting end of the course where they tied together the content to understand enzyme-substrate binding qualitatively/quantitatively as well as an enzymatic reaction from a mechanistic standpoint).
It is a shame that some disingenuous instructors may indeed use it as a time saver. However, if the instructor is serious and dedicated, it can pay off whether students feel comfortable with or “like” it or not. We have to accept that even at the most elite schools, students may not like learning in a way that deviates from their expectations or past ways of learning. Furthermore, young students may not be the best at gauging whether they are actually learning (they may equate memorization and low levels of understanding to “learning”. I need not talk about the effects of entertainment and a variety of other non-competency/learning based things that yield student satisfaction).
*Either way, I say that students and others invested should keep an open mind about course delivery formats. To me, it is always about care in choosing WHO delivers it and how serious they are about teaching undergraduates. With these active learning biased classrooms, I would mainly trust those who have a track record of strong and rigorous teaching that were fairly well-respected by past cohorts of students (most at my alma mater who have the "flipped’ sections of gen. chem and ochem are/were award winning teachers before the curriculum change and were well liked by students and administration for the impact they had through their pedagogy).