Tag Archives: Flipped classroom

Values underpinning flipped pedagogy

 

Flipped pedagogy is not really an issue of technology. It is a problem of teaching. What guides that teaching is the values that underpin our decisions in classroom management. Whilst we could write books on this subject, for practical purposes here, I would suggest four guiding principles that should be considered:

Appreciate students’ prior knowledge. This is not to say that we have to assess each student to see what they are bringing with them. If you have a class of 400 students, such one-to-one interrogation is not practical. It is more important that students activate their own prior knowledge and understand what is important in the ‘new context’ of the current course.

Consider the relationship between meaningful and rote learning. Do you want students to memorise facts to be regurgitated or do you want them to be able to apply those higher order thinking skills that require synthesis, evaluation and creation of knowledge?

Consider the value of formative assessment. This can help to activate prior knowledge and get students to better appreciate our expectations of meaningful learning. Well-constructed formative assignments can also help students to organise and structure their knowledge so that it can be used more effectively in the future.

Consider where you want to be on the student-centred / teacher-centred spectrum. Again, this relates to the ways in which the previous principles are enacted.

These four guiding principles are not isolated from each other. The relationships between these elements are dynamic – see the figure below. Therefore, if we fail with respect to one of these guiding principles, we are in danger of letting to whole enterprise collapse.

In the PowerPoint slides that are included below, I show how the neglect of meaningful learning (possibly through lack of constructive alignment between learning outcomes and assessments) allows the dominance of rote learning to negate any interest in formative assessment or prior knowledge. The outcome of this will be a focus on lower order thinking skills and a retreat into traditional, conservative modes of teaching:

 

values and principles for flipping

For set of PowerPoint slides that show what happens when meaningful learning is replaced by rote learning:  click values and principles for flipping

Where the two models presented in the slides attached are in simultaneous operation within a department, the students will probably opt for the line of least resistance and strategically opt to focus on the lower order thinking skills that are rewarded by rote learning. Students are therefore less well prepared for study in the following year (where understanding of previous modules will be assumed), or indeed for professional practice where students have to apply theory to practice in novel situations. So, if the underlying values of the curriculum are not explicitly shared across a faculty, there is a danger of the environment exhibiting pedagogic frailty and the typical outcome will be a retreat into conservative and ‘safe’ pedagogic practices. Where this happens, the energy expended on developing a flipped classroom will have been wasted.

Values should be the starting point for the development of the flipped classroom, not content or technology.

 

 

 

 

Active Learning

The debate about ‘active learning’ seems to have been going on for a very long time, with an overwhelming view that ‘active’ is better than ‘passive’, and yet some colleagues still find some novelty in the discussion. This is now being combined with discussions about technology and mechanisms in which the active approach can be supported in the classroom. A few articles that I have come across lately offer more evidence about the potential for active learning in technology-enhanced classrooms.

Wolff et al (2015) have looked at techniques to foster engagement and encourage self-directed learning. Within their paper, they offer some useful advice such as:

  • Incorporate pauses. So many sessions are stuffed full of content with no time to pause and reflect to see if you have really understood the content. Inserting a pause to allow learners to clarify points is a very simple thing to do and (importantly) has no resource implications.
  • Tell a story. Many colleagues have found that the story approach provides the hook that makes students listen, and provides a structure to help recall. The oral tradition has existed throughout history, but is not often reflected in our PowerPoint-filled teaching environment.
  • Draw a map. Anyone who has read my writings will know that this is one of my favourites. Converting text to diagram (or vice versa) has many benefits, and the creation of links needed within a map requires higher levels of thinking and processing.
  • Learn by doing. Well I am not sure if anyone would argue against this. Doing something is always more interesting than doing nothing.
  • Get a commitment. The use of audience response system is a more sophisticated way of getting students to raise their hands, and can offer instant feedback about what their peers think about a problem.

Baepler et al (2014) look at a slightly different perspective and consider the time spent to teach students. In their study, the authors found that they could reduce the amount of time that students spent in the classroom (by up to 2/3) and still achieve the same learning outcomes. So any statistics about student contact time appear to be a bit redundant. The fact that students are sitting in front of you does not guarantee that they are learning. By trading contact hours for an active learning pedagogy these authors are increasing teaching efficiency. This has important implications as active learning spaces are often not designed to pack students in like sardines (in the way that lecture theatres do), but it seems that each student may not need to spend so long in class anyway. It is an interesting one that requires more investigation. There must be some sort of relationship between degree of engagement in learning and the time required to master the ideas being addressed.

The flipped classroom seems to be the answer for many colleagues – see previous posts. See and Conry (2014) describe a model for faculty development to sensitize colleagues to the potential of flipping. Worth a look.

I would just add one caveat to some of the points raised in the papers mentioned here. Not all lectures have to be boring (see the title of the paper by Wolff et al). Some lectures are really inspirational, and they shouldn’t be lost in the rush towards flipping, or anything else. Like all teaching innovations, there needs to be some thought involved.

References

Baepler, P., Walker, J.D. and Dreissen, M. (2014) It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78: 227 – 236.

See, S. and Conry, J.M. (2014) Flip my class! A faculty development demonstration of a flipped classroom. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning, 6: 585 – 588.

Wolff, M., Wagner, M.J., Poznanski, S., Schiller, J., and Santen, S. (2015) Not another boring lecture: Engaging learners with active learning techniques. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 48(1): 85 – 93.

Digital technology amplifies the obvious

Digital technology in various forms is now well embedded into teaching at university. The use of PowerPoint seems ubiquitous – barely a lecture goes by without the support of a slide presentation. And what is interesting is the way in which the projection of PowerPoint slides also projects the lecturer’s views on teaching. It bares all, whether you intend it or not.

Lecturers who claim to be interested in student engagement have their bluff called when they then have a slide presentation without any room for questions because they are so full of content. The structure of the knowledge within the presentation is also transparent, with linearity usually dominating (Kinchin et al., 2008). Use of technology gives signals about you as a teacher that will be interpreted by students.

It is also interesting to see how practices that are self-evidently sensible suddenly become ‘innovative’ once they are set in the context of “flipped classrooms” or “lecture capture technology”. For example, we can find  recommendations such as ‘keeping on-line pre-class videos short – about 20 minutes to maximize student engagement’. Well this is surely also a good idea in the analogue classroom too. We know full well that students find it difficult to remain engaged for a full 60 minute lecture, but the logistics of timetabling 20 minute lectures on campus means that in the analogue world it is just not practical. The digital environment enables us to do this in practice.

So too comments such as “sequence your materials logically“, “offer support to colleagues“, or “manage your students’ expectations” are all quite sensible as guidelines for the digital world, but are equally well suited to the analogue teaching environment too.

I think we have to be a little wise to the re-invention of good practice. Maybe some of our younger colleagues are hearing these things for the first time. That’s fine, so long as they do not walk away thinking that all these valid classroom tips are uniquely valid for the digital teaching environment. The digital-analogue divide needs to be bridged. Good teaching is good teaching, whether you are using a VLE or a chalk board.  But if the application of technology is helping to push these ideas to the fore, that can only be a good thing – surely?

Reference

Kinchin, I.M., Chadha, D. and Kokotailo, P. (2008) Using PowerPoint as a lens to focus on linearity in teaching. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(4): 333 – 346.

Flipped classrooms again

My previous post about flipping the classroom created some interest, so I thought I’d check out the current literature and see what is new. Overall, the picture looks rosy. No matter what subject you are teaching, authors are finding that the flipped classroom yields better results and improved student attitudes to their studies.

McBride (2015) describes his motivations for experimenting with flipping:

My reasoning behind trying the experiment of “flipping” my classes was to achieve four things. First, I wanted to cover more material. Second, I wanted to engage the students more in class by “lecturing” less. Third, I wanted the students to have an enjoyable experience with mathematics since most students were non-math/science majors with preconceived prejudices against math. Fourth, I was hoping their grades and pass rates would increase.”

Who can argue against them?

Three other papers sprung out at me for various reasons: O’Flaherty and Phillips (2015) offer a very useful review for those of you who need a quick overview of the literature. Moffett (2015) offers a series of eminently sensible practical tips on the classroom implementation of flipping. Gilboy et al. (2015) address one of the most important issues around teaching innovation: what is the effect on student engagement? The outcome was that the majority of the students preferred flipped over traditional.

As with many educational innovations, the literature on flipping is overwhelmingly positive. So two caveats:

1) perhaps those experiments that ‘fail’ are simply not reported : no-one wants a bad news story.

2) is it really the ‘flipping’ that is having the effect, or is it the way it re-energises the teachers and this is why the students do better and are more engaged?

No doubt this literature will move forward quickly over the next couple of years with various questions being asked of the theory and practice of flipped pedagogy. It is also important to look beyond the boundaries of a single programme or module. What are the effects of flipped pedagogy in module A on students’ learning (and or teachers’ classroom practices) within related non-flipped classrooms? Surely, if the theory is sound (in terms of gains in learning), the effects will extend beyond the immediate context?  Plenty to look out for in the literature.

References

Gilboy, M. B., Heinerichs, S. and Pazzaglia, G. (2015) Enhancing student engagement using the flipped classroom. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 47(1): 109 – 114.

McBride, C. (2015) Students’ attitudes and success during my first attempts at flipping. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 6(2): 2174 – 2183.

Moffett. J. (2015) Twelve tips for ‘flipping’ the classroom. Medical Teacher, 37(4): 331 – 336.

O’Flaherty, J. and Phillips, C. (2015) The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. Internet and Higher Education, 25: 85 – 95.

Preparing for lectures – or not.

I often hear colleagues say that students will not read the book before the class so there is no point in asking them to. The result is that there is then the assumption that they will not read and so the lecture is structured with this assumption. The problem is that those who have done the reading are bored by the lecture because they have already done the work, whilst those who didn’t do the reading have their assumption (that there wasn’t any point in doing it) confirmed to them. It is then difficult for an academic who might only be delivering a couple of lectures in the middle of the semester to impose a different level of expectation. S/he then has to conform to the Conventional Wisdom of the Dominant Group (COWDUNG) to maintain the status quo and avoid the wrath of the students when it comes to evaluation time.

I have observed this situation first hand in numerous academic departments – particularly in the sciences. In the Humanities, the situation often appears to be very different. Within an English Literature class (for example) there is the assumption and the expectation that the students will have read the book (or relevant chapters) ready for discussion and analysis in class. It would be inconceivable that a literature teacher would sit and read Shakespeare while the students took notes. The expectation is clear – you read at home and we analyse in class.  It is as if Bloom’s Taxonomy works differently in the different disciplines (see my earlier Blog post on the flipped classroom).

So can we get the students to prepare for lectures by reading relevant materials, and avoid coming to the content ‘cold’? Heiner et al (2014) investigated ways of encouraging students to prepare for class by increasing their reading. They looked at the effects of giving a graded quiz on the reading in class or shortly before class using an online platform. They stress two specific features:

  • ensuring the reading is very specific and closely linked to the content of the class
  • using quiz questions that explicitly refer to specific pages and figures in the textbook.

Their method resulted in over 95% of students reporting that they increased the use of the textbook, with 80% reading the textbook on a regular basis. They also found that students began to recognise more the benefits of reading to their learning, and the use of productive reading strategies.

The direction of reading activity is a well-known issue. Telling students to ‘read around’ does not provide enough focus for them. The link between reading and other class activities has to be explicit and immediate in order to establish a pattern of learning.

It is possible. But it takes some preparation.

Reference:

Heiner, C.E., Banet, A.I., and Wieman, C. (2014) Preparing students for class: How to get 80% of students reading the textbook before class. American Journal of Physics, 82(10): 989 – 996

Flipped classrooms: isn’t that the way around it should have been anyway?

There is considerable buzz around universities at the moment about the “flipped classroom”. In essence, this is where the delivery of content is carried out online, leaving the face-to-face time available for discussion, interaction, group work and activities to promote higher level learning.

This is in contrast to what many term the ‘traditional teaching approach’, which in practice means racing through the content in lectures and leaving the students to make sense of everything in their own time.  Somehow, over the years the traditional approach has been seen to have gained some mystical credibility (almost acting as a rite of passage) and has allowed academics to make crass claims about how much harder it was in ‘their day’, and how lecturing is in some way a grown up form of teaching that separates universities from schools. One of the arguments that has sustained traditional teaching within universities, is that large classes require a more formal approach, and lecturing at them seems to be the most economical method available. Observers have noted that this traditional approach also provides a mechanism to promote non-learning (Kinchin et al, 2008), and if we were to be really cynical, to keep  students at arm’s length. Advances in digital technology over the past decade have produced mechanisms whereby the previously held objections to moving from the ‘traditional method’ have been made redundant.

image

The flipped classroom and Bloom’s Taxonomy:     Blooms flipped

There are serious Pedagogical implications of flipping the classroom. Look for example at the annotated depiction of Bloom’s Taxonomy in the figure above. In the traditional classroom, it seems that the teacher is engaged in the lower levels of the taxonomy (remembering and understanding), whilst leaving the students to fend for themselves when it comes to engaging with the higher order thinking skills (creating and evaluating) – the time when they need most support. It seems the flipped classroom is the more sensible approach that offers students most support when they need it, and one that reflects more closely what might happen in compulsory education.

Maybe we should talk about the ‘flipped-back classroom’ to reflect this?

In their book, Bergmann and Sams (2012) consider in detail many aspects of the flipped classroom, including reflections by teachers who have experienced a move from the traditional to the flipped:  “Teaching under a traditional model is draining. I feel like I have to ‘perform’, which requires energy, enthusiasm, and a “you are on-stage” effort at all times. … When I switched over I felt free. I was able to go in and watch my students work. I stayed busy interacting one-to-one.”

Perhaps we should have more discussion about the pedagogy of the ‘flipped-back classroom’ ?

References

Bergmann, J. and Sams, A (2012) Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Alexandria, VA, ASCD.

Kinchin, I.M., Lygo-Baker, S. and Hay, D.B. (2008) Universities as centres of non-learning. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1): 89 – 103.