Tag: lecture

Does flipping the classroom improve learning?

The instructional strategy of “flipping the classroom” is one of those recommendations that seems on first consideration to make a lot of sense. The core idea hinges on the truth that classroom time with students is limited and efficient use must be made of this time. Instead of taking up a substantial amount of this time with teacher presentations, why not move the exposure to content outside of class time and use class time for more active tasks such as helping students who have problems and allowing students to engage in active tasks with other students? With easy access to tools for recording presentations and sharing recordings online, why not simply have educators share presentations with students and have students review this material before class? So, presentations were flipped from class time to settings that might have been more frequently used for homework.

This all seemed very rational. I cannot remember where I first encountered the idea, but I did purchase Flip Your Classroom (Bergman and Sams, 2012) written by the high school teachers who I believe created the concept. While I did use my blog and textbook to promote this approach, I must have always wondered. I wrote a blog post in 2012 commenting that flipping the classroom sounded very similar to my large lecture experience of presenting to hundreds of students and expecting that these students would have read the textbook before class. Again, the logic of following up an initial exposure with an anecdote-rich and expanded focus on key concepts seemed sound. However, I knew this was not the way many students used their textbooks and some probably did not even make the purchase, but I was controlling what I could control. 

There have been hundreds of studies evaluating the flipping strategy and many meta-analyses of these studies. These meta-analyses tend to conclude that asking students to watch video lectures before coming to class is generally beneficial. I think many have slightly modified the suggested in-class component to expand the notion of greater teacher-student interaction to include a focus on active learning. Kapur et al (2022), authors of the meta-analysis I will focus on eventually, list the following experiences as examples of active learning – problem-solving, class discussions, dialog and debates, student presentations, collaboration, labs, games, and interactive and simulation-based learning activities. 

The institution where I taught had a group very much interested in active learning and several special active learning “labs” were created to focus on these techniques. The labs contained tables instead of rows of chairs, whiteboards, and other adaptations. To teach a large class in this setting you had to submit a description of the active techniques you intended to implement. The largest classes (200+) I taught could not be accommodated in these rooms and I am not certain if I would have ever submitted a proposal anyway. 

Kupar et al. (2022)

Kupar and colleagues found reason to add another meta-analysis to those already completed. While their integrated analysis of the meta-analytic papers concluded that the flipped classrooms have an advantage, Kapur and colleagues were puzzled by the great variability present among the studies. Some studies demonstrated a great advantage in student achievement for the flipped approach and some found that traditional instruction was superior. It did not seem reasonable that a basic underlying advantage would be associated with this much variability and the researchers proposed that a focus on the average effect size without consideration of the source or sources for this variability made little sense. They conducted their own meta-analysis and coded each study according to a variety of methodological and situational variables. 

The most surprising finding from this approach was that the inclusion of active learning components was relatively inconsequential. Remember that the use of such strategies in the face-to-face setting was emphasized in many applications. Surprisingly, segments of lecture within the face-to-face setting were a better predictor of an achievement advantage. Despite the break from the general understanding of how flipped classrooms are expected to work, educators seemed to use these presentations to review or supplement independent student content consumption and this provided an achievement bump.

The active beneficial learning component found to make a difference involved a problem-based strategy and when the entire process began with a problem-based experience. This finding reminds me of the problem-based learning research conducted by Deanna Kuhn who also proposed that the problem-based experience start the learning sequence. Kapur used the phrase productive failure to describe the way struggling with a problem before encountering relevant background information was helpful. Kuhn emphasized a similar process without the catchy label and proposed the advantage was more a matter of the activation of relevant knowledge and guiding the interpretation of information within the presentation of content that followed.

Regarding the general perspective on the flipped model identified by Kapur and colleagues, their findings were less an indictment of the concept, but a demonstration of the lack of fidelity in implementations to the proposed advantage of using face-to-face time to interact and adjust to student needs. Increasing response to the needs of individual needs would seem beneficial and may be ignored in favor of activities that are less impactful. 

References:

Kapur, M., Hattie, J., Grossman, I., & Sinha, T. (2022, September). Fail, flip, fix, and feed–Rethinking flipped learning: A review of meta-analyses and a subsequent meta-analysis. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 7, p. 956416). Frontiers.

Pease, M. A., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Experimental analysis of the effective components of problem?based learning. Science Education, 95(1), 57-86.

Wirkala. C. & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-Based Learning in K–12 Education: Is it Effective and How Does it Achieve its Effects? American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1157–1186

Loading

Logic in evaluating arguments for and against the long form

Much has been written and argued in opposition to the “long form”. Whether it is opposition to textbooks or lectures, those thinking something different is required argue that the long form is too passive, too boring, and not sufficient to develop the skills required for some new form of job or citizenship. I am careful to use the term “argued” because to my knowledge there is little data to authenticate these claims. Reliance on argument over data seems a more acceptable practice in politics and social sciencs in constrast to what are typically labeled “the sciences”.

One of the challenges in evaluating “logical” claims is evaluating such claims without bias. We tend to accept what we think should be.

When someone offers a defense of the “long form”, what is your approach in interpreting the arugments advanced? It is challenging to recognize that similar arguments can be advanced for competing positions.

If you are in favor of active thinking, how do you interpret the position that active means developing the capacity for sustained attention and personal processing of information provided by others (thinking and note taking related to lecture)? How do you interpret the position that what the future requires is the capacity to critically evaluate the positions taken by others and contrast them with your own. What do think “spoon fed” implies – extended arguments by experts or isolated bits of experience assuming the capacity to integrate? Where should the personal commitment (motivation) to learning originate – the student or the instructor?

Loading

Lecture?

Classes begin again on Monday. Wednesday I lecture to 200 students. We teach many of these large courses. Providing instruction to large numbers of students who are required to take our “service” courses is expected of our department and there is no practical way to handle this demand without meeting in large groups. What is under dispute, if I understand the “new” critics, is what should happen when these large numbers of students meet.

First, there have been variations on what is described as “flipping the classroom”. This may mean different things to different people, but I take it to mean that students should first encounter “information” before coming to class (read the book, watch an online video) and then spend class time “discussing” what they have learned (or not) with the instructor. There are certainly many sources for “recorded” lectures with many institutions offering their lecture content online and many ways for any of us to record and post content.

A recent and it would appear related ripple swept through the online circles many of us are part of because of an NPR spot based on the method of a Harvard physics instructor (Eric Mazur). The concern in this case seems to be that physics students have focused on the procedural methods to solve required problems but have not developed conceptual understanding. Mazur proposes that small groups of students within a large class discuss challenging questions and then report. Again, learn the basics outside of the lecture hall and use the FTF time to discuss under instructor supervision and direction.

I have commented on this general issue previously. Somewhere else in my posts I indicate that the lecture method has long been questioned, indicating that Fred Keller in 1968 authored a paper titled “Goodbye teacher” again arguing that the lecture was not effective. Keller’s argument was somewhat different suggesting that the lecture was unresponsive to individual needs proposing that “mastery” quizzes, reading material, and tutors provided a more adaptive approach.

I have been trying to think through what I think the underlying mechanisms and problems involved in this discussion might be. I think there may be several. The first issue may be that not enough time is not committed to learning. By expecting students to work with online lecture content outside of class time AND then spend class time processing content, the time devoted to learning is increased.

The concern that the presentation of content does not encourage “deep understanding” seems different. Posing challenging questions can certainly be part of any presentation so the key addition in the Mazur method would seem to be the small group discussion. Somehow, this approach assumes that background knowledge is acquired without presentation or at least with far less time devoted to presentation (I suppose from the textbook) and the time previously allocated for explanation or the presentation of unique information is better spent by engaging students in discussion.

There are many issues to parse here and perhaps different ways to respond if the key issues and benefits can be identified. I wonder if the content area matters. I would bet the “concept density” among classes varies greatly with, for example, physics introducing far fewer concepts than say Intro psych, but introducing concepts that may be more difficult for students. I would have predicted that the procedural skills (problem solving) involved in what I thought happened in physics classes was the most difficult challenge for students. Perhaps when the time required to describe concepts is brief but the abstractness of the concepts difficult to penetrate, discussion or some form of grappling with the “big ideas” would be a more productive use of time. When the number of concepts is large, but based in conceptual models that can be easily interpreted, then class time might best be spent presenting these concepts with basic explanations.

I also wonder about the motivational issue. For example, would it be even more efficient to provide students conceptual challenges to discuss before or after more traditional classes. Do students need to have the instructor in the same room to engage in group discussion? What has happened to the concept of students organizing “study groups”? Is it possible that requiring discussion during class time is a way to assure that discussion happens?

BTW – our Intro Psych classes do set aside time for “discussion”. In our Intro classes, we lecture twice a week and students meet in smaller groups with a graduate student group leader once a week. This seems a compromise approach that has been in place for generations and seems reasonable if my interpretation of the content area I address as expecting that students deal with a large number of relatively easy to comprehend concepts is accurate.

Loading