Another dot in the blogosphere?

Posts Tagged ‘flipping

I fielded questions on the flipped classroom and flipped learning during my last two seminars. I collected the questions with Google Forms, Padlet, and TodaysMeet.

I answered all the questions in the SG Flippers Community space in Google+. But I thought I should share some of the questions here on a more open platform.

One question was about the age or developmental appropriateness of flipping.
 

iPads arrive in 4th grade... by timlauer, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic License   by  timlauer 

 
Question: Are Primary school students ready for flipped learning? Doesn’t it require a certain level of maturity and self-motivation?

My brief answer: The video I featured was done by Primary school students. They created and taught, which are more complex skills than passive consumption.

Maturity and self-motivation are not prerequisites to flipping; they are end results or desired outcomes. See an elaboration to a similar question I answered earlier.

More thoughts: I have encountered higher education instructors thinking that flipping is better suited for younger learners and teachers of young students assuming that flipping is better for older learners. If the question is not asked out of honest curiosity, I might be tempted to say that the question is a manifestation of an instructor’s or a teacher’s deflective mindset. My question is: What are you running away from?
 

 
Question: How do we get our “please-serve-me-on-a-platter” students ready for flipped learning?

My brief answer: With several concurrent and supporting strategies. Here are five broad ideas.

  1. Resist the urge and ease of serving. Ask more Qs than providing immediate As.
  2. Establish this as an expectation for both you and your learners. Stick to it.
  3. At strategic intervals, remind your learners (and other stakeholders if necessary) the rationales for getting them to think more actively and do more meaningfully.
  4. Design authentic work and assignments. These rarely have clear answers or are easily served.
  5. Work with other like-minded folk so that your efforts are not isolated.

This series continues tomorrow.

Today I share some tweets that begin a story on whether academic papers are read and I end the story with questions on teaching practice.

Last week I shared this STonline article.

It received quite a lot of attention judging from the Twitter conversations I had with people I had never met before.

One short conversation with one academic focused on an important aspect that the article brought up. If university faculty are appraised in ways that do not promote more open sharing or public discourse, then little will change.

For example, if more appraisal points are not awarded for getting grants that require data and publications to be more openly shared [example], faculty will maintain the status quo.

Several others focused on people not reading the articles they cite or not reading deeply enough.

It led me to tweet about the need to read pragmatically.

Given the disproportionately large volume of readings compared to the time for academic writing, it is pragmatic for academics to read selectively.

For the layperson and other academics reading outside their specializations, selective reading becomes the default method because they do not have the same depth of knowledge.

It is not as if you need to read everything; it is whether or not you read enough to make good sense or to raise a valid counterpoint.
 

I used my Twitter dashboard statistics to see if these academics walked the talk. Big assumption: People pause to read and click on what they are interested in. Since this was about academic papers not being read and since the people who responded (Twitter engagements) were academics, I am making an assumption that most were academics.

As of Mon, 13 Apr, 4pm Singapore time, my tweet had received 1,546 casual views and 99 engagements.

Almost a third of the engagements (32) were clicks on the screenshot, presumably to read the snippet more carefully. Only 11% (9 clicks) of the engagements were to open the actual article.

There is no guarantee that those who opened the article actually read it or read it all the way through. Whether they read it is partly a function of their persistence and whether the article was behind a paywall. If they read the article in its entirety, there is no guarantee that they understood it or got what was intended.

This is not an attack on academics. As a former academic, I understand what the stresses are and I also know how fragile egos can be.

This is a statement about how teachers handle readings. Teachers might assign readings as homework or use readings to flip their classrooms. Such efforts are likely to suffer from the same low returns and similar problems as the example I described above.

Instead of providing closed answers, I ask open questions.

  • Are the readings you want your learners to consume available to them unconditionally?
  • Why do you want your learners¬†to read something before class? Do they understand why they need to read before class?
  • What scaffolds are you providing or what prior knowledge have you activated prior to the reading?
  • Must they read everything or is it enough that they read just enough?
  • What provisions have you made for those that cannot do the readings, do not wish to read, or do not benefit optimally from readings?
  • What assumptions are you making when requiring only readings?

This is the sixth part of my week-long focused reflection on flipping.

Yesterday I explained that having students create or co-create content is a critical dimension in flipping because this is an active process of learning.  

Another active learning process is teaching and I include it as my third dimension of flipping. 

Why is it important for students to teach one another?

Teachers know how difficult it is to teach. Let us consider a basic example: One person trying to explain a concept to another person.

Using Bloom’s framework as a reference point, the person trying to explain a concept must be able to recall and comprehend that concept first. That person must combine that understanding with a degree of application to explain it to someone else. The explainer has to juggle these while getting visual, auditory, tactile, or other feedback from the listener. Processing this feedback will require analysis as well as an evaluation of noise vs signal. After deciding what is important to say and show, the explainer will need to synthesize something that makes sense to the listener.

In short, anyone who has to explain a concept to someone else has to constantly recall, process, and reprocess.

Teachers become content experts not primarily because they read up on that content or complete worksheets. They teach that content over and over again and get better at it. They develop deep knowledge of that content and some even fall in love with it, all because they teach it.

If you want students to understand something better, then get them to teach it.
 

Monarch School Mobile Stories by MACSD, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic License   by  MACSD 

 
Learning is messier than teaching. Some teachers forget that structured teaching does not always lead to learning. Formulaic teaching by a teacher can sometimes take out the discovery, joy, and necessary struggle of learning because the teacher over-simplifies and does the thinking for his/her students.

Leveraging on messiness of learning means applying Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance. In a nutshell, cognitive dissonance is mental unease or discomfort due to new information. For example, if you strongly believe that only teachers can be trusted to create content and teach it, what I am proposing about flipping will cause some cognitive dissonance.

When applied to flipping, using cognitive dissonance means strategically allowing learners to struggle with what they think they already know (or do not know) and letting them teach each other what they could know or should know.

For example, a group of learners might wrongly assume that all Muslims are terrorists. A teacher could tell them otherwise, but this is no guarantee that the learners will believe the teacher.

Instead, a teacher could get the learners to analyze and share with one another their findings from various sources of information, e.g., books, articles, interviews, videos, websites. While this does not guarantee a change in mindset, the students learn to think by thinking.

Didactic delivery is faster, but that does not mean that it is effective. If you want students to appreciate something better, get them to teach it.
 

DSC_0030 by Holtsman, on Flickr
Creative Commons  Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License   by  Holtsman 

 
I wager that many teachers have experienced this scenario. They try explaining something ten times to Student A and s/he does not get it every time. Student B comes along and explains the same concept once and Student A has a eureka moment.

Students develop a language and understanding of their own that teachers sometimes cannot or do not tap into. As I summarized earlier, learners:

  • can find ways to make the content more relevant and exciting
  • are more creative with relating concepts or ideas
  • are closer to the ‚Äúa-ha‚ÄĚ moments and reach their peers in a more visceral way

If you want students to learn, get them to teach it.

 

 
Getting students to learn by teaching is not a new discovery. Dale first theorized something like this in 1946 and revised it in 1969. He posited that it was more effective to learn by doing concretely than by any other method.

A side note: Dale’s cone was more about the effectiveness of different media forms and experiences. Others after him repurposed it and added numbers to the levels to indicate effectiveness for learning. These numbers have little or no research merit.

If you are still not convinced about the effectiveness of learning-by-teaching, read my quick review of two studies that showed how students who expected to teach or had to teach performed better than those who did not.

There are other reasons why teachers should encourage their students to teach content, e.g., the audience effect (Google it or read my summary near the end of this reflection).

I have described four reasons for flipping who teaches: When students teach content, they have to learn it more deeply, they learn to think more critically, they teach in ways we cannot, and research says they learn better. If these are not good enough reasons to flip learning, I do not know what is.

This is the fifth part of my week-long focused reflection on flipping.

I shared my three dimensions of flipped learning (flipping) in a video and during various presentations (most notably, Righting the Wrongs of Flipping).

I have previously shared my rationales on the merits of getting learners to create content and to teach as part of the process of flipping.

Today I revisit why it is important for learners to create content.

Teachers are not mind-readers. If they were, they could make a more profitable living elsewhere! A teacher does not know what a student knows (or does not know) until the student tells or shows the teacher.

An educational psychologist might say that these performances are externalized manifestations that provide evidence of internal processes. They are representations of mental schema (Ausubel).

The more tangible and manipulable these representations are from a student, the easier it is for teachers and other learners to compare that student’s schema with their own.

As serendipity would have it, here is a very good example from a teacher, @enoch_ng, who is experimenting with learner-generated content.

It should become obvious that the students who created the video got the eventual answer right, but their explanation for simplifying the fraction was wrong.

I reiterate: Until a teacher gets a student to speak, sing, dance, or otherwise perform and create some content in the process, that teacher is unlikely to know for sure what that student understands or misunderstands.

I cite this example to counter common teacher thinking about the rigour and amount of time for content creation.

Creating content is typically the concern and likely a source of pride for the teacher. This is because an informed teacher will tend to create content that is aligned to learning objectives and curricular requirements.

When I tweeted the thought above, I was referring to content creation not from a teacher’s perspective, but from a learner’s one.

A teacher might be thinking about lesson units. I am referring to content nuggets that students can create to show what they (mis)understand. The content does not have to be a long, complex video. (BTW, the same principle applies in conventional flipping: Teacher-created or curated video is not mandatory or a given.)

When I model this idea in workshops, I get teachers to create quick, simple, and powerful content. For example, they contribute data points via a Google Form which we visualize with graphs; we use online stickies to collect reflections, issues, and opinions; we use Google Slides to co-create quizzes.

Now this does not mean that students should not be given slightly more ambitious content to create. This is the domain of reusable learning objects or micro-content. Combine these with getting learners to teach and we have the third dimension of flipping. More on that tomorrow.

This is the fourth part of my week-long focused reflection on flipping.

In 2009, I tried to balance the components of an overloaded curriculum for a compulsory course for preservice teachers, ICT for Meaningful Learning. The core topics were self-directed learning and collaborative learning. There was also a minor cyberwellness component.

I opted to introduce the cyberwellness topic by asking my student teachers if they would friend their own students in Facebook. I did so outside of class time and used VoiceThread to collect their responses. My student teachers responded enthusiastically and creatively with text, voice, and video. A few even took to performing skits.

One thing I did wrong was not follow up with this activity in class. Assuming that the topic was covered and that teacher intent somehow translates to learner understanding is something some teachers who experiment with flipping might be tempted to do.

The bigger sin was trying to extend curriculum time. There was no time in the planned curriculum for cyberwellness even though the student teachers had to incorporate it into a graded assignment. I relegated that topic to non-class time while telling myself I had partly covered the topic. But I had done this at the expense of my learners’ personal time and I did not facilitate a rise above so that there were clear take home messages.

Imagine if more teachers or instructors gave in to the pressure to complete curricula instead of focusing on actual learning by our students. Collectively we would get our extended curriculum time, but only at the expense of, and not to the benefit of, our learners. As I explained yesterday, we would burden them with a different kind of homework.

How might teachers right this wrong of flipping?

One way is to play the zero sum game. If a class session or workshop is allocated three hours, then keep to a total of three hours instead of trying to create an extra hour from students’ personal time. When I conduct a three-hour workshop, for example, only two hours may be face-to-face time. The other hour is dedicated to online or out-of-workshop time that my participants invest in.

Teachers might argue that they are limited by their timetables. If they gave their students a 15-minute online task before class, how might they return it to their students? If they have a 60-minute class session, they might return that 15 minutes by allowing their students to rest, relax, or do something else.

Another way is to focus on learning instead of teaching. Teachers with curricular concerns worry about width and how much they can cover. Teachers who focus on their learners and learning realize that it is about depth and what their students can uncover.

One of the worst reasons teachers might adopt flipped classrooms is to create more curricular time at the expense of learners’ time. Increasing curriculum time might appeal to an administrator and even to some teachers, but it does not put students at the centre of learning. If a worker would not accept doing overtime work without overtime pay, then we should not expect students to give up their time for your curriculum.

Teachers and school leaders who buy in to the flipped classroom approach might view it as an administrative or curricular solution to create more timetable slots for more teaching time. Focus on what is important: Flipped learning is about the learner and learning; it is not about the teacher, school principal, or the curriculum.

This is the third part of my week-long focused reflection on flipping.

Yesterday I explained why changing the medium but not the method in a flipped classroom is not flipping.

I used my podcasting experiment in 2007 as an example. That experiment also highlights another potential wrong of flipping: The reinvention of bad homework.

As I had required my students to consume content outside of class, I was assigning homework that was no different from how teachers or tutors tell students to read X chapters before class. I did not consider if such homework was meaningful or effective.

It was not meaningful because my students did not know the rationale for consuming that content in advance. The question that remained unanswered was: “Why am I doing this?”

It was not effective because, even if my students knew why, I did not provide an adequate advance organizer to help them milestone their learning. The question that remained unanswered was: “Where does this fit in the scheme of things?”

Most school homework seems to be dished out because teachers tend to say “Do because I want you to!” or think “Parents will question me if I do not give homework!”.

I am not against homework. I am against unquestioned, unconsidered, and unchanged homework. There is a body of research on the ineffectiveness of homework, how to design it better, and how to use it strategically [see my Diigo links].
 

38/365: Homework by cplong11, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License   by  cplong11 

 
How might one right this flipping wrong?

Teachers could reconsider the place for homework. A central idea of a flipped classroom is providing time and space in class for homework. “Home” or “independent” work is when students actually need the help of their teacher and/or peers the most. If you give learners work to complete at home sans structure or help, they will seek it in the form of their parents, friends, or as become common now, their tuition teachers.

The making of meaning typically happens when the learner has to put theory into practice. It does not normally happen when the teacher is talking. That is the reason MOE Singapore has a “teach less, learn more” (TLLM) approach.

However, this approach falls apart if teachers interpret this as teach less because tuition teachers will fill in the gaps. Or teach less but give more homework to compensate. In flipping, TLLM should be (teachers) talk less, (students) do more that is meaningful, and (both) be there as they try.

Teachers could reconsider the design of homework. Instead of drill-and-practice or busy work, teachers might use spaced practice/repetition. Furthermore, instead of requiring only isolated practice, teachers might provide sounding boards in the form of offline or online* peer support.

*When I monitored my son’s use of Edmodo, the most non-teacher initiated postings were by his classmates asking about homework. BTW, Kidblog offers some ideas on how students, teachers, and parents can use social media to help with homework.

Teachers could change the current rationale for homework. If there is a need for homework, make it logical to or driven by learners. Instead of appeasing parents, keeping kids busy, or practising outside of context, teachers could explain the rationale for doing the homework in class. Doing this provides support structure for explaining, clarifying, and reinforcing content.

Doing homework in class also requires curriculum time. This is how a teacher might explain the need for learning content outside of class. As I mentioned yesterday, such content must be redesigned too; it cannot be a simple transfer from face-to-face delivery to online delivery. Ideally such content is designed with the pedagogy of questions so that meaning-making starts outside of class, and continues or is solidified in class.

Rationalizing the where and how of homework is a step towards creating learner ownership. Homework is a chore because kids to do not want to do it (and if teachers are honest, they wish they did not have to check and mark it). Now imagine flipping so that the “delivery” includes problem-finding and the “homework” becomes problem-solving.

When I conducted flipped courses for teachers, I required them to choose and even define topics. They took ownership of those topics and worked hard in the time assigned to them to prepare and facilitate lessons. Their peers did the homework in order to learn and to support their classmates’ efforts.

Doing something like this does not reinvent bad homework. Instead, it creates ownership and autonomy, both of which are desirable outcomes of flipping and characteristics of self-directed learners.

This is the second part of my week-long focused reflection on flipping.

In the context of schooling and education, flippers are educators who know the differences between the flipped classroom and flipped learning (example), and promote the latter. For the purpose of this week’s focus, I use flipping to refer to flipped learning.

Flippers view flipping as a philosophical orientation, not just a set of instructional strategies. It stems from the desire to do what is best for the learner, even if this is not what is best for the teacher.

If I was pressed to put flipping in pedagogical terms, I would say that flippers apply principles of the pedagogy of questions (PoQ) and the pedagogy of empathy (PoE).

But I am not reflecting on PoQ or PoE. I am focusing on flipped learning all this week and elaborating on the stories in my presentation, Righting the Wrongs of Flipping.

My journey with flipped lessons started in 2007. I decided to provide lecture content outside of a graduate class largely because it was conducted in the evening. I reasoned that this would help my students since:

  1. lectures were the least engaging part of each session
  2. whole class and group discussions got their energy up
  3. they were mostly adults coming to class after work and could listen to lectures just-in-time
  4. they could also consume content at their own pace and place
  5. we could use the time saved on lectures for meaningful discussion in class.

My experiment was short-lived and failed because:

  1. I was still just lecturing
  2. I was (and still am) not a great lecturer
  3. (surprise, surprise) my students did not like lectures no matter how short or interesting they were
  4. I wanted to try a tool that seemed cool at the time.


I had created the appearance of flipping without actually implementing any meaningful change.

My wrongdoing was changing the medium (from face-to-face to online) without changing the method (traditional lecturing). My delivery was still didactic, designed merely to front load, and driven by the pedagogy of answers.

To my credit, I had shortened the lectures and tried to provide outlines or key takeaways. I am aware of other lecturers who do not change lecture duration (same X¬†minutes)¬†or design (e.g., non-interactive, no questions, no strategically placed quizzes) because that is the most efficient way to create¬†“e-learning” resources.

How might one right these flipping wrongs?

Where delivery is still required, video lectures might be redesigned to complement other learning resources like readings or other videos. Such “lectures” might provide summaries or outlines and serve as launch points to other resources. To use an analogy, the “lectures” should be more like tweets and less like¬†book¬†chapters.

Most teachers will be concerned about delivering content and be advised by instructional designers to chunk content. I do not recommend just relying on the chunking strategy. Chunking is like cutting up an elephant into small pieces to force feed a group that is not hungry or unsure why they are sitting at the table.

A¬†more significant way of flipping is to rely on the¬†PoQ. The “lecture” does not focus primarily on content but on actual questions for students to answer,¬†meaningful¬†problems to solve, or challenges to struggle with. I used this strategy when I designed my video series on flipping.

The PoQ requires learners to seek content to answer their questions. It is part of a just-in-time strategy and counter to the just-in-case, front loading strategy that most instructors are taught to employ. As front loading often provides information devoid of need or context, this might explain why learners do not connect with this approach.

Flipping the first wrong so that you do right is not about finding a different method in order to teach the same way. It is about understanding the learner and what drives them to learn. It is about leveraging on questions, application, or problem-solving instead about delivery. It is about changing the way you teach.


http://edublogawards.com/files/2012/11/finalistlifetime-1lds82x.png
http://edublogawards.com/2010awards/best-elearning-corporate-education-edublog-2010/

Click to see all the nominees!

QR code


Get a mobile QR code app to figure out what this means!

Archives

Usage policy

%d bloggers like this: