C***t
发帖数: 915 | 1 目前我知道的系里有一个老教师完全这样做了。我觉得事前录video还是很花时间的，
不过好处是麻烦一次（如果能录满意的话），今后再教就容易了？
Faculty typically spend a lot of time teaching—over 20 hours of a 50-hour
workweek in one study (Bentley and Kyvik 2012). Are we spending that time
productively? Obviously, whether or not we feel productive depends on what
we hope to accomplish as instructors. For example, virtually all the faculty
surveyed in the 2013–14 Higher Education Research Institute Faculty Survey
felt that two learning outcomes were particularly key:
developing
students’ abilities to think critically (99.1%) and promoting students’
abilities to write effectively (92.7%). If these are our top goals for
student learning, how do we direct our time most efficiently to achieve them
? As more data become available on how people learn, the answer to this
question may lie in our use of the flipped classroom.
What is the Flipped Classroom?
Technically, the phrase flipped classroom refers to the use of recorded
lectures outside of class and homework-like activities in class.
The flipped classroom was popularized in high schools (Bergmann and Sams
2012) but is spreading
in college classrooms because of better and
more prevalent online instructional materials; improved technology for
developing and providing one’s own online lessons; and the push to make the
large lecture class, an economic necessity, more effective in supporting
student learning (Berrett 2012). The definition of a flipped classroom is
also rapidly expanding to mean any approach that requires students to
prepare outside of class for active participation in class (Berrett 2012;
Sviniki 2013).
Thinking about the Three Phases of Learning:
First Exposure, Processing, and Feedback. Long before the technical birth of
the flipped classroom, Barbara Walvoord and Virginia Anderson (1998)
advocated rethinking the classic model of who does what, where, and when in
our courses. They described learning as having three phases: first exposure,
process, and feedback. In the traditional model we faculty provide first
exposure to content through face-to-face lectures, students process this
information on their own doing assignments, and we provide response or
feedback primarily through grading tests and papers. But is this approach
efficient in achieving the outcomes we want from our time teaching?
The lecture is often maligned as an ineffective teaching approach, but
perhaps the critical problem is that face-to-face lectures on new content
are inefficient as a learning tool. In terms of how humans learn, the face-
to-face lecture is too fast, too transient, and too one-sided. Promoting
students’ abilities to think and write in the discipline, what faculty
claim to value most, requires that students process information deeply. The
pace of face-to-face lectures, however, is usually too rapid to allow this
processing. To learn, humans must simultaneously choose from the complex
sensory input being presented, select and access related prior knowledge&#
8232;from memory (including content and processing skills), and forge new
meaning. Humans have a very restricted ability to maintain focus on all this
information at once,
a limitation often referred to as working memory
capacity. As novices, students have prior knowledge that is neither robust
nor well-organized, thus slowing their ability to access pertinent content
and skills. Students rarely have time enough to process ideas and move them
toward long-term memory before new ideas presented in lecture displace them.
If we interrupt lectures by posing questions and problems, we do allow
critical processing time. This approach is effective at promoting students’
content acquisition, but it severely limits both the amount and depth of
new content we can cover. And if we spend class time primarily providing
first exposure to content, we leave students on their own for the hard part
—developing the critical thinking skills we so value. Students have a
multitude of sources available for accessing content. But we are their best
resource for learning how to think in the discipline. Lecturing in class
wastes our most valuable commodity—our ability to guide students into
thinking like an expert.
The traditional processing phase, when students work on their own on
assignments, involves students in the most difficult aspect of learning:
making meaning from ideas. Students may be very ill-prepared to process
complex ideas on their own without the support and guidance of faculty or
peers. Students need to think about their thinking (be metacognitive) to
promote learning. Yet they typically do not engage in this kind of mental
activity when working alone, unless specifically triggered to do so through
assignment prompts. Even then, if they don’t have anyone to provide
feedback or assessment on the quality of their thinking, they are not
challenged to think beyond their first response. The work that they produce
may not begin to meet the expectations we have for their learning.
The third facet of learning, feedback, often occurs when faculty have time
to grade student work, too often evenings and weekends. The time required
for us to provide response to students’ rudimentary attempts on assignments
often means that students receive that feedback long after the work is
finished. The motivation for improving or learning from that piece of work
is greatly diminished, even if we provide opportunities for revision.
In essence, the classic paradigm wastes our time in at least two ways:
preparing and delivering lectures that overtax students’ capacity to learn
from them; and providing feedback on students’ largely embryonic attempts
at disciplinary work too late for them to be interested in receiving it.
How Flipping the Classroom is Efficient
A more efficient approach redistributes the responsibility for the three
phases of learning. In the ‘flipped’ classroom, first exposure to content
(the more readily available part of learning) moves outside of class time
and becomes the students’ responsibility. First exposure can come from
technology enhancements or from traditional sources. We must hold students
accountable for this preparation, however, or students will gladly push this
responsibility back on us. We can encourage preparatory work by giving low
stakes online quizzes or in-class quizzes using personal response systems.
Alternatively we can ask students to write a response based on their
preparation that we grade on a “they did it, they didn’t do it” basis.
If we do use recorded lectures to provide first exposure to content,
students can watch these lectures over and over, learning at their own pace.
This process is even more effective if lectures are divided into shorter
chunks and include brief online quizzes so that students test their
understanding (Szpunar, Khan, and Schacter 2013). A number of avenues for
providing these online lectures are open to us. For common courses there are
videos available on the web provided by well-known experts in the field.
Many textbook publishers have web- based courseware that may include video
resources. Failing that, we can make our own screencasts using readily
available programs often included in our institutions’ learning management
systems.
Moving first exposure outside
of class frees up time in class to&#
8232; do disciplinary work. Rather than primarily providing basic content
exposition, we can explore disciplinary connections, conventions, and
controversies. Students can work in pairs or groups to solve problems,
analyze data or text, or draft theses and arguments. They process ideas,
practice skills, and deepen their understanding as they receive feedback
from their peers as well as us. These activities provide deliberate practice
, a critical factor in developing expertise (Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-R&#
246;mer 1993). We are thus spending our time more meaningfully in guiding
students into the discipline.
This approach takes more time than reviewing our lecture notes. We must
clarify our goals for student learning, plan the preparatory experiences we
assign, and create follow-up in-class activities that deepen learning. The
time we spend designing these experiences, however, is directed right to the
challenges of student learning. We are spending our time with students
helping them develop the thinking and writing skills we so value. As some
faculty have already discovered (Bart 2013), our time spent this way is more
productive, and thus our teaching becomes more efficient. | a*****y
发帖数: 1488 | 2 对100 level 大课用处不大。专业课可能不错。 | a****e
发帖数: 1662 | 3 It's good for newbies in a small size class. But not for experienced
professors and a large class.
faculty
Survey
【在 C***t 的大作中提到】
: 目前我知道的系里有一个老教师完全这样做了。我觉得事前录video还是很花时间的，
: 不过好处是麻烦一次（如果能录满意的话），今后再教就容易了？
: Faculty typically spend a lot of time teaching—over 20 hours of a 50-hour
: workweek in one study (Bentley and Kyvik 2012). Are we spending that time
: productively? Obviously, whether or not we feel productive depends on what
: we hope to accomplish as instructors. For example, virtually all the faculty
: surveyed in the 2013–14 Higher Education Research Institute Faculty Survey
: felt that two learning outcomes were particularly key:
developing
: students’ abilities to think critically (99.1%) and promoting students’
: abilities to write effectively (92.7%). If these are our top goals for
| a****e
发帖数: 1662 | 4 It's good for newbies in small classes. But not for experienced professors
and not for a large class.
faculty
Survey
【在 C***t 的大作中提到】
: 目前我知道的系里有一个老教师完全这样做了。我觉得事前录video还是很花时间的，
: 不过好处是麻烦一次（如果能录满意的话），今后再教就容易了？
: Faculty typically spend a lot of time teaching—over 20 hours of a 50-hour
: workweek in one study (Bentley and Kyvik 2012). Are we spending that time
: productively? Obviously, whether or not we feel productive depends on what
: we hope to accomplish as instructors. For example, virtually all the faculty
: surveyed in the 2013–14 Higher Education Research Institute Faculty Survey
: felt that two learning outcomes were particularly key:
developing
: students’ abilities to think critically (99.1%) and promoting students’
: abilities to write effectively (92.7%). If these are our top goals for
| C***t
发帖数: 915 | 5 我虽然没有实行，但也开始搞很多随堂练习，当quiz计分。比如学到卷积，就给两组数
，叫他们手动卷一下。必须这样，否则光是我讲，魂儿都跑了。 | n*******l
发帖数: 2911 | 6 这就是我以前提到过的我痛恨的教学方法啊。
“让学生课前自己读课本，上课就是直接一起做习题。对于烂校的普通学生来说，第
一是没有那种自学的自觉性，第二是基础根本就很烂，课本基本就读不懂，一起做习
题，group projects，基本上也就是瞎糊弄，组里的好学生做了大部分工作然后差生
跟着赚个好成绩。然后这些教授还宣称这种教学法可以减轻教授的负担，因为不需要
改作业，或者只要改很少的作业，然后考试在总成绩里只占很少的比例。 ”
http://www.mitbbs.com/article/Faculty/31774635_0.html
faculty
Survey
【在 C***t 的大作中提到】
: 目前我知道的系里有一个老教师完全这样做了。我觉得事前录video还是很花时间的，
: 不过好处是麻烦一次（如果能录满意的话），今后再教就容易了？
: Faculty typically spend a lot of time teaching—over 20 hours of a 50-hour
: workweek in one study (Bentley and Kyvik 2012). Are we spending that time
: productively? Obviously, whether or not we feel productive depends on what
: we hope to accomplish as instructors. For example, virtually all the faculty
: surveyed in the 2013–14 Higher Education Research Institute Faculty Survey
: felt that two learning outcomes were particularly key:
developing
: students’ abilities to think critically (99.1%) and promoting students’
: abilities to write effectively (92.7%). If these are our top goals for
| n*******l
发帖数: 2911 | 7 不客气地说，课堂跟学生互动那是对教授的基本要求，否则就是背讲稿，或者对着
提词机读讲稿，找个机器人就行了。
另外，说相声的也需要根据观众的反应随时调整自己的表演，调动观众的情绪啊。
"If we interrupt lectures by posing questions and problems, we do allow
critical processing time. This approach is effective at promoting students’
content acquisition, but it severely limits both the amount and depth of
new content we can cover. And if we spend class time primarily providing
first exposure to content, we leave students on their own for the hard part
—developing the critical thinking skills we so value. Students have a
multitude of sources available for accessing content. But we are their best
resource for learning how to think in the discipline."
讲解传授新知识的同时，根本也是培养学生critical thinking的过程，当然，机器人
估计做不到这一点。
另外， 这个所谓flipping the classroom当中提到教授们是在周末或者晚上改作业
（其实我知道有很多教授根本就不改作业），这说明什么？说明这些教授不是十分
在意学生啊，不在意学生是不是可以学到东西啊。要是在意的话，为什么不能收完
作业的当天改完，下一堂课发给学生，然后再给个随堂测验？
还有，调查说教授们觉得每星期要花很多时间（20小时）来教学，是很大的负担。
我知道，专业不同，学校档次也不同，教授的教学任务也差别很大，搞个平均20
小时根本没意义。有意义的是，一门课花多少小时。另外，每星期教学花时间很多
的教授，可能本来就是学校里雇来专门教学的（比如有些教授每学期四门课），
我看要是教四门课还只花20个小时，那是花时间太少了。
【在 C***t 的大作中提到】
: 我虽然没有实行，但也开始搞很多随堂练习，当quiz计分。比如学到卷积，就给两组数
: ，叫他们手动卷一下。必须这样，否则光是我讲，魂儿都跑了。
| C***t
发帖数: 915 | 8 我提到的这个老教师，采用了这种方法，你知道学生期中考试平均多少吗？不到60分。
当然他最后总成绩肯定也curve了，但绝对没放水。他今年已经退休，一生得过多个杰
出教学奖，最后抛去多年老教材不用，不是为了省时间，或者要好评，确实是想体验一
下。在他看来，这个方法也不是没有好处。
在我看来，你提出来的那些问题，不在于这个方法如何，反应的是那些老师不负责任的
态度。教师是个良心活，一个老师要是真想省力气+成绩好看，那就算是用传统教课考
试的方法，你估摸着他就找不出放水的方式来吗？换成我来搞得话，不要什么group
project。你就必须事先看了来，课堂练习我虽然帮忙解答，但还是得事先学习，否则
这个quiz成绩占最后很大比重，你不努力就一定砸锅。
总之我的态度是，对新事物要有open的看法，为了教好可多做尝试。是方法烂，还是那
些人烂，得自己判断。
part
best
【在 n*******l 的大作中提到】
: 不客气地说，课堂跟学生互动那是对教授的基本要求，否则就是背讲稿，或者对着
: 提词机读讲稿，找个机器人就行了。
: 另外，说相声的也需要根据观众的反应随时调整自己的表演，调动观众的情绪啊。
: "If we interrupt lectures by posing questions and problems, we do allow
: critical processing time. This approach is effective at promoting students’
: content acquisition, but it severely limits both the amount and depth of
: new content we can cover. And if we spend class time primarily providing
: first exposure to content, we leave students on their own for the hard part
: —developing the critical thinking skills we so value. Students have a
: multitude of sources available for accessing content. But we are their best
| n*******l
发帖数: 2911 | 9 每个人确实应该有open mind，但是我觉得很多搞教育的，最缺的就是open mind，
和common sense（我觉得其实他们不是没有common sense，而是为了某些目的
假装common sense没用，因为有些common sense是政治不正确的）。学生基础
参差不齐，自己读书或者看录像，没有老师或者其他同学在身边的帮助，根本就看不
懂课本，理解不了。我觉得这是这个新方法的根本缺陷。你引的文章里说了，学生自
己做作业要花很多时间，最好是有及时的反馈来帮助他们，难道他们自己读课本看录
像就不需要及时的反馈和指导么？
你提到这个老师的学生期中考试平均不到60分，是想说明这个老师要求严格，不放
水。但是我是不是可以理解为他的新式教学方法，其实也没什么效果？因为平均不
到60就意味着多数人不及格啊。当然我不知道他用传统方法教学时，学生的平均成
绩会是多少，最烂也就是平均不到60吧？这是应该指责老师不力么？还是应该指责
学生太烂？还是教学方法有缺陷？其实大部分时候三者都有。像我曾经说过的，好学
生在这些教学法之下都可以学好（假定老师不是太烂），但是基础比较差的学生呢？
其实还有一个问题我一直没提，就是我曾经问某个采用这种方式教学的教授，如果学
生不适应这种新方法，自己读不懂课本怎么办？他说这些学生一般过一两节课之后就
drop了，转到采用传统教学法的其他section去了。我心说那些没转走，基础又很差的
学生，
顶多也就是不及格而已呗，或者尽管最后及格了，却没有学到什么东西。举个例子，
你见过修完多元微积分但是根本就不知道啥是偏导数的学生么？
【在 C***t 的大作中提到】
: 我提到的这个老教师，采用了这种方法，你知道学生期中考试平均多少吗？不到60分。
: 当然他最后总成绩肯定也curve了，但绝对没放水。他今年已经退休，一生得过多个杰
: 出教学奖，最后抛去多年老教材不用，不是为了省时间，或者要好评，确实是想体验一
: 下。在他看来，这个方法也不是没有好处。
: 在我看来，你提出来的那些问题，不在于这个方法如何，反应的是那些老师不负责任的
: 态度。教师是个良心活，一个老师要是真想省力气+成绩好看，那就算是用传统教课考
: 试的方法，你估摸着他就找不出放水的方式来吗？换成我来搞得话，不要什么group
: project。你就必须事先看了来，课堂练习我虽然帮忙解答，但还是得事先学习，否则
: 这个quiz成绩占最后很大比重，你不努力就一定砸锅。
: 总之我的态度是，对新事物要有open的看法，为了教好可多做尝试。是方法烂，还是那
|
|
