Arquivo da categoria: LDT – GSE – Stanford

Qualitative Research – Week 9 – Assignment Tech Adoption

Group meeting to talk about propositions for our observations and interviews with Anita from SVEF. It seems like we were not very clear on how high level, theoretical or far fetched could the propositions be.

Anastasia then showed hers and it clicked for me… we have to make claims about the topic at hand that can be supported by direct evidence such as quotes, observations, documentation.

Not to mention the fact that we had not done the actual coding – we had come up with the coding scheme but had not collected the evidence yet.

I went ahead and did it and must say the theory did emerge in situ (insert citation here 🙂 – grounded theory in action.

Here’s the coding, followed by the propositions:


CODING

Research Question

How do third party organizations facilitate productive technology adoption practices between schools and education technology companies?

 

Alignment amongst stakeholders

  • And so those, so when, so depending on the person who’s looking at a product and their position in that whole spectrum – a student, a teacher, a principal even, an instructional coach, or like someone in the district – the way they look at a product is different.
  • I think that’s always a tension that happens in education
  • And so because for some reason the district didn’t approve this one product she had been using before, and so this year she can’t use it
  • my students really want to do it, I really want to do it, why can’t I just do this? But then the district sees it as like, you know, we have a process. This didn’t fit our criteria for some reason or the other. And so therefore, we don’t allow it.
  • And so our short list committee consists of venture capitalists, it consists of accelerator partners and then also people from the education community so that typically is maybe a like an Edtech coach of the school or an IT Director at a school. Hum. Potentially some educators as well.
  • So we send out to our teachers and they’ve kind of, I would say vaguely, have defined the problem of need, and we’d like to kind of like focus them on the future.
  • And I think, what we have heard from teachers and from districts, is that a lot of times for a school for adopt or you know, use a product across their school, its because a group of teachers have started of saying “I’ve been using this product. I really like this product. Hey, like friend over there! Please use this product with me,” and they are like, “Oh! Yeah we like it” and kind of builds momentum that way

 

Room for improvement

  • in an ideal world to be able to give a model to a school district, to any school district and be like if you kind of adopt this to your school…this is a way you could pick technology for your classroom, classrooms, and also give feedback to these developers, and then developers would also have a clear path to entry, which I think is a big issue in the market.
  • There might be some observations but I would say these observations are mostly from a project management perspective more than like, an evaluative one. And then they submit feedback. And so we have some templates that we give them that we ask them to submit feedback from.
  • we’ve made a lot of those changes based on teacher feedback.  Like for example, the reason why teacher teams are at a school site this year instead of from all different schools is partly ‘cause it makes sense, I think, to scale, but also because we that was one of the big pieces of feedback that was given from the beginning.
  • I think the research part is really important. So I think school districts can always fund a lot of the research, and I think if we, we now have a process for matching and school support. But, I think the research cycle really brings it all together, so if we are able to create a strong research process then it will be able to, schools will be able to kind of use the research process and say like, “This works, we should use this. This doesn’t work. This is why.” Give them feedback, hopefully they’ll change, the companies will change.
  • So we kind of have been thinking about how do we build capacity of teachers to advocate for products they think are working well
  • We also have been thinking about how we support districts in understanding ed tech
  • And so how do we support districts where maybe they’re not as on top of ed tech, how do we support their administration so that they understand the role of it, understand maybe how select it, and understand how teachers use it so they can provide the support both maybe in resources but also in professional development to their teachers
  • Yeah, so we haven’t done this yet exactly, which is why maybe I don’t have a great example, but in the spring, we’re thinking about how do we build capacity of the district.
  • We are working with Price Waterhouse Coopers, PWC, with, to implement this work. And so they’re creating a project plan currently. And so then we’ll kind of partner with them to execute on that.
  • And we’ve asked for pre and post assessments in the past that our teacher created ahm, but this probably hasn’t been… we have not been doing that. I think we need to find a better way to incorporate, so…
  • Additionally for this round something we’d like to do is maybe then from our 6 companies that we work with, work with a few of them and help them… help support implementation in the school versus just a couple classrooms that a school.
  • We also work with different partners, so we’re kind of thinking about, uh, I know another group is doing design-based implementation research, so DBIR research

Metrics for success of SVEF

  • For us its capacity of teachers [capacity of teachers] so we support, in our last round we supported 25 teachers. And this round we have ‘bout 13 teams of teachers.
  • Also we use a platform called Learn Trials which kind of gets qualitative feedback generally from these teachers about the product and includes comments but also has a rubric that they kind of use.
  • Learn Trials – and so they have a rubric that assesses an ed tech company across different strands whether that’s usage, whether that’s how easy was it for it to set up.
  • Where you’re able to kind of see how the product performs over time.
  • It could be classroom efficiency. It could also be like differentiating or like being able to adapt to each person where they’re at in the classroom. Um, but I think there has to be some sort of benefit to it. 
  • But I imagine that if a product is doing well, then it also provides, like over time, it’ll provide feedback, and that product will continue to get better, and it will continue also to grow in usage around the area.
  • You would find out over long term if it works versus something that’s more like yes that works or no that doesn’t work right away.

Dealing with Startups

  • And so we kind of didn’t wanna companies to support more than 2 or 3 although I think… we… we… we didn’t wanna it to be super challenging for companies to support and also since they are early stage products, we found that some companies as they’re taking off, like, they get really busy and they’re like, completely immersive so… I think it’s to balance both the support aspect but as well is kind of the teachers that we can support also.
  • That just happened this spring and I don’t think it has been yet. Hum… they’re still also like an early, you know like an early stage company so they’re, I think they’re still growing and figuring out exactly what it looks like. But I think that we are trying to support companies in that way. And we’re still figuring that out
  • And so they became pretty unresponsive with our teachers. The teachers like, emailing me, and I’m like trying to get in contact with it, and so typically when there’s not communication between these parties, it would… the pilot would not be as successful as it could because they weren’t communicating
  • I think one of the big challenges is, in edtech, it’s like there’s so many edtech companies so it’s how do you kind of bring to the surface the ones that are promising? So, I think our goal in vetting the companies is to bring to the surface some of the more promising early, like, edtech companies and kind of help them go from early to mid. I think there’s a big jump from those two and some people don’t (laughs) don’t make it
  • So I think that that’s why we’re working with early stage companies because I think it’s, it’s possible to find one now that meets the needs of many teachers and kind of help it kind of just move along.
  • I think for us the goal is that, you know, we kind of help with this, this market where it’s a little, it’s not very defined…no one is really guiding these people. So they just come up with an idea, and they just kind of throw it out. And if it works, that’s great, and if it doesn’t, then not. But I think we’re kind of hoping to pull out some of those that work. But I think ours, the goal would be like it’s a longer term

Focus on early-stage companies

  • i think the goal is to find…find innovative things that are happening in education and help support their growth.
  • So we’re recruiting startups that are early stage so, what I would say we define that between Seed and Series A
  • And so we kind of didn’t wanna companies to support more than 2 or 3 although I think… we… we… we didn’t wanna it to be super challenging for companies to support and also since they are early stage products, we found that some companies as they’re taking off, like, they get really busy and they’re like, completely immersive so… I think it’s to balance both the support aspect but as well is kind of the teachers that we can support also.
  • That just happened this spring and I don’t think it has been yet. Hum… they’re still also like an early, you know like an early stage company so they’re, I think they’re still growing and figuring out exactly what it looks like. But I think that we are trying to support companies in that way. And we’re still figuring that out
  • And so they became pretty unresponsive with our teachers. The teachers like, emailing me, and I’m like trying to get in contact with it, and so typically when there’s not communication between these parties, it would… the pilot would not be as successful as it could because they weren’t communicating

Ethics of testing early-stage products on real learners

  • And so because for some reason the district didn’t approve this one product she had been using before, and so this year she can’t use it
  • Um, but I do think as time goes on, something that needs to kind of change in the work is that we have to support both early stage companies but also like mid, like later stage companies, so that you know, teachers change their practice or you know, like, it, is it really affecting students if it’s in ten classrooms, right? Not really.
  • I think teachers who we pick, we try to pick ones who are very…very experienced with using tech in the classroom and so I think that you, you find that teachers who use tech in the classroom, you…it’s like their instruction is different

Tension between Decision Makers

  • And so because for some reason the district didn’t approve this one product she had been using before, and so this year she can’t use it. And so, right, to her, she, the way this teacher sees it is like, well, like my students really want to do it, I really want to do it, why can’t I just do this? But then the district sees it as like, you know, we have a process. This didn’t fit our criteria for some reason or the other. And so therefore, we don’t allow it. Right? And so then there’s that tension, and I think we’re still figuring out how you solve that.
  • my students really want to do it, I really want to do it, why can’t I just do this? But then the district sees it as like, you know, we have a process. This didn’t fit our criteria for some reason or the other. And so therefore, we don’t allow it.
  • “This works, we should use this. This doesn’t work. This is why.” Give them feedback, hopefully they’ll change, the companies will change.
  • And I think, what we have heard from teachers and from districts, is that a lot of times for a school for adopt or you know, use a product across their school, its because a group of teachers have started of saying “I’ve been using this product. I really like this product. Hey, like friend over there! Please use this product with me,” and they are like, “Oh! Yeah we like it” and kind of builds momentum that way

Framework Creation

  • so I think we’ll kind of get an aggregate report from that data and then run some sort of roundtable with these directors.
  • We’re trying to create like a systematic way to like do that, I guess, is assess kind of the edtech side infrastructure but also create a model so piloting of edtech, especially new edtech, is easier, and then there’s a route that’s more clear to the question for what works and what doesn’t.
  • That’s the goal. I think is to some sort of model that you can follow, like implement, like a flowchart almost.
  • Uh I think in like ten years, ideally, we wouldn’t have to do that because schools and districts would be doing that internally, right.

Levels of Engagement

  • Wish to engage
    • We also have been thinking about how we support districts in understanding ed tech
    • And so how do we support districts where maybe they’re not as on top of ed tech, how do we support their administration so that they understand the role of it, understand maybe how select it, and understand how teachers use it so they can provide the support both maybe in resources but also in professional development to their teachers
    • help support implementation in the school versus just a couple classrooms that a school
    • I would say I don’t know enough about school districts and about school…counties, offices, to be able to know whether or not they’re functional. There’s a lot of bureaucracy, I think, that comes up when you work with the county and work with…there’s so many different needs and so many different people kind of working on it that sometimes…they can’t, they’re unable to kind of do certain actions because of different reasons, whatever they are. So I don’t know.
  • Already engage with
    • we do these ed tech assessments where we go to different school districts and…walk them through an ed tech assessment from hardware all the way to software.
    • And so our short list committee consists of venture capitalists, it consists of accelerator partners and then also people from the education community so that typically is maybe a like an Edtech coach of the school or an IT Director at a school. Hum. Potentially some educators as well.
    • For us its capacity of teachers [capacity of teachers] so we support, in our last round we supported 25 teachers. And this round we have ‘bout 13 teams of teachers.
    • So we send out to our teachers and they’ve kind of, I would say vaguely, have defined the problem of need, and we’d like to kind of like focus them on the future.
    • we give a lot of teacher professional development during that time
    • And so I think our program is also to help teachers who are early adopters of technology, help them kind of meet other teachers at different school for early adopters, and build a cohort that understands that and kind of can refer to each other.
    • So in the past when we’ve done it, when I run it, it was just I would recruit individual teachers from schools and so then I would form them onto a team so maybe a school, a teacher from school A, a teacher from school B, and a teacher from school C. And in this round I re…, we did recruitment where I recruited teacher teams. So now it’s like 3 teachers from school A, 3 teachers from school B, and then they are all using the same product at their school site so I think that helps with the piece of collaboration that was harder to come by earlier.
    • So after the orientation we kind of let them go and set up their products for about a week or two
    • There might be some observations but I would say these observations are mostly from a project management perspective more than like, an evaluative one.
    • And then at the end of this orientation we SVF maybe with the help of some of our partners like LearnTrials will aggregate some of this data and will share that out with the community.
    • Uh I think in like ten years, ideally, we wouldn’t have to do that because schools and districts would be doing that internally, right. 
    • I mean in my head an edtech vendor is a provider, right? So they should be providing some service that fits a need that a school has or a teacher has or a student has in some way
    • Districts
    • Corporate market
    • Teachers
    • Pilot Program
    • Schools
    • Startups

Neutrality of SVEF

  • I also think that since we’re neutral, we’re not a school, we’re not an edtech company. I think that that puts us in a position to facilitate those relationships well. 
  • we’re not really affiliated with edtech venture funds, or like incubators, right. We have partnerships with them, but we’re not like soliciting. Or we’re not trying to make a sale, so school districts are more willing to work with us because we’re not like, “You have to use this product because we’re going to like make money from the fact that you use this product.”

 

PROPOSITIONS

Conflict of interests amongst stakeholders challenges the implementation of ed tech.

  • Conflict of interests

 

        1. depending on the person who’s looking at a product and their position in that whole spectrum – a student, a teacher, a principal even, an instructional coach, or like someone in the district – the way they look at a product is different. (AC, Interview)
        2. I think that’s always a tension that happens in education (AC, Interview)
        3. we found that some companies as they’re taking off, like, they get really busy and they’re like, completely immersive so… I think it’s to balance both the support aspect but as well is kind of the teachers that we can support also. (LL, Interview)
        4. And so because for some reason the district didn’t approve this one product she had been using before, and so this year she can’t use it. (AC, Interview)
        5. And so our short list committee consists of venture capitalists, it consists of accelerator partners and then also people from the education community so that typically is maybe a like an EdTech coach of the school or an IT Director at a school. Hum. Potentially some educators as well. (LL, Interview)
  • Challenges to implementation
    1. And so because for some reason the district didn’t approve this one product she had been using before, and so this year she can’t use it (AC, Interview)
    2. my students really want to do it, I really want to do it, why can’t I just do this? But then the district sees it as like, you know, we have a process. This didn’t fit our criteria for some reason or the other. And so therefore, we don’t allow it. (AC, Interview)
    3. And so they became pretty unresponsive with our teachers. The teachers like, emailing me, and I’m like trying to get in contact with it, and so typically when there’s not communication between these parties, it would… the pilot would not be as successful as it could because they weren’t communicating (LL, Interview)
    4. my students really want to do it, I really want to do it, why can’t I just do this? But then the district sees it as like, you know, we have a process. This didn’t fit our criteria for some reason or the other. And so therefore, we don’t allow it. Right? And so then there’s that tension, and I think we’re still figuring out how you solve that.” (AC, Interview)
    5. we’re thinking about how do we build capacity of the district. And so we are thinking about convening some…instructional tech directors in a meeting and having them kind of talk about challenges they faced or things they’ve done really well in implementing education technology in the classroom.” (AC, Interview)
    6. what we have heard from teachers and from districts, is that a lot of times for a school for adopt or you know, use a product across their school, its because a group of teachers have started of saying “I’ve been using this product. I really like this product. Hey, like friend over there! Please use this product with me,” and they are like, “Oh! Yeah we like it” and kind of builds momentum that way (LL, Interview)

SVEF has stronger relationships with teachers than with decision makers.

 

  • Relationships with teachers

 

        1. my students really want to do it, I really want to do it, why can’t I just do this? But then the district sees it as like, you know, we have a process. This didn’t fit our criteria for some reason or the other. And so therefore, we don’t allow it. (AC, Interview)
        2. So we send out to our teachers and they’ve kind of, I would say vaguely, have defined the problem of need, and we’d like to kind of like focus them on the future. (LL, Interview)
        3. we’ve made a lot of those changes based on teacher feedback.  Like for example, the reason why teacher teams are at a school site this year instead of from all different schools is partly ‘cause it makes sense, I think, to scale, but also because we that was one of the big pieces of feedback that was given from the beginning. (JL, Interview)
        4. So we kind of have been thinking about how do we build capacity of teachers to advocate for products they think are working well (AC, Interview)
        5. For us its capacity of teachers [capacity of teachers] so we support, in our last round we supported 25 teachers. And this round we have ‘bout 13 teams of teachers. (LL, Interview)
        6. Also we use a platform called Learn Trials which kind of gets qualitative feedback generally from these teachers about the product and includes comments but also has a rubric that they kind of use. (LL, Interview)

 

  • Relationships with decision makers

 

      1. I think it’s hard to say because I would say I don’t know enough about school districts and about school…counties, offices, to be able to know whether or not they’re functional. (JL, Interview)
      2. Yeah, so we haven’t done this yet exactly, which is why maybe I don’t have a great example, but in the spring, we’re thinking about how do we build capacity of the district. (JL, Interview)
      3. in an ideal world to be able to give a model to a school district, to any school district and be like if you kind of adopt this to your school…this is a way you could pick technology for your classroom, classrooms, and also give feedback to these developers, and then developers would also have a clear path to entry, which I think is a big issue in the market. (JL, Interview)
      4. We also have been thinking about how we support districts in understanding ed tech (AC, Interview)
      5. Additionally for this round something we’d like to do is maybe then from our 6 companies that we work with, work with a few of them and help them… help support implementation in the school versus just a couple classrooms that a school. (LL, Interview)

Learning Environments – Week 9 – Class Notes

Very fruitful discussion about situated learning and Legitimate Peripheral Participation.

Reading Czar’s activity was to to learn Slovenian. Half the group went outside to learn by speaking. I stayed in the group that was not allowed to talk and had only text to study from.

IMG_1307

SG03

Second half of the class we hear from Shuli Gilutz, LDT & PhD from Tel-Aviv University, Israel about her journey.

IMG_1308 copy

Learning Environments – Week 9 – Reading Assignment

Assignment

“Situated Learning” by Jean Lave & Etienne Wenger – dense!

Response

“Viewing learning as legitimate peripheral participation means that learning is not merely a condition for membership, but is itself an evolving form of membership. We conceive of identities as long-term, living relations between persons and their place and participation in communities of practice. Thus identity, knowing, and social membership entail one another.” (Lave & Wenger, Ch. 2)

This conceptual lens of viewing learning as a social practice remits to the concept of collective consciousness (Durkheim, E., 1893) and collective intelligence. It places knowledge in the ether between practitioners and apprentices, within their interactions, and along their life cycle. Learning should not to be viewed as a mechanical process of internalization, but as a social and interactive process within a space and context.

When thinking about education technologies, one might want pay closer attention to social interaction affordances their product might offer. How can a newcomer begin to interact with older members. What are the norms and rules of engagement made available to promote learning as a communal process? How can the learner interact with others in novel ways that will promote legitimate peripheral participation?

Brazilian Education – Week 9 – Class Notes

31392f2

Today we hear Rebecca Tarlau talk about her upcoming book “Occupying Schools, Occupying Land: Public Education Reform and Social Movement-led Participatory Governance” – based on her ethnographic research (20 months living in MST settlements).

Very interesting to understand where the MST movement came from, how it started and how it provided help, curriculum and influence in the public schools of Brazil.

Some of her papers:

NMC Horizon Reports 2015 – Higher Education

NMC Horizon Reports are published every year about global issues, trends, and initiatives in education. I read the 2015 Higher Education paper: here’s a very broad summary of the findings.

Screen Shot 2015-11-15 at 10.42.31 AM

CHALLENGES

Solvable

  • Blending Formal and Informal Learning
  • Improving Digital Literacy

Difficult

  • Personalized Learning
  • Teaching Complex Thinking

Wicked

  • Competing Models of Education
  • Rewards for Teaching

TRENDS

Short-term (1-2 yrs)

  • Increasing Use of Blended Learning
  • Redesigning Learning Spaces

Mid-term (3-4 yrs)

  • Growing Focus on Measuring Learning
  • Proliferation of Open Education Resources

Long-term (5+ yrs)

  • Advancing Cultures of Change and Innovation
  • Increasing Cross-Institution Collaboration

TECHNOLOGIES

Short-term (1-2 yrs)

  • Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)
  • Flipped Classroom

Mid-term (3-4 yrs)

  • Makerspaces
  • Wearable Technologies

Long-term (5+ yrs)

  • Adaptive Learning Technologies
  • The Internet of Things

 

Tech 4 Learners – Week 9 – Reading Assignment

Assignment: 

Choose one of the four NMC Horizon Reports for 2015 that is of interest to you.  Each one has a link to the wiki where the work was produced.  For your chosen report, explore the trends currently being discussed.  Post 2-3 paragraphs about what trend you think might have the biggest impact on learning.  Why?

Reading Notes: 

I started out reading the Higher Education Report… was halfway through when I realized we were supposed to read the trends on the Wiki instead!! Oh well – very interesting reading that some time I will go back to for sure.

IMG_1264

IMG_1278 IMG_1279 IMG_1280


New Reading Notes: Continuing the reading (correct one now)

7104320C-FB60-42A2-9E40-C80578F758E3 A589DBDB-2342-4857-8C60-5350B8C72568 3E1CE586-8F73-4180-933C-F3DB4CC4C633
52FD6544-B767-4369-AD58-6674784D42B2

Response: 

I chose to read the Higher Education report and thought that the trends that might have the biggest impact on learning can be categorized in 2 areas as I see it:

Teach Differently – look at new methods of teaching and how to use technology within the learning experiences.

Balancing Connected and Unconnected Lives
– We, as adults, teachers, and parents have trouble achieving this balance, therefore we should think about how might we teach the lessons learned to the younger generations.
– “Where we put our attention is not only how we decide what we learn, it is about how we show what we value.”

Integrating Technology in Teacher Education
– Without TPACK how can a teacher be effective with all the content and interactions available through technology their students use daily?
– Teachers must be able to understand technology and its implications to be able to use it effectively.
– “This challenge is exacerbated by the fact that digital literacy is less about tools and more about thinking, and thus skills and standards based on tools and platforms have proven to be somewhat ephemeral”
– “… teaching teachers to teach using up to date teaching pedagogies…”

Rethinking the Roles of Instructors
– Teachers become more of a guide and filter of content that a content delivery tool
– “We’re trying to get teachers to stop lecturing by lecturing to them”

Teach Different Things – look at what is being taught – is it useful or relevant, is it enough?

Creating Authentic Learning Opportunities
– Teach what you need to operate in the real world
– Teach about soft skills and well as core competencies
– “Practices such as these may help retain students in school and prepare them for further education, careers, and citizenship in a way that traditional practices are too often failing to do.”

Keeping Education Relevant
– Teach what the industry and the real world demands from students
– “The idea is to rethink the value of education as a means of reinforcing attitudes and skills learners will need to seek credible information, work effectively in teams, and persist in achieving their goals.”

Managing Knowledge Obsolescence
– How to deal with the every faster evolution of subject matters, findings, research, and beliefs.
– It’s a problem of change management – how to internalize constant external changes?
– “There is a greater need than ever for effective tools and filters for finding, interpreting, organizing, and retrieving the data that is important to us.”

Teaching Complex Thinking
– How to teach students to tackle complex problems, negotiate important matter and identify the validity of data sources.
– “The OECD report indicates the crucial need for learners to learn HOW to navigate digital texts, deal with issues of veracity and validity, and know ethical practices of using others’ work.”

To sum it up, I believe that the greatest impact in learning involve re-teaching our teachers to teach. At the same time I recognize that this is probably one of the hardest problems to resolve since it is not a matter of simply throwing money at the problem. It is about changing culture, changing daily routines, and ultimately working more, thinking harder, caring more, and valuing correctly the role of education in the world’s future.

Intro Teaching – Week 9 – Reading Notes

Topic

The Politics of Teaching and Teacher Evaluation: What are the political hot-buttons in teaching? Who are the stakeholders and what are their perspectives? How should teachers be evaluated?

Assignment

  1. Richardson, J. & Bushaw, W. J. (2015). Testing doesn’t measure up for Americans. The 47th Annual PDK/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward Public Schools. Arlington, VA: Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll.
  2. Haertel, E. H. (2013). Reliability and validity of inferences about teachers based on student test scores. The 14th William H. Angoff Memorial Lecture.

Bring on a device (no need to read ahead):

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC

Reading Notes: 

IMG_1226 IMG_1227

Intro Teaching – Week 9 – Assignment Position Paper

Went to the park to do most of the reading for this assignment : )

IMG_1223

Assignment:

Take a position on a current controversial issue in education. Choose one of the following:

  1. Flipped Classroom
  2. Gifted Education
  3. Standardized Testing
  4. Teaching Grit

Read these papers:

Reading Notes:

IMG_1224 IMG_1225 IMG_1228 IMG_1229

Response: 

Position Paper – Flipped Classroom 
Lucas Longo – Nov 14, 2015

The Flipped Classroom has become a buzz word which like most, become oversimplifications of a concept and over-promises results. I believe that much of the debate lies around its real effectiveness and its implementations. Obviously some debate arrises from common  misconceptions of its definition as well as its focus, in my opinion.

The main oversimplification and misconception is that by simply watching video lectures at home and doing assignments in the classroom would suffice. To ‘flip the classroom’ one must rethink both the content students consume at home and what happens inside the classroom. One must consider the learner’s household context, access to content, and the content itself. Within the classroom, one must understand how to engage learners in scaffolded discussions, activities and other pedagogical moves that are usually not part of the teacher’s repertoire. It’s what you do with the content, be it a lecture in class or on video. If there are no cognitively engaging activities following the content consumption, it will only have an expository impact, failing to stimulate exploratory and meaningful learning. A class like that would look like students are being tested every single day doing their homework silently and individually in class.

The “nothing new” argument also strongly resounds with me. A major change that has to happen “inside the black box” (Black, P. & Wiliam, D.,1998) for the model to work. What does a teacher do if all of the sudden her school is ‘flipped’ when the teaching style was direct? A good starting point would be to understand how to manage this new format of a classroom where the students must participate, interact with each other and get one on one help from the teacher. “To teach, I would need to establish a way for students to work that made it possible for the activities I planned to be educative” (Lampert, M., 2001). A reading assignment and discussion in class model is already a flipped classroom, along with John Dewey’s 20th century ideas of a student centered approach to teaching.

The most positive aspect of the model is that if implemented with care, it encompasses several teaching methods, theories and frameworks at once. More one-on-one teaching leads to a more personalized learning experience making it easier to work on Zones of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, L., 1978). Teachers are now talking with students instead of at students, hopefully making classwork more meaningful than homework. With this increased interactivity with the students, the teacher could also leverage funds of knowledge, differentiate better, move students toward higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy and hopefully be able to use formative assessments to improve the class. Not an easy task for a teacher with limited time and resources available.

For the students, this model promises that you can now study at your own pace (which you can do with books as well) and learn more from, or at least engage more with, your peers. It could also mean a greater potential for parental engagement since homework becomes less of an individualized activity. The content is shared and takes advantage of Joint Media Engagement (Takeuchi, L. & Stevens, R., 2011) effects where the interaction of the participants promote enhanced understanding of the content. To this note, there are opportunities to establish norms for the new “homework” where one encourage higher engagement with parents, peers, and friends outside of school to watch these lectures.

In general though, the greatest impact this framework has is on the change mindset it provokes. Even though it is a quasi buzz word, it makes people think. It makes people imagine what they could do differently. I am sure that most who hear the term and/or has little knowledge of it, comes up with interesting variations on what they could do if they ‘flipped’ the traditional model better known to them. This could produce interesting results or at the least change the pace of the classroom. A simple “let us try something new” in one class could spark a revolution.

On the other hand it could be harmful. Students might learn less from the TV than from a human and therefore start falling behind in the course content at an even greater pace. Problems at home such as access to the content itself and non conducive learning environments is one of the Achilles’ tendon of the model. In conjunction with this, EdTech companies want to push for it since it means potential new sales of a ‘magical’ solution for “the problem”.

Teachers might also see this model as much more work. They would have to either film themselves giving a lecture or spend time finding videos for the students to watch at home instead of simply showing up and putting on their regular ‘show’. During class, they would actually have to plan out several activities that might be harder to facilitate, manage, and execute.

For me, the flipped classroom model reduces the repetitive lecturing teachers have to do each time they give a course. It makes sense to record what you want to say, or find videos that might explain concepts better than you can, and have the students watch them. Yet this is simply an artifact that technology now allows us to do. Not much different than a book; just on another medium. You have to know what to do with the content.

It has to be made clear that an integral part of flipping the classroom is flipping the mindset of the teacher and providing them with tools, best practices, suggestions and examples of what to do with these learners to promote peer-learning, engaging discussions, classroom management, conflict resolution, amongst several other strategies and activities. Changing the mindset of the teacher about in-class activities, as well as providing adequate tools and resources, are the most important outcome of this entire debate in my opinion.

“Students tend to prefer in-person lectures to video lectures, but prefer interactive classroom activities over lectures. Anecdotal evidence suggests that student learning is improved for the flipped compared to traditional classroom. However, there is very little work investigating student learning outcomes objectively. We recommend for future work studies investigating of objective learning outcomes using controlled experimental or quasi-experimental designs. We also recommend that researchers carefully consider the theoretical framework used to guide the design of in-class activities.” (Bishop, J. & Verleger, D., 2013) 

Reference

  • Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80
  • Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Lampert, M. (2003). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction Between Learning and Development. From: Mind and Society (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  • Takeuchi, L. & Stevens, R. (2011) The New Coviewing: Designing for Learning through Joint Media Engagement. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop and LIFE Center
  • Bishop, J. & Verleger, D., (2013) The Flipped Classroom: A Survey of the Research. 2013 ASEE Annual Conference