（转载）Making Our Teaching Efficient: Flipping the Classroom# Faculty - 发考题
C*t
1 楼
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.
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.
