3 ms·

I'm personally appalled that instead of leaning hard into a "flipped classroom model" by having kids watch (or read!) lectures on material on their own, and the

I'm personally appalled that instead of leaning hard into a "flipped classroom model" by having kids watch (or read!) lectures on material on their own, and then working in small groups with their teacher, the US public school system has instead doubled-down on just retrofitting the classroom environment into remote hell. As a developer it's difficult enough trying to remain engaged on any remote meeting with more than 5 participants, I can't fathom how kids behave. I imagine a huge component is the school-system-as-babysitting dynamic. If kids were left to their own devices to learn without any adult supervision it's possible (likely even) that they'd end up distracted at best, or at rick of causing or experiencing damage to themselves or their environment at worst. So... I guess I'm not sure what the model ought to be. I'm sure there's some contrast to be found to cultures where there's more live-in family (grandparents, aunts uncles etc.) than you find in American/Western households.

tenacious_tuna 6y ago
Thinking on this more: There's a high level of self-direction required of students in a flipped classroom model, and by my experience in the US public school system, the kids who're already doing well will do just fine in a flipped (or otherwise self-directed) model, but the at-risk kids are the ones who would need more attention--just like in the classroom.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  So I'm friends with one college student, and she hates flipped classrooms. It's not because she's irresponsible, either. (This is college, not high school.) She feels like it takes more time and she gets less out of it. It really doesn't work for her. So I think that > the kids who're already doing well will do just fine in a flipped (or otherwise self-directed) model is not true in all cases. I suspect she's not the only outlier, either.
  - asdff 6y ago
    I concur. When we tried these things in undergrad, it would be three people on their phone, three people giving an earnest effort but having no clue what to do, and one person who actually understood what was going on being burdened to drag the other people through the exercise like an unpaid TA. If there was more than one person who understood what was going on that was almost a bigger issue, running into the 'too many chiefs and not enough indians' problem which kills productivity and ends in frustration on all sides.
  - tenacious_tuna 6y ago
    Ahh, that's very fair as well. I guess the underlying issue is, of course, different people learn differently, and we shouldn't have a one-size-fits-all solution... even though that's what we're driven to: efficient-in-terms-of-quantity systems to churn through large piles of students with minimally enforced expectations of the quality of received instruction.
dorchadas 6y ago
So I'm a secondary school teacher, and I have tried this. Several times, with several classes (math and introductory chemistry/physics). The issue is the kids think of it as not having any work. So they do nothing while at home, which then means I end up having to teach the content anyway. It just doesn't work because the kids are responsible and refuse to do stuff at home, meaning I have to teach what they should've learned and at least been able to discuss. And it's not a matter of them not understanding the material, it's that they openly admit they didn't watch/read it and don't think they have to.
- tenacious_tuna 6y ago
  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Do you think it would be effective to segregate students by ability and/or motivation? That way you could let the motivated/interested/whatever students self-direct, and otherwise more efficiently spend your time with those who aren't self-motivated?
  - dorchadas 6y ago
    I think that's absolutely the key, honestly and it's why I'm a fan of AP/accelerated courses where at all possible. I also think ability grouping is great as you can work with students of lower ability without having to worry about those with higher ability being bored. I think that you need contact with those who aren't self-motivated, even if that's live classes they have to attend, as then they know there's accountability. But I do think that a good self-motivated learner, who knows how to learn would greatly benefit from just reading texts/watching quality videos (while taking notes) and having a teacher to basically ask questions to when needed. Sadly, I'm not sure how much of the grouping I'd like to see is legal. I know my school got in trouble for offering 'Core' classes which were basically remedial education classes in core content areas (So you'd have 'accelerated algebra 2', 'algebra 2' and 'core algebra 2'), which worked as you could find ways to focus on real-life examples for those students, but gave rise to a host of other issues. But, overall, I see the only real way to do online learning entirely is through group segregation, at least at the secondary level. Hearing some of our AP teachers complain, it'd almost need to be a double split -- one on ability and one on motivation. Of course, a lot of the latter, in my opinion, stems from the culture of the area. Sadly I'm in a rural area where well-paying jobs used to be plentiful right out of high school (or even without a degree!) and so a very anti-intellectual culture developed. Sadly, even though those jobs aren't present, the culture stays as most who have other values move out and leave. Me and a few of my colleagues (all from the area) are exceptions, but I know several of us would leave if we could. So you're also fighting a cultural battle on top of all the other stuff.
watwut 6y ago
> "flipped classroom model" by having kids watch (or read!) lectures on material on their own Pretty much all classes before college I had were mixture of in-class exercises and teacher explaining things. It is not like teachers in high school would talk for an hour straight and then sent us home with homework. Plus, people asked questions or teacher prompted people to answer teachers questions. That does not really works the same way with video. In college, there were lectures and labs. In lectures they talked, in labs you solved exercises. Plus, there were office hours where you could ask. So the whole flipped classroom model sounds like downgrade to me. Or more like someone again needed buzzword. Anyway, afaik, my best guess is that majority of my peers would half-ass the videos watching at home. Even assigned readings had pretty bad compliance and people skimmed them at best. Unless the flipped classroom starts with graded test, there is no proof that you have done it, no consequences if you did not and then it is too tempting to skip that.
- tenacious_tuna 6y ago
  > no consequences Wouldn't the consequences be doing poorly on future assessments, or otherwise other visible ways of not understanding the material? The frustrating thing for me as a student was always either (a) when I understood the topic and was bored out of my mind sitting through explanations of it or (b) when I didn't understand the material, and was trying to, but the other students in the class/room who did understand and were bored were distracting or otherwise soaking up the instructor's attention. In my imagination there's some flavor of system where students can opt-in to exactly as much hands-on instruction as they want for a particular subject... but that does assume "good faith" on part of the students, and that they're motivated to be engaged. Probably too utopian, but still.
  - watwut 6y ago
    > Wouldn't the consequences be doing poorly on future assessments, or otherwise other visible ways of not understanding the material? 1.) The younger students are, the less they are able to think far into future. And they are motivated by that far away future even less. It is too distant for them. Even adults have hard time to be motivated by far away vision. Putting things off till last moment is pretty much normal human behavior. 2.) Not really if enough students do that. If the teachers are failing everybody, then they will have to adjust expectations. But even if they dont, this means overall less learning on students part and overall ineffective school system. 3.) The teachers tends and in fact should to explain things if you did not understood them during individual reading. The flipped classroom is not supposed to have unhelpful unapproachable teacher. Teacher do try to motivate people and help them learn. If teacher theoretically abdicated to this, then yes you have consequence. But, another consequence of having such teacher is that everyone learns less, including those who are disciplined enough to do everything. > The frustrating thing for me as a student was always either (a) when I understood the topic and was bored out of my mind sitting through explanations of it or (b) when I didn't understand the material, and was trying to, but the other students in the class/room who did understand and were bored were distracting or otherwise soaking up the instructor's attention. I dont see how flipped classroom would solve any of these instead of making them worst. There is still a class. The explaining part is the one where you have more of similar speed. The solving exercises is part where differences in speed show up a lot and where other students talking to teacher are preventing focus the most.

tenacious_tuna 6y ago

Thinking on this more: There's a high level of self-direction required of students in a flipped classroom model, and by my experience in the US public school system, the kids who're already doing well will do just fine in a flipped (or otherwise self-directed) model, but the at-risk kids are the ones who would need more attention--just like in the classroom.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
So I'm friends with one college student, and she hates flipped classrooms. It's not because she's irresponsible, either. (This is college, not high school.) She feels like it takes more time and she gets less out of it. It really doesn't work for her. So I think that > the kids who're already doing well will do just fine in a flipped (or otherwise self-directed) model is not true in all cases. I suspect she's not the only outlier, either.
- asdff 6y ago
  I concur. When we tried these things in undergrad, it would be three people on their phone, three people giving an earnest effort but having no clue what to do, and one person who actually understood what was going on being burdened to drag the other people through the exercise like an unpaid TA. If there was more than one person who understood what was going on that was almost a bigger issue, running into the 'too many chiefs and not enough indians' problem which kills productivity and ends in frustration on all sides.
- tenacious_tuna 6y ago
  Ahh, that's very fair as well. I guess the underlying issue is, of course, different people learn differently, and we shouldn't have a one-size-fits-all solution... even though that's what we're driven to: efficient-in-terms-of-quantity systems to churn through large piles of students with minimally enforced expectations of the quality of received instruction.

dorchadas 6y ago

So I'm a secondary school teacher, and I have tried this. Several times, with several classes (math and introductory chemistry/physics). The issue is the kids think of it as not having any work. So they do nothing while at home, which then means I end up having to teach the content anyway. It just doesn't work because the kids are responsible and refuse to do stuff at home, meaning I have to teach what they should've learned and at least been able to discuss. And it's not a matter of them not understanding the material, it's that they openly admit they didn't watch/read it and don't think they have to.

tenacious_tuna 6y ago
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Do you think it would be effective to segregate students by ability and/or motivation? That way you could let the motivated/interested/whatever students self-direct, and otherwise more efficiently spend your time with those who aren't self-motivated?
- dorchadas 6y ago
  I think that's absolutely the key, honestly and it's why I'm a fan of AP/accelerated courses where at all possible. I also think ability grouping is great as you can work with students of lower ability without having to worry about those with higher ability being bored. I think that you need contact with those who aren't self-motivated, even if that's live classes they have to attend, as then they know there's accountability. But I do think that a good self-motivated learner, who knows how to learn would greatly benefit from just reading texts/watching quality videos (while taking notes) and having a teacher to basically ask questions to when needed. Sadly, I'm not sure how much of the grouping I'd like to see is legal. I know my school got in trouble for offering 'Core' classes which were basically remedial education classes in core content areas (So you'd have 'accelerated algebra 2', 'algebra 2' and 'core algebra 2'), which worked as you could find ways to focus on real-life examples for those students, but gave rise to a host of other issues. But, overall, I see the only real way to do online learning entirely is through group segregation, at least at the secondary level. Hearing some of our AP teachers complain, it'd almost need to be a double split -- one on ability and one on motivation. Of course, a lot of the latter, in my opinion, stems from the culture of the area. Sadly I'm in a rural area where well-paying jobs used to be plentiful right out of high school (or even without a degree!) and so a very anti-intellectual culture developed. Sadly, even though those jobs aren't present, the culture stays as most who have other values move out and leave. Me and a few of my colleagues (all from the area) are exceptions, but I know several of us would leave if we could. So you're also fighting a cultural battle on top of all the other stuff.

watwut 6y ago

> "flipped classroom model" by having kids watch (or read!) lectures on material on their own Pretty much all classes before college I had were mixture of in-class exercises and teacher explaining things. It is not like teachers in high school would talk for an hour straight and then sent us home with homework. Plus, people asked questions or teacher prompted people to answer teachers questions. That does not really works the same way with video. In college, there were lectures and labs. In lectures they talked, in labs you solved exercises. Plus, there were office hours where you could ask. So the whole flipped classroom model sounds like downgrade to me. Or more like someone again needed buzzword. Anyway, afaik, my best guess is that majority of my peers would half-ass the videos watching at home. Even assigned readings had pretty bad compliance and people skimmed them at best. Unless the flipped classroom starts with graded test, there is no proof that you have done it, no consequences if you did not and then it is too tempting to skip that.

tenacious_tuna 6y ago
> no consequences Wouldn't the consequences be doing poorly on future assessments, or otherwise other visible ways of not understanding the material? The frustrating thing for me as a student was always either (a) when I understood the topic and was bored out of my mind sitting through explanations of it or (b) when I didn't understand the material, and was trying to, but the other students in the class/room who did understand and were bored were distracting or otherwise soaking up the instructor's attention. In my imagination there's some flavor of system where students can opt-in to exactly as much hands-on instruction as they want for a particular subject... but that does assume "good faith" on part of the students, and that they're motivated to be engaged. Probably too utopian, but still.
- watwut 6y ago
  > Wouldn't the consequences be doing poorly on future assessments, or otherwise other visible ways of not understanding the material? 1.) The younger students are, the less they are able to think far into future. And they are motivated by that far away future even less. It is too distant for them. Even adults have hard time to be motivated by far away vision. Putting things off till last moment is pretty much normal human behavior. 2.) Not really if enough students do that. If the teachers are failing everybody, then they will have to adjust expectations. But even if they dont, this means overall less learning on students part and overall ineffective school system. 3.) The teachers tends and in fact should to explain things if you did not understood them during individual reading. The flipped classroom is not supposed to have unhelpful unapproachable teacher. Teacher do try to motivate people and help them learn. If teacher theoretically abdicated to this, then yes you have consequence. But, another consequence of having such teacher is that everyone learns less, including those who are disciplined enough to do everything. > The frustrating thing for me as a student was always either (a) when I understood the topic and was bored out of my mind sitting through explanations of it or (b) when I didn't understand the material, and was trying to, but the other students in the class/room who did understand and were bored were distracting or otherwise soaking up the instructor's attention. I dont see how flipped classroom would solve any of these instead of making them worst. There is still a class. The explaining part is the one where you have more of similar speed. The solving exercises is part where differences in speed show up a lot and where other students talking to teacher are preventing focus the most.