Flipped classroom

Han Hung Lee

Bloom’s taxonomy

Flipped classroom

• Before class: finish the online-content of pre-recorded videos, reading materials at theirown pace of learning

• In class: focus on the activities with ‘higher-level learning’ – group discussion, debate,presentation, role playing, etc.

What do students really care?

• Method: Open-response surveys with thefollowing questions:

• Participants: from a mix of 100-level, 300-level and 400-level university courses at a public institution.

• Result:– Face-to-face: Interaction (55%), instructor (31%)

– Online: Class structure (43%), interaction (15%)

What is the professional’sperception on technology-

mediated education?

• Method: modified Delphi method, with thequestions of each round as follow:

– Round 1: What do we want our healthcare graduates to be, as opposed to what we want them to do?

– Round 2: What teaching strategies would you use in order to develop the attributes identified in the first round?

– Round 3: What are the ways in which technology-mediated instruction can be used to support the teaching strategies identified in round two?

• Results:– Round 1: (students) be part of a developmental process, in addition to “having” knowledge, skills, understanding and attitudes, which were seen as products of learning

– Round 2: combinations of teaching strategies -safe space for students to explore the domain independently, in-class reflective components

– Round 3: interactive, integrative and reflective technical tools that enhanced student-centered and self-directed learning; ICTs (Information and Communication Technology) offered a more flexible approach to learning; content to be available anywhere, anytime.

Any examples?

• Course:

• Participants: 162 students, with 22 throughteleconference in satellite campus

• Details:

– Offloaded contents: as integrated learning accelerator module (iLAM) to a website whichcould be addressed by internet-enabled device

– Student-centered learning:

• Audience responses and open questions

• Pair & share activities

• Student presentations and discussion

• Individual or paired quiz

• Microlectures (optional)

– Appropriate assessments: in-class activities + finalexamination

• 127% more time to prepare than thetraditional class

– capture lectures, prepare active learning exercises, and grade projects and examinations.

• Required highly trained teaching assistants,

– efficiency and expertise of the instructor, especially as it related to providing thoughtful written feedback.

– employing senior medical students who already have completed the course and/or PhD students who are enrolled in graduate medical programs

• Online engagement measures and final exam performance were weak (rp = −0.04 to rp = 0.20).

•

•

• The actual practice of offloading content and engaging in active learning in the classroom is far more important than the specific methods.

• Same course design, but evaluate theconsequence of students in satellite classroom

•

• Qualitative findings:– Engagement: with other learners and instructor,

content to address or solve real-life problems

– Empowerment: created an environment thatfacilitated enhanced learning and increasedconfidence

– Development: critical thinking, problem solving,professionalism, studying

• Learning experience improved, yet nosignificant examination performancedifference

Other designs?

• Method: Environmental and occupational health (EOH) course redesigned with flippedclassroom/NextGenU DOOHICHEs (Democratically-Open Outstanding Hybrids of Internet-aided, Computer-aided, and Human-aided Education, pronounced as “doohickey”)

– Offloaded contents: NextGenU DOOHICHEs

– In-class activities: mini- lesson addressing concepts or aspects, brief question and answer period, activelearning activities (e.g. a toxicology problem set that students worked on in pairs; an occupational health case-study examined in small groups; and a whole-class

debate on the topic of environmental health decision-making); writing 4reflective responses

– final exam at the end of the semester

• Participants: MPH students (n = 11) enrolled in the 2013 spring session of an EOHC at a Canadian university.

• Results:

– Self-perceived knowledge assessment: significantincrease for every competency

– Student’s perception of the NextGenU/flippedclassroom model: highly favorable overall

– Comparison of examination scores: no statisticallysignificant difference

• Key themes from focus group:– Factors influencing positive experience:

interaction, class size, active in-class learning activities and reflective responses, engagement with content online before attending in-class

– Attitude change toward EOH: this course contributed to greater interest in environmental health and issues in general

• ‘flipping’ the classroom is not simply about shifting lectures out- side of the classroom. Content delivery is “just one small piece of the overall learning experience...” , STRUCTURE!!

• Course design: (for example)

• Participants: 148 students were enrolled in 4 sections of PS (Professional Skills in Dietetics ) and 48 students were in 2 sections of CN (Community Nutrition)

• Details:

– Before class: mini-lectures (between 10 and 15 minutes), videos obtained from sources such as Khan Academy or TED Talks, completed a table as a low-stakes assessment

– During class: choose only a few active learning strategies to use throughout the course rather than a different one for each class

– After class: Assessment

• formative (eg, at the end of the class assignment)

• summative (eg, exam, or portion of an exam that covers several weeks of content)

•

• Time to digitalize lectures as well as think of appropriate active learning strategies to use in class is extensive.

No difference in performance?

• Course design:

• Participants: 27 graduated student, with 14 intradition course and 13 in the flipped one

•

• Quizzes or written homework assignments (25% offinal grade) at the beginning of each class followed by discussion – allowed the faculty to better engage the students

•

Cost?

• The baseline cost for the course in 2011was $5,965.00. Costs above baseline were $8,763.00 in 2012 for one-time course implementation and $2,657.00 annually for course continuation

• Less than 1% of the tuition at the school

• What is the cost of a failed student? And perhaps more important: What is the cost of a less competent professional?