In lieu of a recent article reviewing the benefits of active learning (Link: http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2014/05/lectures-arent-just-boring-theyre-ineffective-too-study-finds ) – I thought it would be appropriate to discuss the benefits (and negatives) of these different teaching modalities on here.
I find it particularly interesting that although data (for years) shows us that old style didactic lecturing is quite ineffective when compared to modern teaching that incorporates active learning – yet, only a small percentage of teachers changed their methodologies.
As an advocate of active learning, I know my opinion may be biased – this is why I am asking you:
1- What style of teaching do you do?
2- Why do you prefer this style over the other?
3- In what situation do you think active learning may produce negative results when compared to traditional styled teaching?
I know the big argument against active learning is that it is time consuming, therefore in a big classroom (i.e + 400 students) it becomes difficult to have interactive activities within the class – yet there are still workarounds. What do you think?
http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2014/05/lectures-arent-just-boring-theyre-ineffective-too-study-finds
I currently do entirely flipped teaching, though I don't like the term "flipped." My approach more closely resembles old-style apprenticeship learning. However, I have over 16 years of experience teaching large lecture classes, and was quite good at it!
I can't say that I enjoy one method over the other. I simply believe in using the right tool for the right job. If I'm delivering knowledge and information, I use lecture. If I'm delivering skills, I use flipped teaching.
I've found several negatives to flipped teaching. (1) Teaching evaluations not only slipped, but decisively fell. There are many reasons for this, but the most likely one is that in a lecture I am giving equal time to every student (all at once), but when the classroom is flipped that time is diluted a hundred fold and unevenly spread. (2) It's a HUGE time drain putting in the many extra hours needed to combat #1. I went from 2.5 hours of lecture a week to 15-25 hours of hands-on instruction. (3) Often the students just don't LIKE flipped! I don't think we're doing students a service by making them hate learning.
The single biggest negative of flipped teaching is that it's been over-sold (in my opinion). Lectures are derided as being "inefficient" and "boring," yet they don't *have* to be boring, and no one ever explains what they mean by inefficient. Folks simply make the comparison that flipped teaching gives 0.3-0.5 standard deviations of improvement in learning gains over lecture. THIS IS A TRIVIAL GAIN! In fact, it's the same magnitude as the spurious gains that one gets by either observing a group (the Hawthorne effect) or making trivial changes in a class.
My conclusion: One should flip a classroom only if there's a reason that goes well beyond these questionable claims of efficacy (in my estimation). Can you teach a student how to use a power tool in lecture? No. Should simple delivery of cell biology knowledge be done in a group discussion setting? No. Choose the right tool for the right job, always.
I currently do entirely flipped teaching, though I don't like the term "flipped." My approach more closely resembles old-style apprenticeship learning. However, I have over 16 years of experience teaching large lecture classes, and was quite good at it!
I can't say that I enjoy one method over the other. I simply believe in using the right tool for the right job. If I'm delivering knowledge and information, I use lecture. If I'm delivering skills, I use flipped teaching.
I've found several negatives to flipped teaching. (1) Teaching evaluations not only slipped, but decisively fell. There are many reasons for this, but the most likely one is that in a lecture I am giving equal time to every student (all at once), but when the classroom is flipped that time is diluted a hundred fold and unevenly spread. (2) It's a HUGE time drain putting in the many extra hours needed to combat #1. I went from 2.5 hours of lecture a week to 15-25 hours of hands-on instruction. (3) Often the students just don't LIKE flipped! I don't think we're doing students a service by making them hate learning.
The single biggest negative of flipped teaching is that it's been over-sold (in my opinion). Lectures are derided as being "inefficient" and "boring," yet they don't *have* to be boring, and no one ever explains what they mean by inefficient. Folks simply make the comparison that flipped teaching gives 0.3-0.5 standard deviations of improvement in learning gains over lecture. THIS IS A TRIVIAL GAIN! In fact, it's the same magnitude as the spurious gains that one gets by either observing a group (the Hawthorne effect) or making trivial changes in a class.
My conclusion: One should flip a classroom only if there's a reason that goes well beyond these questionable claims of efficacy (in my estimation). Can you teach a student how to use a power tool in lecture? No. Should simple delivery of cell biology knowledge be done in a group discussion setting? No. Choose the right tool for the right job, always.
I agree with William, the teacher should choose the right tool for the right job. Sometimes the active learning is best choice, sometimes is the tradicional learning. The important is the teacher background could provide him with knowledge to choose.
But I think your researches questions are very interesting. Probably the most of teachers just do a tradicional learning, not because they think that it is the best, but because this is the way they know, so it is easier.
Thank you William and Alysson for your answers.
William, I really appreciate the distinction your provide between the two techniques. Your answer prompted me to review a few of the articles I have read - and as you mentioned, some have a very trivial gain in score.
Regarding making a lecture fun and interactive - I agree with you a 100%, at the same time unfortunately not every researchers is a good/fun teacher!
Nevertheless, using the right tool for the right job is a great statement. Thank you again for the elaborate answer.
Alysson, you are right. I wonder if teachers (including high-school/elementary school) are aware of these different teaching styles!
This is an excellent and recent article on the topic. Hope is is helpful.
The flipped classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. McLaughlin JE, Roth MT, Glatt DM, Gharkholonarehe N, Davidson CA, Griffin LM, Esserman DA, Mumper RJ. Acad Med. 2014 Feb;89(2):236-43.
Kieran, thank you for finding and suggesting that article! I just started reading it - the diagrams in the article are very clear and comprehensive - very well written, I will enjoy reading this!
I think an important question about the flipped classroom is how class size influences its effectiveness. A flipped classroom may work well with a small class and not so well with a big class. But where is the cut-off?
- Badges
- Science topic