The flipped classroom: could we? Should we?

I read a short guide by Educause Learning Initiative on the idea of a ‘flipped classroom’. The flipped classroom is “a pedagogical model in which the typical lecture and homework elements of a course are reversed”. An example is given, where students were assigned to watch some short lecture videos at home and complete a short quiz at home.  The in-class activity consists of team discussion about the lecture themes and the quiz, which generate further questions. The lecturer takes a less prominent role in this scenario.

Could this model work for us? I can’t see why not. We already have the ability to create short (or long) recordings using voice recording devices, such as smartphones, mp3 recorders and even mp3 players. We can even record short videos using Panopto, or any old webcam on a computer. The lecturer could prepare a short introduction to the week’s theme, highlighting the key points, outcomes etc. Further reading could also be assigned at this stage, approached after the lecturer has raised the key questions. Online exercises could further reinforce these points, but also help raise more questions.

The in-class session could then be a session that is not a ‘transmission’ of information from the lecturer to the student, but rather an opportunity for discussing the finer points of the topic, or for focusing on methodological aspects and discipline-related tools for analysis. One barrier for this model is, of course, class layout and size. This model could be applied in a flexible room where the tables can be arranged to accommodate groups. Large lecture theatres, and groups of over 30 could make this a difficult task.

You can read the ELI resource on the flipped classroom here.

Reflection on teaching

The teaching for our current batch of training has just finished. I delivered three sessions. The first one was on e-learning, the second one on teaching small groups, and the third one on giving lectures.

The groups were fairly varied. The e-learning session was delivered to staff who are either teaching PG students or (mainly) recently recruited lecturers. It is intended to generate a discussion about the role of learning technologies in our teaching which is a little bit more theoretical and aims to go beyond giving ‘tips’ and recommending software. In addition, it aimed to negotiate the often murky path between enthusiastic learning technologists keen to try new ideas, process-driven administrators who are eager to justify the amounts paid to their VLE providers and what is actually suitable, appropriate and useful for the task at hand. At the end of the day, technology is there to support learning, not drive it. It was the first time I’d delivered this session, using my predecessor’s notes, so it didn’t flow quite as smoothly as I’d like it. As time was not an available luxury, I couldn’t work too much on making changes in order to shape the session to match my way of thinking. We had a few bumps along the way, but it went well on the whole.

The other two sessions went very well. The small group teaching session is intended to tackle questions and issues with (and consider the over-arching principles of) teaching small groups/seminars in a more active setting. The usual questions crop up: what if students don’t do the work? What if they don’t want to talk? The group I had was particularly lively and talkative (thankfully), and made my work easier. Many from that group were also in the giving lectures sessions. As evident by the title, this session aims to tackle the ‘traditional lecture’ and help teachers think of alternatives to the transmission model.

On the whole it went well and I feel that I am now in a position to shape these sessions to suit myself, the target audience and the time limit better.  I am hoping to be able to catch my breath now and adopt a more considered approach to this practice. This last six weeks have been deep-end stuff, and it will be nice to have some time. Time.

In uncharted (or simply previously unknown) waters

Here we are. I am in a new job as a member of a ‘teaching development’ unit, working on delivering courses in accredited programmes for learning and teaching. I am grateful for the opportunity (and the challenge), and have already been thrown in at the deep end. I am sure that in time my first 2 months in the job will prove to have provided me with a trial-by-fire grounding in those more pronounced or nuanced aspects of my role and practice. The thought that I might reap some benefits is of some comfort, but it certainly does feel challenging at the moment.

I guess that this blog will now become my soap box in terms of my professional practice and development. It will reflect my own experience, reflection on my own practice, and perhaps discuss what I make of the theory that should (and the policy that does) drive L&T in Higher Education. I aim to keep this blog anonymous and anonymised, just in case anyone gets any ideas. We live in interesting times.

I’ll be back shortly with an assessment of both my first experiences as a ‘developer’ and my views at this stage. Au revoir!

Zone of Proximal Development: Lave and Wenger’s take

OK-I admit it: I’m a novice in these parts, and much of the language employed in pedagogical/theoretical literature requires steely determination on my part. I am often tempted to put it down and do something I know I’m good at-but I persevere, hoping to reap the benefits. It’s a steep learning curve.

My plan is to understand the theory behind Vygotsky’s “Zone of Proximal Development” (ZPD) and see how this has been used in the context of Higher Education. Using existing literature as a springboard, I intend to find out how this works out in the age of blogs, and in particular in my institution.

I picked up Harry Daniels’ edited volume, An Introduction to Vygotsky¹ hoping that it would be concise enough to inform me without confusing me, but also incisive so that it would lead me to further reading and the beginning of a deeper understanding.

To begin with, Vygotsky’s ZPD is defined as “the distance between a child’s actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the higher level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers”². Breathe.

After reading the introduction, I browsed the contributions to the volume, and my eye was drawn to Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger’s “Practice, person, social world” (143-150). Lave and Wenger summarise the interpretations of ZPD into three main trends: firstly, the “scaffolding” interpretation of ZPD, whereby ZPD is interpreted as “the distance between problem-solving abilities exhibited by a learner working alone and that learner’s problem-solving abilities when assisted by or collaborating with more experienced people”³. This interpretation means that learning is seen as a process whereby the learner goes from needing assistance to perform a task to being able to perform it without assistance, in a chain reaction which leads to a higher level of knowledge.

The second interpretation offered is the “cultural” one, which sees ZPD as the “the distance between the cultural knowledge provided by the sociohistorical context […] and the everyday experience of individuals”⁴. This creates a dichotomy between what is seen as “understood” knowledge as opposed to “active” knowledge, separating everyday knowledge, such as making a cup of tea or catching the bus, from ‘formal’ knowledge, such as is acquired in school. Indeed, Vygotsky himself made a “distinction between scientific and everyday concepts” where a “mature concept is achieved when the scientific and everyday versions have merged”⁵.

The third interpretation is the “collectivist” or “societal” interpretation. This sees ZPD as the “distance between the everyday actions of individuals and the historically new form of societal activity that can be collectively generated as a solution to the double bind potentially embedded in … everyday actions”⁶.

My limited knowledge tells me that it is the above theories which underpin the movement towards independent learning and enquiry-based learning. However, I have a big problem with the above approaches and their implicit suggestion that learning of a ‘higher’ level only takes place within formal structures, while ‘everyday’ concepts acquire validity only when they ‘merge’ with Vygotsky’s ‘scientific’. It is more than likely that I missed something too-I am a novice at the end of the day. For example I don’t quite understand the differences between the cultural and collectivist interpretations.

In any case. The model Lave and Wenger propose is one where the individual and the world around him/her are interdependent. Meaning has a “socially negotiated character” and as such can be fluid and constantly negotiated. “This implies that understanding and experience are in constant interaction-indeed are mutually constitutive. The notion of participation thus dissolves dichotomies between cerebral and embodied activity”⁷. This works for me. I think there is constant fluidity of meaning but also constant communication between what were perhaps traditionally seen as separate areas of knowledge.

How does this impact on the question of blogs? Well, I have a sneaky suspicion that blogs lend themselves in bridging the gap between ‘formal’, classroom learning and individual learning. When the learner comments on the subject free of the constraints of the classroom, much as I am doing now, he/she is free to explore other avenues, suggest other possibilities. In a way, the ‘helping hand of the tutor’ can also be seen as hindrance. I am not afraid to appear ignorant on my blog. I wouldn’t want to appear ignorant in class though. And my hope is that my peers will interact with me, disagree and argue with me and ultimately help me learn in a more active way, as part of a social context. I would be terrified if Etienne Wenger saw this though.

 

Added value

Lave and Wenger refer to Giddens’ view on “decentering that avoids the pitfalls of “structural determination”. This lends itself nicely to the study of Ottoman history, and I will be exploring it from that angle-cheers!

Notes

1. Daniels, H., An Introduction to Vygotsky (London: Routledge, 1996).
2. Vygotsky, L.S., Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological processes (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978: 76); as cited in Daniels (1996: 4).
3. Lave, J and E. Wenger, “Practice, person, social world” in Daniels (1996:144).
4. ibid., p. 144.
5. ibid., p. 144.
6. Engerström, Y., Learning by expanding (Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy, 1987:174); as cited in Daniels, ibid., p. 144.
7. Lave and Wenger, ibid., p. 146.

 

photograph ©new folder 2011

Blogs in Higher Education

I have just started exploring the idea of collaborative learning and social constructivism  and the role of blogs in reinforcing learning in HE. How can blogs help learners learn in a social context, and not as isolated satellites, all feeding from the mothership of knowledge? I suspect that Vygotsky might have the answer, and I am consequently reading on his Zone of Proximal Development, as well as its applications in HE and e-learning. Watch this space. I will be adding some titles and links to the Bibliography tab (next to ‘Blog’ above) when I’m done.

Back with some constructivism

Ok, I’m back after a long hiatus and basically because I am revving up the engine for the completion of my PGCert. Strategic, moi? No, it’s just that other things took over and there was no time to be working with pedagogical theory during this time. I promise you regular posts from now on, since I will be engaging with the theoretical and practical aspects of learning and teaching on a more regular basis.

Today we had a session on ‘learning in context’, which was a very useful reminder of the basic principles: Kolb’s Cycle and where we see ourselves and our learners against it. Bloom’s Taxonomy was mentioned, and the approach which is I think in the heart of what I do as a tutor and learner: constructivism. EBL was also discussed, albeit briefly, with concerns raised about its viability and the institution’s ability to back its ambitious proclamations with the release of more teaching resources in order to achieve those aims. Time will tell.

Once again it was very refreshing to be in a room with fellow practitioners from across the disciplines, a reminder that despite the differences, the goal is the same: learning. And since I think I’ve already built a small and insignificant couple of rows of bricks in my previous venture into the world of learning, I have something to base the new one upon. And that is the beauty of constructivism.

_______________________

image by Henri Cartier-Bresson

 

Dropbox: a lifesaver

Teaching the other night, I intended to play to my students the reading of a Greek poem (Cavafy’s Ithaca). On inserting the CD in the CD player, I discovered to my horror that it wasn’t working. I’d made an audio CD out of mp3 files of the reading which I downloaded from a Greek literature website. The room also had a networked PC, but I couldn’t remember the exact URL of the website. Luckily I’d downloaded and saved the mp3 on Dropbox. I accessed my Dropbox account from the classroom and before you knew it I could download the mp3 and play it to my class.

Dropbox is a free online storage service, which automatically backs up a designated folder on your hard drive. I use it to synchronise a folder on my work pc with one om my home pc. This is particularly useful if you want to work on one document without having to email it to yourself or constantly save it on your flash drive. It is also extremely useful because you can access these files from anywhere, like my poetry reading. I can’t praise it enough.

You download and install Dropbox for free, and you have up to about 2gb of space to start with. If you invite other people who also install it, you get an increase each time. It’s great I tell you, especially for the roving teacher!