Flipped Learningand IL
Flipped Learningand IL
Flipped Learningand IL
There is little evidence this approach works well, and I have some doubts about it. Independent Learning
(Chapter 33 Teaching Today) is a similar approach that has much more evidence on its side. But how
would you do flipped learning from an evidence-based perspective? I worked with Singapore Polytechnic
on a project to look at this, and the materials below came out of this project. The teachers in the project
found flipped learning worked very well using something like the following approach, but of course they
had students on Higher Education courses, reasonably able to learn alone.
The students familiarise themselves with the basic concepts and key facts, at the level of
knowledge and basic comprehension only. The teacher usually provides resources which
explain these basics, e.g. reading, or the teacher’s own video. There might be some
basic understanding of how this knowledge is applied, for example in mathematics. This
work is done outside of class time.
The teacher ensures queries are answered, and Stage 1 learning might be checked. Then
there is exploration of the content using critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity such as
design and development of a strategy etc, real-life application, and/or an analysis of the
material from different points of view, etc. Students are now working towards the top of
Bloom’s Taxonomy and are collaborating, and there is dialogue.
The main issues seem to be the following, but I think it may be possible to design flipped learning in a way
that overcomes them, in some contexts at least. I might be wrong though:
Stage 1 not done by some. At least a proportion of students will not look at the stage I materials or
do its activities. These may be the least motivated and least able students. Without completing
stage one, the stage II activities will be hard to comprehend, and the student will leave with a weak
understanding of the topic as a whole. Will this method disadvantage the weakest or least
motivated students compared to traditional methods?
Potential for a lack of sufficient formative assessment in stage 1. Learners of all types, even when
learning at the low-level knowledge and comprehension level, require their learning to be checked
and corrected, they need to fix errors and omissions in their learning (formative assessment), they
may need support or reassurance. Students can do some of this for themselves but at least some
will need activities that encourage formative assessment, and a source for help with queries.
Potential lack of dialogue in stage 1. Learning is often more effective in a social context, with high-
quality dialogue focused on the main concepts and ideas. Students learn by both talking and
listening during this dialogue.
Time consuming for teacher at first. Creating the stage 1 materials in particular, if they are to be
high quality, will take a great deal of time.
Stage one materials may be video lectures or video demonstrations etc, or other web-based or Virtual
Learning Environment materials (e.g. Moodle), or handouts, reading from books and journals etc. These
need to be of a high quality if students are to learn from them without teacher support, and ideally they
need embedded formative assessment which ‘finds faults, fixes, and follows up’ to check the fix has been
made.
Lets look at how we might use evidence-based approaches to solve the above problems.
It is vital that there is student dialogue throughout the flipped learning experience. I would strongly
recommend setting up learning teams (search for ‘geoff petty learning teams’ for a paper on this). Then
students who are stuck have someone they can ring, email, or meet in person to ask for help. Also, students
can discuss answers to your self-assessment questions if you set any.
The following help the students to understand what is being learned and why, and what they will have to
do with their learning. These all have high effect-sizes, meaning that repeated rigorous experiments with a
control and experimental group have found that students learning by this method do much better than
similar students learning without that method. See ‘Evidence Based Teaching’ Geoff Petty.
Summary in advance: At the beginning of the topic give an advance organiser summarising the main points
of what is being studied and why. Stress its importance.
Check on prior learning: any learning which is a prerequisite for this topic should be checked and
corrected, any intellectual skills that will be used, e.g. data analysis, during the sessions should again be
checked and corrected. This ensures the foundations are sound before you build new learning upon them.
One way to do this is to ask preparatory questions where students must recall or reuse any relevant prior
learning. If they do badly on these they are asked to revise this learning before looking at Stage 1 materials.
Set goals or tasks in advance. Describe in outline what the student will actually do in stage 2 and 3 (if there
is a stage 3). For example:
"You will need to prepare for a debate on this topic, you might be asked to take either side"
“You will need to peer assess solutions to problems such as this….., and justify your evaluation of
your peer’s work”
“You will need to present your solution to Problem Three to the class with full justification, and
respond to the class’s critique.”
As ever, it helps if there is an ‘audience’ for the students work, other than the teacher, e.g. peers
Stage 1 materials
Try to make use of EBT methods here, rather than just posting a video for students to watch. Students
need to engage with the material you provide and so there needs to be some tasks. These have the added
advantage that completed tasks show that students have participated during stage 1. The following tasks
all have high effect sizes:
Studying worked examples (see later in this and the next method)
creating graphic organisers that summarise the key points in the presentation. (See my Evidence
Based Teaching for this and for the next method)
Decisions-decisions games,
It obviously helps to have some evidence as to whether students have made correct use of your stage 1
materials.
Don’t rule out students studying stage 1 materials together in a resource centre, perhaps in learning teams.
Dialogue is very powerful.
Students could take a quiz, but they will need to understand what and why they got wrong, and at least in
mathematics, redo these questions to get the correct answers.
Even better, arguably, would be to use ‘diagnostic questions’ as described below. Class discussion could be
done on-line if a synchronous discussion could be set up. Research on elearning finds synchronus discussion
to be more effective than students joining discussion at a time that suits them (‘asynchronous discussion’)
It would help if students could deal with their problems with a ‘study buddy’ who understood that aspect of
the lesson. One way to do this would be to ask students to self-asses their confidence to explain certain
issues or questions and post this on-line. This key might help:
Then students who were ‘red’ (stuck) would know who to contact (any ‘green’ student) to get their
problems dealt with. The colours would also give you an impression of confidence or lack of it.
Mastery Learning might help, where students keep taking simple tests at the level of knowledge and simple
comprehension on the key points until they ‘pass’. Pass rates are high, say 8/10, as the material is simple.
If they don’t pass they do remedial work, perhaps supported by Learning Teams. There is an inherent
danger with this method if it is seen by students to be the main assessment method. They will tend to try to
memorise without understanding the tested materials rather than strive for deep understanding, so the
method needs to be used with care and in balance with more challenging assessments.
See also my paper on e-learning by using EBT methods (search for ‘e-learning geoff petty’)
Stage 2
The first job is for you to respond to the difficulties that students had with Stage 1. This is made much more
effective if activities were set in stage 1, e.g. a quiz.
This stage is less problematical as it is more conventional teaching. Any methods in ‘Evidence Based
Teaching’ would help here. Some of the methods listed later in this paper would be worth a try. There are
some methods that work well for maths later in this paper.
Consider having a quiz at the end of this stage too, and/or anonymous responses to ‘What did you find
most difficult?’ Then you can respond to the difficulties you have discovered with a home-video.
Stage 3
Students now do individual work on this same topic, again a fairly conventional teaching strategy. I still
think learning teams will help a great deal here, as we have the same difficulty as in stage 1 which is that
learners who are stuck may not have anyone to turn to.
1. Your own self evaluation of your approach to flipped learning, including your response to the ideas
mentioned above
2. Student satisfaction questionnaire: have they enjoyed it; have they learned better from it than
from a more conventional pedagogical structure? If not do they need more practice, or would a
better structure be preferable.
3. Qualitative review of learning quality: Was student learning deeper with this approach than it
would likely have been using a more conventional approach? Did students learn better how to
tackle more challenging questions?
4. What changes would improve your use of flipped learning? This assumes you want to persist with
the strategy of course. The purpose of evaluation here is not to measure the effectiveness of
flipped learning compared to alternatives, but mainly to improve teaching and learning.
Please don’t worry about the context of the methods in the explanations I give below, if you can
see past these you will soon see that the methods would work well in your own context too. One
of the surprising findings of the research on the best teaching methods is that context does not
stop a method working, only requires the teacher to be creative in adapting the method
sufficiently to work in their own context.
Interactivity is a vital component of good teaching. Researchers found teachers who were in the
top one percent of all teachers nationally for six years running in terms of value added. They did
not use conventional questioning strategies, but used something like 'assertive questioning'
(below) instead. Assertive questioning is part of ‘whole class interactive teaching’ (WCIT).
Professor John Hattie has synthesised and compared over 300,000 experiments to improve
student attainment, he finds WCIT and classroom discussion to be amongst the most powerful
methods available to teachers. See chapter 15 of 'Evidence Based Teaching' Geoff Petty.
Assertive Questioning
1. Buzz groups work on a thought provoking question.
If a group does not respond to this offer of help they are ‘fair game’ for the next stage.
The teacher does not give the answer away if they do help a group.
3. The teacher nominates individuals to give their group’s answer, and to justify it: “why do
you think that?”. The teacher thanks the student for their answer, but does not evaluate
it. They might ask supplementary questions such as 'Does anybody agree with that
answer?' 'Has anybody got anything different?'.
4. The teacher gets a response from each group in this way, or at least a number of groups,
and then points out any inconsistencies between the groups’ answers if any. (If there
aren’t any, perhaps the question could have been more challenging, though in early
practice easy questions are helpful)
5. The aim now is to get the whole class to agree their ‘class answer(s)’. The teacher
encourages the class to discuss and evaluate their various answers, and to agree, and to
justify their ‘class answer’. Minority views are allowed, but the aim is consensus.
6. Only when the class has agreed its answer does the teacher ‘give away’ the right answer,
or evaluate and comment on the answers given.
This method works whether there are right answers or whether different interpretations and
answers are likely e.g. in a critical appraisal of a painting.
(See the diagram below and ‘Whole Class Interactive Teaching’, chapter 24 in ‘Teaching Today’.)
It’s okay if you don’t fully understand a concept first time, learning takes time.
what counts is whether you understand the question or task, and its answer eventually, not
whether you get it right first time
I ask challenging questions so it is not humiliating to make a mistake. We all make mistakes
when we learn. Indeed that is part of how we learn. If we don’t make mistakes the work is
too easy for us to learn at our maximum rate.
Mistakes are useful because they tell us where we can improve.
If you make a mistake, bet your life half the class has made it too.
It’s good for learning to say ‘I don’t understand’ and to ask for clarification.
You should never ridicule another student for their mistakes, even in a joking way because you
wouldn’t like it if you were ridiculed, and because it stops us learning.
You will only learn from mistakes if you find out how to do it without mistakes next time, and
really understand this.
Let’s help each other! The helper learns at least as much as the helped.
Ground-rules like these are best established very early on, and are best developed Socratically by
asking students for their ideas for class ground-rules. “We all want to enjoy ourselves and we all
want to learn well, so what should be your ground-rules?” Note it is ‘your’ not ‘my’ ground-rules!
Student demonstration
This is an excellent method to test and develop students’ understanding of a simple skill such as
mathematics problem solving, punctuation, scientific reasoning, detection of imagery in a poem
etc. It is very similar to assertive questioning and is used routinely in Eastern European countries
and in Pacific Rim countries such as Taiwan and Singapore, which routinely achieve top ranking in
international comparisons.
Assertive questioning
must require the
Ask the question student to reason
Reinforcement:
thanks and praise
The method is used after a teacher demonstration of a practical or intellectual skill. The aim is to
check and correct understanding of a skill before all students practice it. It is initially a bit
daunting for students but they will greatly enjoy the method if you introduce them to it properly.
Use pair explaining first (see page ???” this prepares them for student demonstration very well.
After they have learned to use peer explaining well, set them tasks to do in pairs followed by a
student demonstration, perhaps asking for volunteers. Then move on to pair work followed by
you nominating the student to demonstrate. Give them fair warning in any changes.
2. Students work on the task. This can be done in pairs initially, but after a bit of practice
they do tasks individually, perhaps checking each other’s completed answers in pairs.
They strive to get the answer, with any justification such as necessary reasoning or working
etc. If students are in pairs they make sure that either of them can provide this
justification.
3. You monitor the work. You check attention to task and occasionally ask:
‘Can everyone do this one?’
‘Can you all explain your answer?’
Students who can’t answer the question are required to own up and get help at this stage,
otherwise they are ‘fair game’ for the next stage.
4. You choose a student to demonstrate their answer to the rest of the class. If
students are in pairs you choose one student at random to give the pair’s answer. The
student gives their answer on the board, explaining each step and its justification to the
class. You ask questions to clarify, but do not yet evaluate the answer.
“Why didn’t you use 6 and 1 as the factors of 6?”
“Why did you choose a full stop and not a comma?”
“So how did you choose between personification and metaphor?”
5. You ask for a ‘class answer’. You ask the class if they agree with the student’s answer
and its justification, or whether either could be improved. The aim is not to criticise the
student’s answer, but for the class to agree a ‘class answer’. The student who did the
demonstration becomes the class scribe, writing up any changes the class agrees to. You
again fascilitate without evaluating the answers or the arguments.
“Why do you think it should be plus four and not minus?”
“How many think it should be a comma? Why?”
“So why exactly is it not a metaphor?”
6. You comment on the class answer. Praise any useful contributions and confirm any
correct reasoning, and correct any weak reasoning.
7. The process is repeated with another task, after sufficient practice the students can do
stage 2 as individuals rather than in pairs.
Students are often initially resistant to doing a demonstration if they are not used to it. So you
could make use of volunteers to begin with, but try to move on to students nominated by you as
soon as you can. They will be more confident of answers that they have produced in pairs, than
answers produced in isolation so when you first start nominating students do it after pair work.
All the arguments in favour of assertive questioning apply also to this method. You might like to
compare student demonstrations with other methods you use in similar situations, using the
criteria we used earlier in this chapter.
Student
demonstration
My own
method(s)
The idea was first invented in Primary schools but they are used everywhere now, including
university, though there is hi-tech version
Alternatively you can withhold your evaluation of the answers to spark a class discussion:
“Okay, some of you have a comma after ‘people’ and others haven't. What do we think?”
Clearly you can get students to call out their answers and so dispense with the board.
“Okay, what is the first word in your sentence with a comma after it?”, but this will only work for
very simple questions. It is not that easy to get everyone to call out at the same time and it can
be noisy with some classes.
Explain the no-blame ground-rules above. Then give students a challenging maths question, one
they can attempt or get started on but which they often won’t be able to finish by themselves.
1. Individuals write down their own answer, or their attempt, working alone.
2. Students then share what they have written in groups of three or four. Each student
presents their attempt justifying it to the others. The others give constructive criticism about
the pros and cons of each approach after it has been presented.
3. Each group now decides which method is best and why, and presents it to the whole class
4. There is class discussion on which methods are best and why, this can be done assertive
questioning style, or student demonstration style as described above.
www.edutopia.org/math-underachieving-mathnext-rutgers-newark
Stage 2 involves classroom discussion, and here are two methods that are used by many teachers
with very exceptional value added, they come from Doug Lemov’s book Teach Like a Champion.
No Opt-Out
This technique deals with a student who doesn’t know the answer, or who gets the answer wrong.
Here is a bit of dialogue showing the No Opt-Out technique being used to teach students how to
calculate percentages. The teacher has already explained and demonstrated the process, and is
now getting the class to calculate 7% of 320, with her guiding and writing on the board:
So the teacher goes back to the student who initially “failed”, to ask the question again.
Teacher asks Jo
the same question
again
Jo answers
correctly
Teacher indicates
answer is correct
Q2. Could it be used for questions where there is no one right answer, e.g.
interpreting a poem?
Further Reading
Doug Lemov (2010) ‘Teach Like a Champion’. Jossey-Bass
Champion Teachers make use of whole class interactive teaching and interactive dialogue, see:
Geoff Petty (2009) ‘Teaching Today’ 4th Ed. Nelson Thornes - see chapter 24 on Whole class Interactive
Teaching
Geoff Petty (2009) ‘Evidence Based Teaching’ 2nd Ed. Nelson Thornes – See chapter 9 on Whole Class
Interactive Teaching, and chapter 15 on dialogue, questioning, and the self correcting
Right is Right
Q1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this technique?
Q2. Could it be used for questions where there is no one right answer, e.g.
interpreting a poem?
3. Prepare an agreed statement, and a question about this technique
This technique can be used in conjunction with the No Opt Out technique, or on its own.
The idea is that the teacher questions the class until it comes up with a near perfect answer given
in scholarly language. Earlier answers are used as stepping-stones, and are gradually improved to
arrive at the near perfect answer. Here is some text from Lemov’s book, which he also provides in
video form, which shows the technique in action in a maths class:
Armstrong: We're going to do a couple of things with volume today. Then we're going to practice
volume and then surface area. Can someone give me a definition for volume to get us started?
Mark?
Armstrong: You're telling me how we're going to solve for volume. If you say “length times width
times height” you're giving me a calculation. What I want to know – and you probably know this
too, Mark – is what volume is. What is that amount? Yeritza?
Armstrong: Okay but I want to refine what you said – “the amount of cubes”. What should we
say? What's the technical definition instead of just cubes? What were you going to say Wes?
Wes: The amount of cubic inches that a rectangle of prism or a three-dimensional figure takes up.
(Many teachers would have accepted this answer, or a previous one.)
Armstrong: Right, any three-dimensional figure. But I don't want to just say cubic inches because
it's not necessarily inches. It could be feet; it could be centimetres ; it could be yards…..
Armstrong: (writing on the overhead) so the amount of cubic units that an object takes up… and
Donte,I know you know the other word. What's the other word for “takes up”?
Donte: Occupies
Armstrong: Yes. Occupies. Volume is the amount of cubic units that an object occupies.
Above text from Doug Lemov (2010) ‘Teach Like a Champion’. Jossey-Bass
Right is Right technique in diagrammatic form:
Q2. Could it be used for questions where there is no one right answer, e.g.
interpreting a poem?
Non Book
Study Skills
in mind) ..................................................................................
Coping Strategies
or a lecturer ..................
Monitoring my learning
Self Management
Summary
very
Specified Uns pecified easy0 2 4 6 easy
Monitoring
: half-way check
by teacher
4 6 independent
self-tests learning
periods
2 8
self-tick checklist,
checklist student diary
10 close
distant 0
Assessment
:
assignment
grading 6
4 presentation
self-marked
test
test
exam
2 8
mastery
Teacher brain learning
power 1000V quiz
low heat 0 10 high heat