For me, I’ve found, that with my AP level classes, my students struggle with not having a DI model of instruction. They’ve been trained so well in this method that breaking away from it causes a lot of strife.

I guess this is the primary reason I should be breaking out those kinds of activities more often.

I think that the “flip” is more than anything a shift in the mindset of instruction, something people have been advocating for years- the student centered classroom. We used to have this pretty cool curriculum- connected math- that accomplished some really good problem solving stuff, but we scrapped it for new and very traditional books. What am I doing? Using the old books, 3 act math, and our own experiments to give the kids real math experiences.

Also- Formative assessment has taken a central role in my room.

I have not read of many teachers reporting long term success after incorporating a “flipped” or partially “flipped” model into their practice. Of those that do seem to have found something that continues to work over the long term, they do not seem to credit either the use of video or students learning new material outside of class time for their success.

I wonder if their achievements might be largely attributable to providing more timely formative feedback to every student in their class:

http://mathmaine.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/what-does-flipped-classroom-mean/

To your second note, I’m still unsure why we’d waste 25 minutes on direct instruction anyway? That’s 25 minute of teacher talking with no interaction from students, no questioning, no formative assessment. Whether that goes home on a video or it stays in the classroom, it seems like a misallocation of a teacher’s resources.

#2- I have been “flipping” my classroom since the start of this year and I cant emphasize enough that it is not about the video. it is about analyzing what you are doing with your in class time and making better use of it. Why waste time on direct instruction for 25 minutes when 70% of the kids know the basics after 10 minutes? There are days I make a video, days the kids read a book, and days the kids do “gasp” rote procedural problems at home. Bottom line is, I am seeing huge gains with my students in actual problem solving skills that they will need, as opposed to being able to solve the quadratic formula when I tell you what a, b, and c are.

Speaking of organizations whose goal it is to improve/transform learning & teaching, I’m curious what others think of NCTM President Linda Gojak’s recent column on this model (http://www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=34585).

I thought it was adequately skeptical. She admitted a certain lacuna in her knowledge base and then laid out the possible dangers of the model (one of which you quoted). Way better than the NCTM Smarter Brief mailing list which is totally unskeptical of all kinds of pseudo-innovations that deserve our skepticism.

But to the point: @gwen has the crucial observation. It is hard to get kids to read, watch or view math at the right pace. My initial comment is centered around the excitement from enthusiasts saying things like “now with video kids can watch over and over again and kids can watch at their own pace!” Duh. You can do that with a book. Easier, in fact. It is easier to “rewind” a book. But how do a get a kid to watch and learn carefully? In the 90’s when computers were storming into education, people got excited about these “adapative programs” that Dan was also talking about. Guess what? It was really hard to get kids to pause and read the “advice” on the screen.

If a student is frustrated and really wants to know how to do a certain homework problem or a problem for tomorrow’s test, they’ll watch that video over and over. And I think to George’s point, they might watch a video over reading. In part because we’re raising a video culture. In part because we don’t teach academic reading. But just because a student will use a tool when his back is against the wall doesn’t make it the best tool.

@blaw: I’m with you. It is a great and awesome challenge to figure out how to get our students to actually be doing math. And what we say to them before anything starts (Act 1?) is crucial. This might be a caricature, but if flipped math is: “here’s a process you need to memorize. if you start memorizing it at home, things will be easier.” Maybe the best form of flipping I can imagine right now is my few, feeble attempts at getting kids to investigate geometric ideas using a geogebra set-up before we lay out the details in class.

Then, in June, I received an issue of ISTE’s Learning and Leading in which the flipped model was described as follows:

“The ‘flipped’ part of the flipped classroom means that students watch or listen to lessons at home and do their ‘homework’ in class.”

Seems the classic model was still in place as late as three months ago. Or, maybe the folks at ISTE just didn’t get the memo.

Speaking of organizations whose goal it is to improve/transform learning & teaching, I’m curious what others think of NCTM President Linda Gojak’s recent column on this model (http://www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=34585).

She writes, “Flipped lessons that simply demonstrate how to do a procedure do not encourage understanding, do not ensure that students will remember the procedure, and do not promote adaptive reasoning.”

I think the NCTM comments (intentionally) leave the door wide open for the ‘yeah-buts’— “Yeah, but my videos are more than procedural skills. I also give students intuition” or “Yeah, but I’m doing the new flip.”

So… what about flipped lessons that are more than do-this-then-do-this? If the introduction to a concept is an explanation (live or Memorex), can the NCTM process standards still be addressed?

In the NCTM Standards, it says “Solving problems is not only a goal of learning mathematics but also a major means of doing so.” The flipped classrooms that have been described to me may address the former but certainly not the latter.

[Aside— Okay, I get why the NCTM charges for professional resources that support high quality teaching, but the Standards??? Should these not be free and easily available to all teachers (NCTM member or not), administrators, and parents?]