Flipping the Paradigm

Our QEP staff meeting today focused on three primary issues:  Connectivism, JiTTs, and Flipping the tradition classroom model.  All three of these elements mingled together for some fascinating insights into the potential of a fully realized learning experience for both students and teachers.

We chatted a little bit about what QEP is trying to accomplish and immediately dove into applying some of these questions to an actual class syllabus.  We brainstormed together and came up with a lot of ideas to integrate JiTTs into the coursework and "flip" the class from a professor-led lecture model to a professor-facilitated learning model. This is the truly exciting part of re-imagining the nature of the classroom experience.  Flipping puts the onus on the students and holds them even more accountable for their own learning while actually encouraging a much broader and more practical understanding of the content.

One of the major points of contention from the resistance to this strategy is the question of student motivation.  How do we get them to do the work?  I know all too well the proportion of college students who rarely open the book or attempt the homework.  They figure if they show up to class (sometimes), listen to the lecture (maybe take notes), and regurgitate what they memorized, they are learning.  They cram for the test and write the major papers the night before they are due.  And that is what comprises the bulk of their grade. Is that real learning?  Or is it simply adding and shuffling note cards in a vast catalog of information?

It got me thinking about our particular students and why they have chosen college. Is it to fulfill a dream and become x, y, or z?  Is it because their parents said it was that or the military? Is it because they simply can't get enough knowledge?  If I posed the question to them, I imagine a fair number of them would shrug their shoulders and say, "'Cause..."  Period. Well, perhaps I'm not really that jaded.

I guess one JiTT idea I might attempt the first week of class would be to ask the students to write (in a blog or discussion thread) about why they came to college.  Why are they here?  What do they expect to get here?  Where will they go when they are finished?  If they are honest and offer more than a knee-jerk, superficial response, we can find out quite a lot about our students, and this is where we connect.  Why is education relevant to ME?

You don't have to be a science major for biology to be relevant to you in some way.  You don't have to be a writer for literature to resonate with you.  But we are all learners with a variety of personal experience and knowledge that we bring to every subject. And what really makes content relevant?  How we put it to use.  When we wallow around in it, splash about, trip over it and fall face first in a big fat mistake.  And there is the professor, at the ready with a life-preserver in hand.  If we are really only "experiencing" content outside of the classroom, who is there to guide us?

If we flip that model, the student is gathering content information and reflecting on it outside of class.   It's when he comes to class where he has a chance to manipulate it and apply it with the guidance of his professor that he really comes to understand its meaning and relevance. Now the professor can guide the student's active experience with the content, connect with him in the process and even expand his own understanding.

Back to motivation:  If we make the students more responsible for their learning, shouldn't we put more grade-weight on it too?  Of course JiTTs cannot be graded as "one-right-answer" assignments, but they can be evaluated for their level of participation and depth of exploration.  It's an interesting premise, and one that will most likely take some getting used to.  But it does seem that in the current situation, we are asking for a different kind of mastery when we give a student a grade based solely on 3 essays and 2 exams.  What is he mastering—the card catalog or the content?  I don't think essays and exams are wrong, but perhaps the structure and timing of their administration as well as their prescriptive value is not as effective as we have come to accept.  Obviously we need some way to assess knowledge and expertise.  As a society, we need to know if a doctor is competent or an engineer is qualified, and that is another discussion.  But it may be time to re-think what we mean when we say "learning."