Skype in the classroom

The Skype team tech talk we got today worked incredibly well in building off of the information our group presented on flipping the classroom and using online video. Skype definitely improves on one critique of the flipped model in that the lesson and question/answer components of a topic can happen back to back without a day or two gap in between. Flipping the classroom may be appealing for teachers to transmit a lecture to a group of students that are spread out in time and place, and in this aspect, it has an advantage over Skype that still requires students to tailor their schedules to meet at one time. However, Skype has the tremendous advantage of being synchronous, which students prefer more than asynchronous methods according to the assigned reading.

Flipping the classroom - instructor's take

Flipping the classroom was a brand new concept to me before beginning research for our very first TTT. I forget which team member actually suggested using this topic originally, but whoever it was, I need to thank them. To me, flipping the classroom is.... one of many techniques I've learned already this semester that works well in theory and is definitely worth incorporating into an integrated approach to teaching that could be highly effective when planned well. Flipping obviously has the "commercial" appeal for students that are already used to watching videos on a daily basis, and some of the benefits outlined in Salman Kahn's TED talk (e.g., student's ability to rewatch parts of the lesson that they are struggling through without inconveniencing the teacher or the rest of the class) are logically sound arguments as to why it would be so effective. No technique is a cure-all / end-all / be-all though, and I loved reading about some scathing critiques of this method, as well as hearing insightful criticisms from my classmates during our discussion exercise. On closer inspection, it was pointed out that flipping isn't really all that different from long-used strategies like assigning a paper and using class time to discuss it. It's also not practical for certain classrooms if the technology isn't available for all students (e.g., low-income primary schools, or even across some college classes). Overall though, I see value in focusing more in-class time to guided activities dedicated to active learning, and flipping the classroom seems like an attractive and effective venue for developing these lessons, and I think it is definitely something I will experiment with in future instructor roles.

More Presentation Pet Peeves

After going over some basic presentation pet peeves last time we met in class, I've been noticing them more and more...so thanks Sherry! Warnell recently conducted a series of faculty candidate interviews, and some of the candidates demonstrated some serious abilities to teach complex topics of their own research to a diverse crowd (even including undergraduates), other interviewees were not as effective. For one person, the most aggravating and unnerving thing he did during his talk was paced back and forth along a small line for the first 5 minutes and then basically stood in one spot for the remaining 40 minutes. This person had some very exciting research that he was presenting (one part focused on an endangered black bear and its conflicts with nearby residents), but his physical demeanor added no dynamic qualities to the presentation. Also, as soon as I noticed the behavior, it was all I could think of, and that's kinda the key reason how all these little pet peeves can ultimately be counterproductive to good teaching.

A second pet peeve I've noticed revolves around learning objectives. I used to write off the idea that all good lessons must have clearly stated learning objectives at the beginning. I still think there are plenty of alternative ways of teaching, but I've recently seen presentation after presentation in one particular class where the beginning learning objectives are absent entirely. The instructor generally has a set of lesson plans that he goes through, but they do not coincide with specific class periods. In other words, he'll end one lesson in the middle of class, go right into the next, and pick up with that same lesson (on any random slide) the next class. I would say 90% of our lectures this semester have begun in the middle of a topic with no more than a one sentence introduction of something we covered up to 5 days ago. Fortunately, this is a class I've TAed for before, and I know the material so I'm not lost without my learning objectives. Can't really say that for the 12 students in the class though, and it's getting egregious enough that I should probably discuss it with the instructor. Thus, pet peeve #2 more generally addresses whenever a presenter forgets that the audience will probably not remember what you talked about 5 minutes ago, let alone in a previous lecture. So per the saying, you have to tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, and tell them what you told them.