Eric Mazur

[Leonie]

I think I’ve got a bit muddled on this approach, because I initially focused on the ‘flipping’ aspect of it, then just realised it’s the clickers that are the key tech, but the peer learning is also crucial to the success of the approach.

So trying to untangle them a bit:

(1) Flipping: pushes students to absorb information & do ‘homework’ before class. Learning benefits are probably due to increased time spent on the material, plus learning activities which require students to apply their knowledge to a question or reflect on what they’ve understood. Would have probably achieved similar benefits if possible to make students do the reading before class. There is a role for tech in giving video/audio lectures rather than setting readings – perhaps students pay better attention to video than textbook. There is also a role for tech in easier monitoring of who’s done the activities and analysis of their responses.

In a recent webinar, Carl Gombrich talks about a slightly different model of flipping at UCL: http://event.on24.com/r.htm?e=611006&s=1&k=5FB33727540FE8DB73046C4852921F75

(2) Clickers enables the teacher to quickly probe students’ understanding and give students immediate extrinsic feedback on their responses – a way of scaling up traditional classroom Q&A style teaching to large lecture halls.

(3) It’s the peer learning that’s introduced much more opportunity for students to articulate their understanding and debate with others, especially because he encourages them to discuss with people who chose a different answer.

I’ve seen a couple of studies (Howe & Tolmie 1999; Asterhan and Schwarz 2009) show that conceptual change/growth was more likely in pairs where learners had different conceptions. It’s not just about putting your own opinion into words – discussion needs to explicitly focus on the differences between people’s ideas (Suther 2005).

If you haven’t already seen it, I found Katherine Jensen’s blog post on this approach particularly helpful – including the discussion in the comments below.

One thing for Week 1 – Eric Mazur

Asterhan, C.S. & Schwarz, B.B. (2009) ‘Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog’, Cognitive Science 33, 374–400.

Howe, C. & Tolmie, A. (1999) ‘Productive interaction in the context of computer-supported collaborative learning in science’ In: K. Littleton & P.Light (Eds) Learing with Computers: Analysing productive interaction. London: Routledge.

Suthers, Daniel D. “Technology affordances for intersubjective learning: A thematic agenda for CSCL.” Proceedings of th 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: the next 10 years!. International Society of the Learning Sciences, 2005. http://www.gerrystahl.net/teaching/spring05/Suthers.pdf

[Author]

Posts