One of the themes from their responses is something I’ve seen quite often before and it’s something that I want to address, and that is: The flipped classroom doesn’t seem like anything new.
This isn’t a bad, wrong, or pejorative thing to say. It comes mainly from people in the humanities and the sciences who look at the discussion or seminar classes they teach or the lab sections they design and see the flipped classroom in the DNA of what they’ve been doing since forever. And of course there’s a lot that’s correct about this. The inverted classroom has roots in the case-study methods from law and business, and it has strong affinities to lab courses and studio- or seminar-style courses where some of the best learning occurs. So yes, if I’m running a flipped classroom I am going to be riffing heavily on the best teaching practices I see in those styles.
And yet, the inverted classroom is not merely the reinvention of the wheel. There’s something distinctly different about a flipped classroom than just mapping the pedagogies above onto mathematics or whatever I am teaching.
Your new post is loading...