Friday, 12 April 2013

First experience of a flipped learning approach

Bryan McCabe is a lecturer in Civil Engineering at NUI Galway, and a winner of a President's Award for Teaching Excellence in 2011/12. About a year ago, Bryan was considering how he might use a flipped approach in his teaching and began planning such an approach for his 3rd year undergraduate course in Soil Mechanics, to be delivered starting January 2013. Bryan had a number of conversations with us in CELT during the year and we were keen to find out how his initiative had worked out. So, we invited him to give a CELT lunchtime seminar on March 21st.

In advance of the seminar, Bryan was keen to point out that this was his first experience with flipped learning and he could only talk about initial findings. He didn't want to be perceived as an expert in the area, but was willing to share his experiences and thoughts. The seminar abstract is:

First experience of a flipped learning approach to a 3rd year Engineering module

Flipped learning is a form of blended learning in which technology is used to make course content available outside the classroom, freeing up valuable classroom time for active problem solving and learning. In his presentation, Bryan McCabe will talk about his first attempt this semester at flipping his 3rd year (3 ECTS) Soil Mechanics module in Civil Engineering. The presentation will cover the production of short videos covering the basic module content and the active workshop approach adopted in the classroom. The response of students to the new experience has been captured by survey both early in the semester and at the end and these are discussed. Bryan will reflect upon what aspects of the approach have worked well and what areas need be to improved, in addition to the pros and cons from the lecturer's perspective.

The following narrative is based on Bryan's fascinating talk.

Background

The flipped model of teaching turns the traditional model - content introduced in the classroom and students learn through assignments and self-study outside the classroom - on its head. Students review basic content in advance of the classroom session, often made available through technology (videos, podcasts etc), and the classroom time is used for learning through doing - interactive workshops.

For more information on flipped learning, Bryan references the excellent Flipped Classroom Infograph, although the concept of flipped learning has been around for much longer than this infograph suggests. He also made reference to Julie Schell's acronym as described in her blog post How to FLIP your class ... in 4 basic steps.



Julie's Peer Instruction blog, Turn to Your Neighbour, is an excellent source of resources on the flipped classroom and peer learning in general.

The Soil Mechanics Module

The course that Bryan decided to flip is a third year engineering module, comprising 24 lecture hours over 8 weeks. It is taken (in 2013) by 64 students, from 4 different programmes. It is assessed using quizzes on Blackboard (20%) and a final written exam (80%).

Back in January, Bryan prepared the students for flipped learning using the Educause 7 Things You Should Know About Flipped Classrooms (pdf document, February 2012). He also issued a number of strong statements to students:

This change has major implications for how you should approach this module and gives you more responsibility for your learning, with potential for greater rewards as a result.


It should be noted that looking at the video clips alone or attending the classroom sessions without having looked at the video clips are strategies that are unlikely to serve you well in this module.



Flipping the Module

Based largely on existing materials, Bryan produced 15 narrated Powerpoints using Camtasia, covering core concepts, and uploaded these to screencast.com and YouTube. The total duration over the 15 videos was just 2 hours (distilled down from 24 lectures). Here's a sample video on Groundwater, Permeability and Seepage, demonstrating Bryan's approach:



Students were invited to ask questions about video content by email, twitter (@geotechNUIG) or at the start of class. In fact, none of these communication channels worked particularly well, and questions were normally prompted by the classroom problems. In hindsight, Bryan suggests that he might make better use of the Blackboard threaded discussion boards, which are available to all and visible to the entire group.

In the classroom session, Bryan did not summarise the videos, in case students might rely on such a summary. Instead, the students worked through a set of 17 soil mechanics problems, available in advance in a workbook. The problems were complex, requiring application and synthesis of the content provided in the videos. The problems were solved by the students, with prompts from the lecturer as required. Discussion of challenging or difficult topics, as identified by the students, were encouraged. Bryan reports some evidence of peer learning during these discussions.

On average, engagement was good; although Bryan admits to some slow days.

Six of the 15 videos produced are openly available on YouTube, and are being accessed in several countries. A second year civil engineering student in the UK has recently contacted Bryan, saying that he found the videos useful and could he produce more.

What the Students Thought

Bryan surveyed the students at the end of week 3 and again at the end of week 8. The results from the first survey were very positive, while those from week 8 were yet to be fully analysed at the time of the seminar.


The week 3 survey had 38 respondents (from a total of 64 students). Of those 80% reported that they watched the videos on a personal laptop or home pc rather than a mobile device or campus pc. They had not experienced flipped learning before.

80% of respondents said that watching the videos in their own time was either convenient or very convenient. Only 14% claimed not to have watched the videos in advance of the classroom sessions. Almost 90% found the classroom sessions more valuable or much more valuable than traditional lectures (see diagram). Further, 90% of students were comfortable or very comfortable with the environment of the problem solving sessions.

When asked about the flipped learning approach, two thirds of respondents identified the combination of videos and classroom sessions as being important.

The initial results were very positive and encouraged Bryan to continue with the approach.



An initial analysis of the week 8 survey results showed that just 24 students had responded to the survey at the time of the seminar. Engagement with the videos was poorer than indicated in week 3, but the effectiveness of the classroom sessions and the likelihood of attending the classrooms sessions had increased.

Bryan also asked the students how they would like to be assessed using free text responses (he had deliberately not changed the assessment method of the module from previous years). Students asked for more continuous assessment: short quizzes on video content during class, in-class tests and in-class exams.

Some sample responses are:

I think having some tests in class throughout the semester would be good. The online quizzes are good but I think tests in class would be better because it gives incentive to learn and revise the material as a whole, instead of just answering specific questions

Probably earn continuous assessment points as you go through the year by doing more in class exams this would make the videos compulsory to have viewed before every class


This feedback from students will inform changes in assessment for next year.

Bryan has now started to analyse the exam results from this year's group of students. Not surprisingly, exam performance is better for those who attended more classroom sessions - but with a lot of scatter!


What the lecturer thought

Bryan enjoyed the fact that there was less "delivery" going on and he described getting a "buzz" from the classroom sessions - not knowing where it might go or what he might be asked. He also felt that he added more value to the classroom sessions by being able to provide specialist technical knowledge as well as being able to focus on those areas that were more challenging or where misunderstandings were evident.


The videos themselves were time-consuming to make, but he now has a reusable (and shareable) resource. Next year he can put his efforts into rethinking assessment. There were also challenges around the existing timetable, with the scheduled hours being bunched and not conducive to the problem solving activities he wanted to promote.

Bryan's final words were "There's no going back".

Finally

I'd like to thank Bryan for sharing his initial experiences during the lunchtime seminar and for giving me permission to write up this post, linking to his YouTube videos.

I'd also like to thank Julie Schell for her permission to use her diagram within the post.


Sunday, 24 March 2013

E-Learning and Digital Cultures: Week 4 Reflection #edcmooc

At this stage, #edcmooc is over, and I can say that I have finally completed a MOOC. Before I reflect on my own experience of being a student on #edmooc, I want to complete my musings on the resources provided.

Week 4 continued the theme of Being Human, with a collection of videos, some readings on Transhumanism and some less challenging perspectives on Education.

Of the four videos, the two that I connected with most are True Skin (see it on Vimeo) and Avatar Days (watch on YouTube). True Skin reminds me of some of the sci fi videos from week 1, and has a dystopian feel running through it. The idea of being able to upload your mind - memory backup - is fascinating and has clear beneficial aspects, for example, for early alzheimers sufferers. What does it mean for learning though? If you can upload a (brilliant) mind, can you download it, or part of it, multiple times to many people? Maybe we'll all become like our smartphones, downloading learning to our brains like apps.

Less fantastical is the other video, Avatar Days. Maybe it was the Dublin accents, but this really resonated with me. I showed it to my 13 years old son and he sat watching it, mesmerized. He doesn't play World of Warcraft, but he does play other online games where he has an avatar. He understood the video.

It made me think a little more about online identities and the link between a person's real life and how that person is portrayed online. I've blogged previously about my own online identity (Hiding behind my avatar). To quote myself:

In some sense, my twitter persona is an alter-ego of myself. She says things in public that I would never say in a room full of people.

And now, watching Avater Days, I'm beginning to wonder how much of my online persona filters back into Real Life. In the last year, I've been blogging more and using this blog to make sense of my own thoughts and experiences in various topics related to learning technologies. Through comments left on blog posts and via my twitter persona, I've been interacting and developing with an explanding Personal Learning Network (PLN). In turn, this has contributed to my own professional development In Real Life (IRL). For somebody who is naturally an introvert, the extension of myself in the digital world has caused me (the real life me) to grow and develop in ways that would otherwise not have been possible.

Perspectives on Education

So, what does all this mean for a learner online? In my last blog post I reflected on what it might mean to be human as a teacher in an online course. Now I'm wondering what it means to be human as a learner.

David Hopkins recently highlighted a video on his blog called Engaging and Motivating Students, from a series on learning to teach online from the University of New South Wales. Watching this video (embedded below), which is really very good, it made me think about the differences between being a student in a traditional online course, and being a student in a MOOC.


 
In a traditional online course, the role of the teacher is multifold and teacher presence is very important. The teachers in this video describe how the teacher acts as the guide, is responsible for creating a collaborative learning environment and facilitates "the socialisation of students into online learning". One teacher even says that she is responsible for the students' learning, which I don't agree with. Many online courses include an introductory module intended to help students learn how to learn online.

But, in a MOOC where the teacher can't be present to monitor, encourage, give feedback, facilitate the socialisation of students - how do students learn how to learn online?

In the video, one teacher says that online learning environments are really democratic, and this can be true of many traditional online courses. But I'm not sure that it's true for MOOCs.

The majority of MOOC students, I suspect, already have at least one digital identity - which might be personal, professional, related to specific interests, or some other combination. So, each MOOC student is already coming with some online "baggage", (history, network of contacts, statement of interests etc) which is easily discoverable by other members of the course. If the person has been involved in a MOOC previously, then she already has a digital learning identity.

In a MOOC, the student is wholly responsible for his own learning. The teacher is not present and cannot be there every day. So participation, motivation and engagement is really up to the individual, as part of the wider group (or groups). How do the students learn to learn in this situation? How do they figure out the ground rules for online socialisation, usually established by the teacher? How do they learn about academic norms, standards and integrity? Is it the case that the people who become "successful" online students self-perpetuate the conditions that made them successful, while those who fail are left behind, forgotten?

And, what does it mean to be "successful" in a MOOC? That you get a certificate of achievement? At the recent #unitemooc event in Newcastle, @sheilmcn reported:
Related
E-Learning and Digital Cultures: Week 1 Reflection
E-Learning and Digital Cultures: Week 2 Reflection
Being Human
E-Learning and Digital Cultures: Week 3 Reflection



Sunday, 24 February 2013

E-Learning and Digital Cultures: Week 3 Reflection #edcmooc

I think I made a mistake in week three of #edcmooc. I was doing some travelling by train and decided to review the resources while in transit. Unfortunately, the Iarnród Éireann WiFi wouldn't let me access any of the videos, so I couldn't watch the film festival or Steve Fuller's TedX Warwick talk Defining Humanity.

Instead, I jumped straight into the advanced reading: Neil Badmington's introduction on Posthumanism. I read it twice, in full, and have gone back to sections since. But, I really don't think I have the necessary background to be able to make any sense of it at all.

Being Human, Humanism, Posthumanism and Transhumanism

As I read Badmington's introduction, I had fleeting glimpses of meaning and at times thought I might be approaching some understanding. But eventually I gave up. Is it possible to understand what posthumanism is without understanding humanism? I don't know, but all the different arguments got my head in a spin.

I was ready to give up at this stage. A couple of days later I did watch Fuller's talk and, though I still didn't understand many of the subtleties, was hugely relieved to hear that there is no agreed consensus about humanism.

So, my conclusion is, does it really matter? If I have a sense of what being human means to me, then I'm happy to leave the experts to their arguments.

Perspectives on Education

In contrast, the two readings on education were much more accessible. The Kolowich article from Inside Higher Ed describes the common belief that adding video and audio to an online course will help to provide the human element, which is missing from text-based materials. On the other hand, Monke's article laments the loss of interaction with our surroundings and with nature, as a result of increased focus on technology in schools.

The Talking Head V Being Present

The Kolowich article, as well as the recorded google hangout with the #edcmooc tutors, made me think about what does it mean to be human as a teacher in an online course.

It is certainly true that video and audio technologies can help to support the human element, whatever that might mean. Academic staff at NUI Galway have described how preparing podcasts for their students has allowed them to engage more deeply with the material and with their students. Webcam recordings,made  available to students via the VLE, can provide a personal touch. In both cases, the recordings are quick, with minimal editing, and specific to a group of people. Moreover, the purpose of the recording is to reach out to students online. The experience of the student is that the teacher is speaking, if not directly to him/her, but at least to a generic member of the class.

Lecture capture is something different. The lecture is being given to a group of people in the room, normally, but being recorded so that it can be accessed later. While some students may decide to watch the recording instead of attending the lecture in person, on the whole lecture capture is used as a revision tool. I am reminded of Andrea Sella's image of lecture capture as a time machine (at the Echo360 Community Conference Europe in 2011) , offering the possibility for students to go back and revisit those parts of a lecture that were unclear.

The recorded lecture has its use, but I don't think it provides the human element, as described by Hersh in the Kolowich article. In fact, a live lecture very often doesn't provide the human element either.

Contrast, within the #edcmooc coursera course, the recording of Steve Fuller's TedX Warwick talk and the recording of the week 3 google hangout with "the teachers". For me, as a student, Fuller's talk is a recording from 3 years ago, which doesn't speak to me at all. I couldn't watch the hangout live, but I got a lot from the recording and picked up on many points which had been previously unclear or that I haven't considered. Which one has the human element?

I think the important thing about the human element in teaching an online course is being present. This can be achieved through video and audio, but presence via text has been working in online learning for years. Presence via activity, comments and feedback in asynchronous discussion boards were strong features of my first experience of online teaching, almost 10 years ago. Video and audio technologies, among others, allow us to be present in different ways, but they do not, in themselves, deliver the human element.

Interacting with our environment

Finally, some quick thoughts based on Monke's article. Monke is arguing that we are focusing too much on technology in schools when children are better off experiencing the environment around them. I have some sympathies with his argument, but I think we need a balance. In particular, when it comes to simulations - why would we simulate an environment that the children can experience in real life?

I was reminded of the Windows 8 advertisement that is constantly on my tv at the moment. In it, a mother places a tablet onto her child's easel, so that the little girl can "paint" and print out her pictures. I know kids get messy when they paint, but this is crazy. We need a balance.


Mobile technologies offer huge opportunities when it comes to exploring our environment. While their use means that location becomes unimportant, it can also mean that location is of utmost importance. Students can be out in the field, interacting with the (natural) environment, and still be connected to the virtual classroom.

In conclusion

I found the week 3 material very tough and it took me a while to get to the stage where I felt I had anything to say. Again, these are completely my own ramblings; apologies if they seem completely confused. I'm off to read up on week 4.

References

Badmington, Neil (2000) Introduction: approaching posthumanism. Posthumanism. Houndmills; New York: Palgrave.http://www.palgrave.com/PDFs/0333765389.Pdf

Kolowich, S (2010) The Human Element. Inside Higher Ed http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/03/29/lms

Monke, L (2004) The Human Touch, EducationNext http://educationnext.org/thehumantouch/

Related
E-Learning and Digital Cultures: Week 1 Reflection
E-Learning and Digital Cultures: Week 2 Reflection
Being Human
E-Learning and Digital Cultures: Week 4 Reflection