Written by Allen Labitzky<\/i><\/p>\n
\u201cWhat is the best way to teach?\u201d It is a question teachers think about frequently. Though lecture remains an effective way to give students information (Berrett, 2012; Clayton, Blumberg & Auld, 2010; Schwerdt & Wuppermann, 2010; Struyven, Dochy & Janssens, 2010), there are limitations (Ernst, 2008; Welker & Berardino, 2005), including problems with the pace of a class (Goodwin & Miller, 2013) and an inability to accommodate different learning styles (Lage & Platt, 2000). \u00a0In contrast, online classes offer students flexibility, convenience, and differentiated learning strategies (Clayton, Blumberg & Auld, 2010) but lack of face-to-face interaction, fluidity, and immediate feedback (Daymont, et al., 2011, Ernst, 2008). As are result, most students still prefer lecture (Tawil, et al., 2012).<\/p>\n
Can we use the best of both approaches? Various hybrid approaches have been used at universities for decades (Berrett, 2012; Kaynar & Sumerli, 2010; Welker & Berardino, 2005), but only recently has hybridized instruction made its way to high school and middle school classrooms. One method, known as the flipped classroom, gained attention when Bergmann and Sams used web recordings of lectures and demonstrations (Flipped Learning Network, 2013) as their primary at-home learning component. In the flipped classroom, passive, in-class learning is replaced with active student-led investigations and collaborative problem solving (Berrett, 2012; Brunsell & Horejsi, 2013). The key is not so much the on-line components the students watch at home, but the extra time students devote to hands-on learning (Brunsell & Horejsi, 2013), the increased peer interaction (Flipped Learning Network, 2013), and improved one-on-one teacher feedback (Berrett, 2012; Goodwin & Miller, 2013) in the classroom. Lage and Platt (2000) state, \u201cThe Internet provides students with an excellent complement, not substitute, to their in-class efforts. The use of the web in providing core content allows us to use experiments, group work, and other highly interactive in-class pedagogies without sacrificing course content.\u201d<\/p>\n
Bergmann and Sams (Flipped Learning Network, 2013) report that once they flipped their classrooms, their students interacted more in class. Brunsell and Horejsi (2013) cite that in traditional classrooms only about two-thirds of students felt there was enough classroom time to get the help they needed from their teacher. Once the classroom was flipped, 96% of the students reported they received the in-class help they needed. A case study of one school (Clintondale High School, 2013) reports that flipping \u201creduced the failure rate by 33% in English Language Arts, 31% in Mathematics, 22% in Science and 19% in Social Studies in just one semester.\u201d Further research at Clintondale (Flummerfelt and Green, 2013) confirms there are substantial increases in differentiated learning compared to traditional classrooms. Another case study at ByronHigh School reports that \u201cmath mastery jumped from 29.9% in 2006 to 73.8% in 2011\u201d once classrooms were flipped (Fulton, 2012; Flipped Learning Network, 2013). While these case studies suggest that flipped classrooms positively impact student learning (Hamden, et al., 2013), there is \u201cno scientific research base to indicate exactly how well flipped classrooms work\u201d (Goodwin & Miller, 2013).<\/p>\n
I first read about flipped classrooms in the March 2013 issue of Educational Leadership.<\/i> \u00a0I am no expert, but I am convinced that the flipped classroom approach requires a response from our Lutheran schools. First, MLC should continue to encourage and train teachers on how to best utilize on-line resources. Because the flipped classroom is still managed by the teacher, Lutheran teachers can embrace what technology offers without compromising our Christ-centered focus. Second, with its growing graduate program, MLC could be at the forefront of developing a body of research that thoroughly investigates flipped classrooms. MLC and our Lutheran schools could gather extensive data and conduct needed scientific investigation of flipped classrooms. Finally, while sites like The Flipped Learning Network (2013) and Kahn Academy (Gorman, 2013) host numerous lessons, they lack materials that align with the Bible. Our Lutheran schools need not replicate the materials already available, but could collaboratively create our own library of resources that teach the Scriptures and all subjects from a Christ-centered perspective. As flipping classrooms catches on, MLC could be the global resource for teachers and home-school parents wanting on-line materials that are presented from a Christian worldview.<\/p>\n
The flipped classroom idea makes this an exciting time for our Lutheran schools, not just because we can improve learning, but because it gives us the opportunity to proclaim the gospel to an audience we may have never otherwise reached.<\/p>\n
Allen Labitzky is\u00a0principal at King of Grace Lutheran School\u00a0in Golden Valley, Minnesota. He<\/i>\u00a0is a graduate of Wisconsin Lutheran College and earned his master’s degree from Marquette University.\u00a0He is working toward a second master’s degree from MLC with a leadership emphasis.\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n
References:<\/p>\n
Berrett, D. (2012). How \u2018Flipping\u2019 the Classroom Can Improve the Traditional Lecture. Chronicle of Higher Education<\/i>, 58(25).<\/p>\n
Brunsell, E. & Horejsi, M. (2013). Science 2.0: A Flipped Classroom in Action. Science Teacher<\/i>, 80(2), p. 8-8.<\/p>\n
Clayton, K., Blumberg, F., & Auld, D. P. (2010). The Relationship Between Motivation, Learning Strategies, and Choice of Environment whether Traditional or Including an On-line Component. British Journal of Educational Technology<\/i>, 41(3), 349-364.<\/p>\n
ClintondaleHigh School (2013). About ClintondaleHigh School, Clintondale<\/i> High School<\/i> website<\/i>, http:\/\/www.flippedhighschool.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n Daymont, T., Blau, G. & Campbell, D. (2011). Deciding Between Traditional and Online Formats: Exploring the Role of Learning Advantages, Flexibility, and Compensatory Adaptation. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management<\/i>, 12(2), 156-175.<\/p>\n Ernst, J. V. (2008). A Comparison of Traditional and Hybrid Online Instructional Presentation in Communication Technology. Journal of Technology Education<\/i>, 19(2), 40-49.<\/p>\n Flipped Learning Network (2013) www.flippedlearning.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n Flumerfelt, S., & Green, G. (2013). Using Lean in the Flipped Classroom for At Risk Students. Educational Technology & Society<\/i>, 16 <\/i>(1), 356\u2013366.<\/p>\n Fulton, K. (2012).\u00a0 The Flipped Classroom: Transforming Education at ByronHigh School.\u00a0 T.H.E. Journal<\/i>, 39(3), 18-20.<\/p>\n Goodwin, B. & Miller, K. (2013).\u00a0 Evidence on Flipped Classrooms is Still Coming In.\u00a0 Educational Leadership<\/i>, 70(6), 78-80.<\/p>\n Gorman, M. (2012). Flipping The Classroom\u2026 A Goldmine of Research and Resources To Keep You On Your\u00a0Feet<\/a>. \u00a0http:\/\/21centuryedtech.wordpress.com\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Gorman, M. (2013). E-Curriculum\u20267 Key Tools Uncovering a Goldmine of E-Resources\u2026The Digital Curriculum Part Three<\/a>.\u00a0 \u00a0http:\/\/21centuryedtech.wordpress.com\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K. M. (2013). A Review of Flipped Learning, GeorgeMasonUniversity.<\/p>\n Kaynar, B. H. & Sumerli, G. (2010). A Meta-Analysis of Comparison Between Traditional and Web-Based Instruction. Ekev Academic Review<\/i>, 14, 153-164.<\/p>\n Lage, M. J. & Platt, G. (2000). The Internet and the Inverted Classroom. Journal of Economic Education<\/i>. 31(1), 11.<\/p>\n Lage, M. J.,\u00a0 Platt, G., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment. Journal of Economic Education<\/i>. 31(1), p. 30-43.<\/p>\n