Korean Job Discussion Forums

[some waygug-in]

http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/18/my-view-flipped-classrooms-give-every-student-a-chance-to-succeed/?hpt=hp_c2


From the article:

In English, the failure rate went from 52% to 19%; in math, 44% to 13%; in science, 41% to 19%; and in social studies, 28% to 9%. In September of 2011, the entire school began using the flipped instruction model, and already the impact is significant. During the first semester of the year, the overall failure rate at the school dropped to 10%. We�ve also seen notable improvement on statewide test scores, proving that students� understanding of the material is better under this model.

[zombiedog]

I saw Fareed Zakaria talking about this method on CNN. He is a big supporter of the Khan Academy (google it); the teachers would assign the relevant videos through Khan, and then they acted like tutors during the class time. Each student could learn at their own pace using this method.

This shift in pedagogy makes sense considering how we use technology these days. And I do think it could work in the ESL classroom; however, I'm unsure how one would implement it best in Korea, especially in the hagwon system.

If anyone has any ideas or experience doing this, I would be very interested learning more about your methods.

Thanks for bringing this up, some waygug-in!

[some waygug-in]

One thing to note is that this article was talking about a high school situation.

I'm not so sure it would work as well in elementary.

[CPT]

Interesting.

My first thought was that the kids who wouldn't be doing their homework probably wouldn't be watching lectures at home either, but it seems like that isn't the case.

I also feel like it could be a lot more boring for the students if they just sit in school and do homework all day. I'm guessing there would still be some discussion and/or group work during class time to break things up.

I think I'd enjoy teaching using this method though. I often wish I could do more to help students individually, but there just isn't enough time.

[silkhighway]

My feeling is that although Khan Academy lectures are an excellent resource, they shouldn't be mistaken for anything beyond that. All this 'Flip the Classroom' stuff to me is a silver bullet fantasy for people who think the only job -- or even the primary job -- of a teacher is knowledge transfer. It ignores that learning is social. It ignores that some kids only have stability in their lives during the hours they are at school. It ignores that without someone there to motivate and engage them, they would likely tune out at the first sign of difficulty and not even try to finish the online lectures.

[ddeubel]

Yes, it isn't the whole solution but it helps us see things differently in terms of the delivery and organization of curriculum. Ideally for language, students would have 2 hours a week in a lab or BYOD (bring their own device) at school combined with 2 hours of activities/projects/tasks. Throw out the stand and deliver, teacher at the front of the class idea.

Here's my own resource page full of Flipped Classroom videos and reference articles/pages. http://bit.ly/rkqVo4

[silkhighway]

[some waygug-in]

There's some really insightful articles on the link you provided.

Thanks for that.

[YTMND]

I think you need a combination. Teach something, and then assess ALL students. If you teach, then only the good students will speak up and get involved. The bad students and the good quiet students will sit back.

You need to find something you can repeat, repeat, and repeat to smaller groups within the class. That's why I think assigning video work or reading at home might have worked, because even if one student didn't maybe their friends did. You could still get the idea of what the lesson was about, get the homework, and then ace it.

This is what I did, and I didn't face any problems until high school when the material became so much that I couldn't just skim through it. In college, I learned to read a book from beginning to end. No shortcuts.

[alongway]

I think it's far more interesting to look at why we need all these new methods rather than what these new methods are.
Where I grew up, the failure rate was pretty low. We had a traditional class. We were taught in a traditional way. There were no tricks, no gadgets, no "new math" or anything of that nature. Sure, there were a small number of kids who would fail, and eventually drop out.

But I think it's unrealistic to assume that you'll have 100% success every time. there are factors well beyond the control of any school.

The bigger issue should be why were the failure rates that high to begin with?
This, like many other gimmicks and "new" thinking are often being created to deal with the symptoms of a problem, rather than solve the actual problem.
Just because you brought up a test score doesn't mean you're solving the underlying problem as to why the kids in this community have such massive failure rates and low statewide test scores.