Read on Twitter
Just read another piece in a national newspaper extolling the virtues of 'flipped learning' and requesting that we renew our efforts to 'put creativity on the curriculum' (as if it's never been there). Short thread...
Like so much in education, these sorts of ideas hit all the right sorts of philosophical buttons, which is why we find them so appealing.
But they're not supported by the evidence. If you haven't read it yet, @daisychristo's new book 'Teachers vs Tech' very calmly and expertly explains the problems with this type of thinking.
She's not a Luddite: she shows that there is a place for tech in teaching. It's just not where our commentariat generally thinks it is. I couldn't recommend the book more.
The 'flipped learning' idea becomes a problem the moment you understand that the complex skill of being able to have a discussion depends upon pre-existing knowledge and skills that students struggle to self-check.
Discussing the ontological argument requires a fluency in the argument itself. This needs to be modelled by a teacher, then tested, then remodelled, then tested, until the teacher is happy that the student can summarise it confidently from memory.
This is much harder than you think. And, importantly, it's much much harder than the students think it is.
When students try and teach themselves in this phase - by watching or re-watching videos - they regularly overestimate their own abilities. They're desperate to jump straight to the livelier 'discussion' or 'evaluation' phase.
The teacher's role cannot simply be the 'discussion' or 'evaluation' phase. You need clear instruction and checks for understanding well before that. And, crucially, students can't do that on their own.
