What did you see/hear?

Last week, I attended the Michigan Reading Association's Annual Conference where I went to a session lead by Doug Fisher. He was presenting on Response to Intervention from a gradual release of responsibility perspective. It was the gradual release model that I was most interested in - especially since his book with Nancy Frey presents a slightly different version of this approach than the one I use. But I will leave that discussion for a later post. Today, I want to share my current thinking about what makes for an effective demonstration lesson (what Doug labels Purpose & Modeling).

From Doug Fisher's Michigan Reading Association Presentation

The demonstration I am sharing comes from a workshop for my Teaching and Learning Middle Grades Mathematics [TLMGM] course (a combination content and methods course that our secondary majors take prior to student teaching). This workshop focuses on comprehending the purpose behind a lesson that a teacher might encounter in an unfamiliar curriculum. Many of our student teachers find themselves using curricula that typically require a significant amount of professional development. Because our student teachers have not had this support, they sometime struggle to implement the lessons effectively. Therefore, I hope to share an approach I might use to better understand the rationale behind a lesson.

I used the ShowMe App to take a picture of a number string from a lesson found in the Context for Learning Mathematics series and then added my thinking. ShowMe records both my whiteboard annotations and voice to create a video that I can share with others.

A key piece to any demonstration is the debriefing: What did you see and what did you hear? This reflects Cambourne's perspective on who is ultimately responsible for learning: "Learners need to make their own decisions about when, how, and what 'bits' of information to learn in any learning task." By asking the learners what bits of information they attended to during the demonstration, the teacher is gathering important data that can inform future instruction (formative assessment). If the observers did not attend to something important presented in the demonstration, the teacher can highlight the missing points by saying, "I noticed that I was also..." The resulting list provides an anchor chart that learners can refer back to as they take more responsibility for employing the approach.

After I shared this demonstration with my learners in TLMGM, they noticed that I was trying to understand the string by:

• making connections between the expressions;
• considering different representations that might further my understanding;
• recognizing that computing the answers might help but wasn't enough;
• thinking about ways to put the expressions into a context; and
• analyzing my options before jumping into any plan.

Satisfied that they had attended to the major points of the demonstration, I provided them with further resources related to the Ratio Table unit and had them work collaboratively. They tried to look at the strings from the various angles in order to understand the purpose of the lessons.

During the workshop's reflection, I provided the opportunity for them to share what they had uncovered through Twitter. This provided everyone who wanted to contribute a voice and me with another artifact that I could use for formative assessment. Here is a sample of the discussion:

UPDATE 3/21/12
Reflecting back on this post, I have come to realize that if I were going to embrace the idea of "flipping" my class, this is what it would look like. I would use ShowMe to create demonstration lessons and have my learners watch them. When they finished, I would ask them to Tweet those things that they noticed in order to assess what they paid attention to and create an anchor chart for the class.

I know that my learners (college students) may differ from your's if you teach in a K12 school. But what do you think? Would this work for you?

Can we just flip the homework?

The lesson has been taught and there are a few minutes remaining in the class period. Of course, this means that students can get a head start on their homework. I sit in on a lot of lessons in my role as an instructional coach for preservice and inservice teachers and the scene is nearly always the same. As I walk around the class during these final minutes, I typically see the following:

Why do they start at the beginning? Is it because "it is a very good place to start," or is it because that is how they have been trained?

The way most assignments are structured, the items get harder the farther in you get. I understand that this progression can provide support to students as they build on prior success, but I do not think they see it that way. Ask them and I believe you will find that they do it in order because the assignment implicitly suggests that they do it in order. They have been disempowered to make meaningful choices about what items to try.

What if instead we asked the students to look over the items and identify those that they might need peer or teacher support on? These are the items the students could work on during the closing minutes while they have support available. They can finish the easier problems on their own. Dare I say it? We could flip the assignment.

This could also serve as an assessment for the teacher. Knowing which items students considered challenging could offer insight into the effectiveness of the lesson or inform future instruction.

A change like this represents one of the subtle shifts we encourage teachers to make in their practice. We do not always need to make big moves to offer students a chance to make choices and, therefore, take more responsibility for their learning. A slight change can increase the likelihood of student engagement without requiring a lot of extra planning or preparation. This is another example of educational sustainability for both teacher and learner.

Don't you get it?

or 

"What's not to like about the flipped classroom?"

I get it. Believe me, I get it. I understand why teachers like me are so enamored with the latest instructional craze. I saw it last night reading the Tweets from an #edchat on flipped classrooms. The attraction for me is that I get to have my cake and eat it too.

The model is based on the idea that teachers can flip the traditional way things are done in the classroom. Whole-class instruction, in the form of lectures or demonstrations or whatever, is now done after class. The application of what was taught, often thought of as homework, is done in class. Technology can support this shift but I am told it is unnecessary.

I like the idea that class time becomes more collaborative in this model. Instead of spending time disseminating information, the teacher can connect with learners one-on-one or in small groups. This offers teachers an opportunity to assess learners' progress in ways that are impossible during whole-class instruction. When learners struggle with a problem, they are not on their own (which is what typically happens when the same problem is assigned as homework). The teacher or their peers are available to support them through their struggles. Essentially, this represents a much more relationship-orientated approach of educating learners.

Outside of class, learners are assigned podcasts, videos, reading, or some other resources that prepares them for the next day's problems the way whole-class instruction used to prepare them for homework. Although technology is not required, it often comes up as a way to replace a lecture. I like the idea that learners might be given some choice as to when, where, and how they watch a lecture/demonstration of the content or skill being covered. I also like the idea that I can create the perfect talk. There will be no more forgetting my place, misspeaking, or being interrupted for a bathroom pass.

This flipped classroom model is a dream come true for teachers like me. It increases the amount of time I can spend working directly with learners without having to give up covering or controlling the content (and doing it perfectly, I might add). But I have spent the last twenty years of my professional (and personal) life working at moving beyond being a teacher like me.

As I see it, the flipped classroom tugs at both my instincts as a learner and my experiences as a student. The learner likes the collaborative approach that views learning from a social constructivist perspective. It fits with what I have learned about natural learning. I embrace this aspect and hope other teachers will as well. It is what the student in me likes - consumption, control, and perfectionism - that causes me concern. My successful experiences in the traditional school setting makes this attractive to me, especially since it "addresses" shortcomings like the ever increasing amount of material to cover and the need to differentiate instruction. But I do not believe that I can have it both ways - satisfying my learner and my student. While others may be able to walk this fine line, I have found that I always end up erring on the side of consumption, control, and perfectionism.

So I get it. I just don't want it - at least not all of it. I will take what works for my learners and leave the rest. And I trust all of you to do the same.