Flipping Lectures! a case study from LMS and PAM Professor Sean Ryan

1. Flipping Lectures! a case study from LMS and PAM Professor Sean Ryan Keywords: interdisciplinary; experience; flipping lectures; Guided Learner Journey; semi-flipped model; pros and cons

2. (1) Rough guide to Flipping HEA definition: … a non-traditional approach to teaching and learning whereby students are introduced to learning material before class, so classroom time can be focussed on drawing students towards a deeper understanding of the subject through discussion and problem-solving[1]. Aim ≠ learning anywhere/anytime; ≠ excuse to use neat technology ≠ how to free up staff time – is about using class time more effectively History: Emergence in USA during 1990s[2]; Now aided by rapid development and deployment of mobile ICT[3]; Caveat: educational environment in US colleges (where first developed) does not always match that at UH, so not all literature pros and cons are relevant. [1] HEA, 18 May 2017, https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/flipped-learning-0 [2] Crouch, C.H. and Mazur, E. (2001) Peer Instruction: Ten Years of Experience and Results. American Journal of Physics. 69, 970–7 [3] Herreid , C.F. and Schiller, N.A. (2013) Case Studies and the Flipped Classroom, Journal of College Science Teaching, 42, 62-66 See “lure” and “pitfalls” of the flipped classroom[3]

3. (2) Case: optics within the MOptom MOptom: LMS; 4 yr integrated masters; annual intake = 50 (GOC). PAM: developed & teaches 3x15 pt L4 modules in optics Optics: “science of sight and especially of the laws of light …” (OED) “branch of physical science that deals with the properties and phenomena of both visible … light and … vision.” (dictionary.com) Problem: LMS students who want to do this …(http://bcvisioncare.com/) …have to do this … (http://www.telescope-optics.net/gaussian_approximation.htm) …and it starts off like this … (https://www.canstockphoto.com/images-photos/disappointed.html)

4. (2) Case: optics within the MOptom 2015/16 phasing in Semester A: • lectures (3 hr/week) – notes on StudyNet from start of term • tutorials (1 hr every second week) – but poor attendance and distracted • labs (3 hr/week) • failure rate at first exam sitting ~ 40% …… but all passed at referral (5 months and ~6 tutorials later, + Sem. B) 2016/17 phasing in Semester A: • lectures and tutorials merged (3-4 hr/week) – notes on StudyNet from start of term, but structured according to Guided Learner Journey pilot,cf. OU structured learning environment • labs (3 hr/week) • failure rate at first exam sitting ~ 30% …… but most passed at referral (5 months and ~6 tutorials later, + Sem. B) Typical feedback (both years): students want more problem solving in class

5. (2) Case: optics within the MOptom Understanding the challenges Students need to join up: • an understanding of what light is and why it behaves as it does (~ theory) • how to perform wide ranging optics calculations (~ mathematics/optics) • an understanding of “where the light goes” (~ mental ray tracing) … and to do this with … • no post-GCSE maths • rusty GCSE maths (little-used for 2+ years) • limited comfort zones for mathematics (and none for physics) Exam outcomes vs prior qualifications: • A-level maths is an advantage, but A-level maths is not used (advantage is familiarity and fluidity in usage, not the complexity) • A-level physics is not an advantage (A-level has minimal optics or maths)

6. (2) Case: optics within the MOptom Challenges create an opportunity for flipping: … classroom time can be focussed on drawing students towards a deeper understanding of the subject through discussion and problem-solving. (HEA) Why now? • GLJ/Canvas: more highly structured environment (than StudyNet) allows better directing of, and student responsibility for, learning • Pervasive internet access: study notes are accessible from anywhere • Support tools maturing: EVS/Mentimeter/Peerwise/video capture 2017/18: Start in Induction Week … set expectations by: • explicitly introducing flipped classroom approach • putting the onus for learning on the students – and the means by which they would achieve this (not just the responsibility) • explicitly discussing learning hierarchies

7. Teaching and learning at University Teaching, learning and hierarchies of learning: Teaching: I will outline what you need to know, where to find it, and resolve misunderstandings;≠ giving you the answer Learning: Up to you to “do” the learning:read, study, practice, summarise, revise “Flipped classroom” approach: Preparation for lectures essential; allocate time!= do base-level learning & “new” rememberingbefore coming to class:reading & studying my lecturenotes; + reading & studying the textbook; + writing notes in your own words so you remember it;= identifying boundaries between understanding and misunderstandings;= begin applying knowledge to exercises/problems; Classroom time is used for higher tiers of learning:= clarifying and resolvingmisunderstandings;= practicing/exercising/applying what has been learnt; Induction-week slide

8. (2) Case: optics within the MOptom 2017/18: Induction week: Talk to students about first steps of learning hierarchy: • RememberingUnderstandingApply and • do first 3hr practical session in Induction Week (“We mean business!”) Lecture/tutorials: • Added 1-2 min audio tracks (and some video) to Canvas slide sets, trying to convey the big picture and any less obvious details of the mathematics • Problems more prevalent (and still embedded) in classroom activity … … but can’t leave students on their own to master theory and mathematics; • ~ 1/3rd of time to go over identified “***” theory slides – semi-flipped![4] • ~ 2/3rdof time for working through (how) and talking through (why) problems/calculations • Mentimeter: wider range of Q&A types than EVS, esp. open-text format for answers to calculations (students asking for more!) [4] Fulford, A. and Mahon, Á., 2018, A philosophical defence of the traditional lecture,THE April 28 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/philosophical-defence-traditional-lecture

9. (2) Case: optics within the MOptom 2017/18: Feedback and outcomes • Students’ perceptions: Mixed enthusiasm for flipping by students: • Loved mentimeter and asked for more (there may be a positive novelty factor). • In first few weeks, ~50% said they would prefer the traditional lecture style(of course, they haven’t experienced this for FOS, so can’t compare!). • December MFQ: 7 negative comments versus 5 positive comments. • Lots of negative comments of the style: “We have to teach ourselves” But one student (repeating from the previous year) said it was much better this way than previously – student experiencing both approaches • My perceptions: • Class time much better spent with semi-flipped than traditional methods • Included more “live” examples done spontaneously, and more discussion of why certain approaches are used. • Mentimeter complements in-class problems very well … and better than EVS. • Failure rate at first exam sitting ~ 30% … no worse than previous year!

10. (3) Summary Perceptions: • Students: have mixed enthusiasm for flipping; may feel and say that they are not being taught! • Lecturer: class time felt much more productive and problem-focussed(and repeating student said so too) Things to get right: • Know your students: compare exam outcomes with prior qualifications • Set their expectations from the outset: • Discuss learning hierarchies explicitly • Discuss the flipped approach and the support they will get to engage with it • Choose the right mix of taught theory and flipping (module dependent) • Use complimentary tools to also build student engagement(e.g. Mentimeter) • Special thanks to: Jon Urwin (GLJ pilot), Felix Power (Canvas), Suzanne Fergus (Mentimeter+), Joy Myint & Lynne Weddell (prior learning+), Richard Greenaway & Sarah Flynn (encouragement)