“Flipping the sociology classroom: Towards a practice of online pedagogy” by Forsey, Low, and Glance (2013) is an interesting read for a variety of reasons. Firstly, it recounts the experience of one instructor, Martin Forsey, who when intuitively understood that his face-to-face lectures were not working for his students decided to flip his course. The paper reads as a narrative, very accessible and is lacking in jargon. Secondly, the paper offers interesting insights based on empirical research conducted as the first flipped course took place. The researchers state, “Based on preliminary surveys, participant observation and formal interviews gauging student perceptions and initial reception to this particular class, the research reported here offers important correctives to debates that are usually based more on supposition than empirical evidence” (Forsey et al., 2013). It is an important research which targets the popular misconception that online education has lesser effectiveness than face-to-face courses. It is a much-needed debunking of the myth especially for Liberal Arts faculty as this misconception (in my experience) dominates the resistance to online conversion as well as an integration of technology in face-to-face courses specifically among Arts and Humanities faculty. Another important part of this study is gathering student feedback about their experience in flipped courses. The conclusion was that flipped models of instruction are actually preferred by students over face-to-face instruction. Additionally, the researchers did a good job clarifying the difference between blended and flipped models of instruction. Often these two terms are used interchangeably without understanding the core differences in methodology namely, in flipped classroom “events that have traditionally taken place inside the classroom now taking place outside the classroom” whereas blended courses have more “continuum of practice between fully online courses and face-to-face courses” (Forsey et al., 2013, pg. 472).
Throughout the paper, there are some interesting statistics that support the argument of switching to blended or flipped models of instruction. One deals specifically with students’ changing lifestyles and attitudes to learning in general. According to Massingham and Herrington (2006) students nowadays working more hours and “playing” harder. Overall, they found that students spend as much time watching TV and socializing (28 hours) as on learning process (29 hours) weekly. (Massingham & Herrington, 2006). This is an interesting statistic that indicates that personal life is just as important to students as education. It means that we as educators should adjust our instructional methods according to this shift in student attitude. After interviewing a number of students, researchers proposed to move the lectures in the online format as one of the possible solutions because it will allow students to learn at their own pace and time. Based on this possible solution, Martin Forsey decided to diminish the number of “formal” lectures and instead move them online. The study was constructed around his redesigned course and his students’ experience throughout the semester.
The strength of this article is in the empirical data collected from students as they participated for the first time in the flipped learning experience. The data was gathered through a pre-course (initial expectation survey) and then through interviews with focus groups convened two weeks after the initial survey. It showed evidence that students are ready to step away from traditional lecture model in spite of the initial “skepticism of the flipped classroom because of their familiarity with the lecture” (Forsey et al., 2013). This statement is important because it resonates with the idea that often we are not receptive to change not because we are not ready but simply because we are so used to doing things one way. And indeed, at the end based on the data collected, the students reported having experienced “an increase in the amount of learning time” and “feeling greater incentive to complete the tasks for the flipped tutorial workshop than in other classes” (Forsey et al., 2013). For example, in the pre-course survey, a large number of students (53%) already expressed an interest to participate in a flipped classroom and that it would suit their needs. Even greater number (82%) believed that such class would be a good educational experience. This data shows the disconnect between the popular opinion of faculty and the expectations of students. It also might speak to the reason why students often are disengaged and unmotivated during lecture-based learning experiences. Based on the student survey statistics, 45% of students indicated that they did not regularly attend lectures and only 12% stated that they regularly attend lectures (Forsey et al., 2013, pg. 478). The researchers did not attribute such positive response to just the fact that all the materials were online and available for students to review before the in-class workshop and I tend to agree with them. The fact that the course was well designed, appropriately chunked with video content not exceeding 20 minutes and a thoughtful decision from the instructor as to how much content to make available for each unit all contributed to positive student response.
Additional positive responses in favor of flipped model were flexibility and interaction with and a variety of learning materials. According to Forsey’s students: “instead of just reading papers, you’ve got videos, you’ve got interviews, and you get to hear different people, the auditory type of stuff” (Forsey et al., 2013, pg. 479). This statement confirms a variety of research studies stipulating that variety of different content types contribute to student engagement as well as to richness of learning experience. Another interesting response was that students did not mind the larger number of hours they spent on studying independently but rather were more satisfied with getting more out of their time in face-to-face portion. Part of was that instead of passive listening to the lecture the in-class time was spent on solving problems, answering questions and participating in learning activities — all indicators of active learning which contributes to student motivation and engagement.
In spite of generally positive response from the students, the research also found that initial student concern gathered through focus groups about technical difficulties, anxiety about participating in online discussion forums, and diminishing of social experience of face-to-face course prevailed after the course was over (although they did not specify the exact number of reporters). Several students pointed out, “not having a lecture as increasing sense of fragmentation from the larger student body” (Forsey et al., 2013, pg.480). This speaks to the importance that students hold for face-to-face social interactions in addition to viewing attending school on campus as a large part of their social life. I think this is one of the most common and challenging arguments to overcome for the proponents of online education. I am not sure if it is entirely possible even with all social media tools and the proper integration of social pedagogy.
Furthermore, students noted the problems with technology. Some reported having a hard time overcoming technical difficulty like browser incompatibility, others not having enough technological experience and prior knowledge (Forsey et al., 2013, pg.481). This finding speaks directly to the need of digital literacy education in Higher Ed and especially in K-12. As the integration of technology in classrooms grows across the board, students have to be prepared to interact with the technology in a way that does not impede learning but contributes to a meaningful learning experience.
Although the study did not produce any ground-breaking conclusions, it gave a great insight into the process of transforming traditional lecture-based course into a flipped course. I would recommend this article to anyone who is curious about or considering flipping their courses.
References:
Forsey, M., Low, M., & Glance, D. (2013). Flipping the sociology classroom: Towards a practice of online pedagogy. Journal of Sociology, 49(4), 471–485. http://doi.org/10.1177/1440783313504059
Massingham P., Herrington T. (2006) ‘Does Attendance Matter? An Examination of Student Attitudes, Participation, Performance and Attendance’, Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 3(2): 81–103.