What are the implications for the modes of delivery?
When designing a flipped approach, it is important to consider how the modes of delivery within a module/programme of study will be remodelled to reflect the changes planned -- and what implications this may have.
Where lecture-type teaching is reformulated as asynchronous learning, this may need to be reflected in adjustments to the time allocated for private study by students. Changes may also be needed to the overall time allocated to staff/student synchronous contact, especially in circumstances where the flipped learning design entails increased staff engagement with asynchronous learning activities such as online discussion forums.
Flipped learning assumes that modules will nonetheless continue to include 'live' staff/student teaching and learning activities. Flipped approaches also assume that this synchronous time will, at least in part, be re-focussed on active and student-centred learning activities.
How staff/student contact time can be redesigned, and the kinds of activities and approaches that would be most effective for synchronous learning, will vary significantly according to the subject area, module level and content, the cohort size, etc.
The scenario below offers a basic example to model the kinds of factors that would need to be considered, and to help highlight the kinds of staffing, timetabling and logistical implications that may need to be considered.
Example scenario
-
If a lecture to a cohort of 200 students is flipped online, then that hour a week could be revised to focus on interactive small group teaching. However, where a small-group class is under 20 students, this would mean an increase in staff resourcing: i.e. one lecturing hour increases to 10 hours of small-group sessions.
-
Alternatively, in this scenario, one active learning session for the whole cohort of 200 students could be considered. This would involve rethinking what can be done in a large-group teaching session to ensure active learning and student participation. Digital tools, such as interactive polling and quizzes, could help staff facilitate active learning in a large group.
-
A third option could be to run smaller workshop sessions of around 40 students each. This may be easier to manage as an active learning session, mitigate some of the staff resourcing requirements, and increase opportunities for students to network with each other. (1 lecture hour to approx 5 workshop hours)
-
Any of the above revisions to delivery would also need a readjustment to student workload allocation to ensure overall learning hours have not been increased and still reflect the module's credit value.
-
Staff could also be mindful that there may still be advantages to the selective inclusion of traditional live lectures in a flipped model: for example as a means to introduce a course and summarise the key issues, to offer showcase plenaries that inspire students with information on the cutting edge of the field, etc.
Module delivery breakdown example (10 credit module)
| Delivery Mode | Current delivery | Flipped example |
|---|---|---|
| Lectures | 18 | 4 |
| Practicals | 30 | 30 |
| Assessment | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| Private Study | 48.25 | 48.25 |
| Tutorials | 3 | 3 |
| Workshops | 0 | 14 |
- The current module's format is campus delivery of a one hour lecture followed by practicals each week, with a small number of additional small-group tutorials.
- In the flipped example most lectures have been flipped online, with four “showcase” plenaries retained. The remaining time previously allocated to lectures has been assigned to whole-cohort workshops.
- In this example, private study time remains the same, with reductions to previous independent work expectations to accommodate asynchronous content formerly delivered in lectures.
- Assessment in both cases will continue to be practicals (10%) and a 1 hr closed exam (90%).