Which Ones Are Not Like the Others? Why Names Matter for Flipped, Blended, and Hybrid Instruction

Posted on by

The conversation about flipped, blended, and hybrid courses is trying to move beyond the conventional, but it’s stuck. Without common definitions for these basic terms, educators are like chemists without the periodic table or physicists without Newton’s Laws. We cannot effectively implement new instructional methods that will improve our students’ learning if we’re not all speaking the same language.

Take “flipped courses” as an example. Most people think of a flipped course as one in which students learn content before coming to class, and then use class time to work on activities while an instructor provides feedback. In this case, a flipped course could be a discussion-based Ethics class in which students read a book beforehand and discuss it during class. Some definitions, however, specify that the before-class content must be delivered electronically. Therefore, the course would only be considered “flipped” if the book is delivered electronically. Other definitions claim that flipped courses must include group-based, procedural problem solving. Continue reading →

Bad Design: Series Introduction

Posted on by

The bad design series highlights designs of objects that I think are confusing, inefficient, or ineffective. The concept for these posts are similar to the concept for a program that the Georgia Tech chapter of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society uses at many of its outreach events. In this program, we help people understand the importance of human factors by showing them pictures of poorly designed objects to demonstrate the effect of design on users. I’ll be doing the same in this series. To tie back to the theme of the “learning experiences and educational technology” blog, I’ll connect what makes the design of objects poor to what can make the design of instruction poor.
Continue reading →