R.E.A.L. Flipping

Having completed my first year of "flipping" my classroom, I needed more structure. Sometime, I over-structure. But, I don't think this is the case. This past year, I've given talks / presentations on my experiences as a "First Year Flipper", co-led a two day workshop on flipping, and informally helped other teachers brain-storm flipping. I've developed a lot of flipping related structure (both up front and along the way) because of my decision to flip.

What I needed was to align my classroom flipping with my obsession for Blooms Taxonomy and the recently popular and most fantastic SAMR Model for technology integration. So, I created my own guideline of "R.E.A.L. Flipping" that is helping me reflect / improve on the "why" behind flipped lessons I delivered last year, as well as new ones I'm brainstorming on for the upcoming school year.

The REAL Model allows me to assess my own decision making of "to flip or not to flip" by organizing my lessons into HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skills) and LOTS (Lower Order Thinking Skills). The more I am able to Amplify & Levitate my lessons, the more I'm able to implement HOTS for my students.

My understanding of each level of REAL Model Flipping starts with what I (and all teachers) already know, the non-flipped lesson. In my eyes, the Traditional Lesson looks something like (in general, but certainly may vary depending on your daily schedule / structure) the slide below:

So, "How" do I flip this lesson? Do I "Re-Order" it? "Extend" it? "Amplify it"? Or "Levitate" it?

Re-Ordering has benefits, even though at the bottom. I don't see Re-Ordering as a content game changer, but I do see it as a game changer for student accessibility to the content. See (how I see) the difference between the traditional lesson and the "Re-Order Flip" below:

Extending a lesson by flipping it, creates a lesson that can bring more content and comprehension to students. It takes the re-order a bit further in that it delivers the content even more concisely than the Re-Order. Less time spent on frivolous tangents (so often spent in class when the teacher isn't challenged by a 10 - 15 minute time limit) breeds more time spent on relevant content goals. Although some HOTS can start sneaking into play here, the bulk of this level typically delivers more of LOTS. See (how I see) the difference between the traditional lesson and the "Extend Flip" below:

Serious flirting with HOTS is seen when we are able to Amplify the lesson through flipping. At this level of a flipped class, content delivery is concise like the Extend, but takes students to a more interactive place with their responses from home. This sets the stage for the next day in class, which will look more like a factory with the learners as producers and the teacher as a problem solver. When we flip to Amplify, we also see a more continuous bleed from one lesson to another, or even a multi-day series of one flipped lesson. See (how I see) the difference between the traditional lesson and the "Amplify Flip" below:

Finally, on a whole new plane than we are usually able to reach as teachers due to time and logistical restrictions, we are able to Levitate our lessons through flipping them. In a Levitated flip, student production and interaction begins before class even starts. Sprinting is happening the moment class starts and content creation is student led with the teacher as a guide and consultant. Class will also be seen as a natural place for students to take an active role in determining the content and identifying its source for consumption that upcoming evening. When the lesson is Levitating, learning is cranked up to a whole new plane and may (probably should) look a bit chaotic at times. An "on the spot" decision by the class may be made here that another teacher produced flip lesson is necessary. Real world learning here is truly being experienced in the levitation. See (how I see) the difference between the traditional lesson and the "Levitate Flip" below:

Note that I don't think it's realistic to always achieve levitation. Nor do I even believe that it should be if it could. However, these four levels are helping me assess where I am at in providing my students with a valuable flipped lesson. Feel free to use this for yourself. However, if you do, I'd love your thoughts on how it's working for you and how it could be made better.

4 Reasons Knowledge is Value... Right?

The other day, Bill Ferriter (@plugusin), a great thinker and instigator stoked my fire (once again) when he posted a thought about teachers being "ashamed" to profit off our expertise. He bothered me because he was right. It seems to be a common Feeling in education that our expertise shouldn't be treated as value in the same way that the rest of the world works... why not?

Out of my core group of childhood (and still 6 extremely close) friends, I am the only educator. 5/6 of them currently get paid to think and provide advice & consultation based on the expertise they've gained from being a "do-er" for over a decade early in their careers. They get paid good money to share their expertise. Not one of them, at their transition stages or any other point, though "Oh, I'm not sure I should be rewarded for just telling people what I've learned along the way." As teachers, then, why should we?

1. Modeling - The key component of our daily work revolves around selling to kids the idea that "knowledge is value". We are charged (and accept) with demonstrating how to learn and why it's important to learn. Why then are we not charged with modeling how to use that knowledge in a valuable manner? What better way to show students that we are not full of crap than to monetize our brains when the opportunity presents itself?

2. Too Late - By definition, as teachers, we are ALREADY gaining from our expertise in our subject matter. We've spent hours and years (and will continue to) learning the subject matter that we expose our students to each day. We get paid by our schools to do this. So... we're already benefiting and profiting from expertise. Now, as a result, we are becoming experts in other fields (like classroom management, technology integration, assessment,  etc...) along the way. How is profiting off of this any different?

3. Professional Responsibility - The market is the market. If there is a demand (being baited with money) for something, someone will find a way to fill that demand. The best available will be the best available. If we as teachers don't enter the market, then the "best available" will be filled by non-educators. The "best available" will seem great because it's the best that's out there... for sale. However, if we want to be viewed and respected as experts, then we need to be the "best available" and nobody is going to take time to look for something better that's not for sale.

4. Give Back to Your School - Likely, we've gained expertise in education as a result of many resources and support that our employer has provided for us (I know I have). If we allow ourselves (our brains and experiences) to become a commodity, our school will in turn become a commodity. The more we are publicly recognized (monetarily or otherwise), the more our school is recognized and the more our students gain from attending our school and our classes.