十多年来，可汗学院之类组织，以视频录播为主要教学手段，深受教育机构尤其是中小学的欢迎。教育管理者觉得这种录像可以替代现有课堂教学。老师的角色，转为在学习中提供向导和辅导。教育资源的丰富也促成了翻转课堂概念的流行。翻转课堂是指将传统课上授课，课下做作业的方式“翻转”，以教学视频替代课堂教学，而把课堂时间用来辅导学生作业、指导学生动手活动、开展团体互动等。翻转课堂的概念浅显易懂，对老师有吸引力。这个舶来品在国内也四处开花。到处都有学校要老师录制“微课”、“课件”，甚至鼓励老师开展微课竞赛。老师们用大量时间，耗费大量精力，笨拙地学习制作教学录像。这些录像往往是用后即毁，完成了任务，很多即束之高阁。

 

但是，这种模式并未像纯粹网课那样，有效替代面对面教学。那些声称“翻转”了课堂的人，不过是把线上线下混合的教学，误会成翻转学堂而已。我们得把翻转课堂模式，再翻转一次了。这不是对于旧有教学模式的怀旧，更不是对于革新尝试的否定，而是对于翻转课堂模式的迭代更新，让其从1.0版本，进入2.0版本。

 

翻转课堂的一个错误假设，是课堂授课是低效的教学方式。课堂授课并未时过境迁。我们不能因为新生代学生的注意力短，就觉得老师课堂授课都是低效的。TED Talk和“一席”演讲，都是一言堂，却在网络上广为传播，也有人花钱亲临现场去听，说明一言堂的讲述只要有趣、有料，仍不会失去听众。存在问题的，主要是讲课者本人的授课技巧。如果授课无聊乏味，课程本身缺乏目的和意义，老师对学生缺乏了解，或授课不能有效地与测评及目标相结合，则授课容易陷入低效状态。这是个别老师的问题，具体教学技巧的问题，而非整个教学策略的问题。如果老师对学生缺乏兴趣，对学习过程知之甚少，引入所谓积极学习活动，使用奇技淫巧的教学噱头，只会用混乱取代无聊，反而会让学生怀念一言堂。

 

翻转学堂的另外一个问题，是未能调动老师的积极性。老师凭什么要放弃自己的课堂授课模式？他们或许毕业自师范大学，而非电影学院。他们的工作环境是课堂，而不是横店。为什么赶鸭子上架，让他们去学如何导演、制作、剪辑精美的视频？如果他们已经通过丰富实践，熟知课堂上什么办法管用，什么办法管用，为什么让他们放弃这些认知，去学别的教学噱头？（关于教学视频的合理使用，我改日再撰文另述。）

 

翻转课堂的模式下，老师利用上课时间，辅导学生作业，开展小组协作，或其他互动活动。理论上说，这样可将老师不去讲课释放出来的时间，用来辅导学生，让学生反馈更及时，更有个性化特色。但实践上，老师分身乏术，只要班级稍微大一些，就没法给予所有小组和学生充分的关注和必要的反馈。老师只有一双眼睛，一张嘴巴，能看到这个小组的问题，给这个小组提供反馈，别的小组就遭到忽略。还有，如果学生基本知识、技能、态度都没有掌握，就让他们自己去做作业、讨论和协作，结果往往是学生相互问道于盲。在这种课堂体验之后，学生的具体需求仍不能得到满足。回头去看老师录制的讲座视频，也于事无补。视频是通用的，而学生面临的问题可能是具体的，个人化的。

 

因此， 应该强化教学，并在教学中蓄意穿插詹姆斯·朗恩（James Lang）在《小教学》（Small Teaching)一书[1]中所说的“小教学”手段。例如，在授课过程中，让学生去回顾先前学习内容、预测未来学习内容，或是让学生从事“自我解释”活动。这些“小教学”的策略，都有助于强化课堂教学的效果。另外，老师也可以相互取经，学习怎样有效开展课堂教学。我所在大学是一个教学型学校，重视课堂教学。从2016年开始，我们部门组织了一系列“我的最佳课堂教学”系列示范课活动，邀请广受学生欢迎的老师过来给其他老师上示范课。在我们的诸多培训和发展项目之中，“我的最佳课堂教学”最受欢迎。每次活动来观摩的人都爆满。平时老师在各自的系里出没，并不知道其他院系老师如何授课。这样的观摩让大家开眼界。从这些示范课上我们看到，好的讲座常有些共性特征。这些老师往往有出色的口才，说话风趣，言之有物。当然，这不说明老师要插科打诨，抖机灵，变成讲坛上的段子王。这些老师往往将现有学习和以前的学习关联，授课中有比较多的互动。精彩是手段不是目的，调动学生积极性，促成学习才是教学的王道。

 

教学过程中，还可使用互动技术，及时准确地掌握学生的学习状况。例如，老师们可以使用Padlet这种“涂鸦墙”让学生提供反馈，或征集学生观点。还有一些应用程序，如Poll Everywhere，可以把学生掌中的手机，变成课堂上的“抢答器”。Kahoot可以让学生在课堂上“捉对厮杀”，开展有趣的学习游戏。当然，老师不必依靠最新最时兴的“杀手级应用”才能开展积极教学活动。一些貌似老土的“教学技术”，包括讨论区，用得好，一样让教学活色生香。

 

[1] Lang J. (2016), Small Teaching: Everyday Lessons from the Science of Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

文章原载于《当代教育家》

---

 

后记：

 

不久前，我在Educause发文，同样建议将翻转课堂再翻转一次，却被认为否定翻转课堂，被该教学模式的支持者围攻，为首者甚至是“翻转学习”网站经营者，甚至专门写了一篇批驳文章【1】。Educause不怕热闹，两篇都列为编辑精选。如下是我对反驳文章的反驳。

 

1. First of all, I think you may need to replace the word “fact” with “opinion” for such a large and elusive topic. We are not discussing whether one plus one equals two. We are talking about how people learn, and that can be as complex as human nature itself. Any silver bullet solutions should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

2. You should not worry about “many articles” with misconceptions leading people away from flipped learning, if there is growing research to support the flipped learning model. As a matter of fact, I am afraid dissenting voices like mine are rare among educational technologists and instructional designers; they deserve to be heard.

 

3. Time, resources, and motivation are real concerns that should not be ignored, which is why in my own article, I advocated using quick videos for student feedback, something many of our professors are doing with great student popularity. Before advocating changes to teachers’ instructional methods, don’t you think we should have some empathy for them in what they have to deal with?

 

4. Instead of “moving” from traditional teaching to flipped learning, I would advocate “diversifying” into a variety of instructional methods. Otherwise, you’d be asking people to replace all hammers with all screwdrivers. It is better to increase teachers’ repository of teaching tools and methods.

 

5. Beware of teachers who use “flipped classroom” as an excuse for sloppy teaching. There is indeed a “trend” or “fad” factor to the flipped classroom that we should not ignore. Teachers go to flipped classroom workshops and come back asking students to read materials on their own without giving much guidance, especially in K12 settings where some direct instruction can be very helpful for learning. Students are not equal in their ability to self-study, and teachers should take a developmental view when they weigh their instructional choices. There is value in setting boundaries around information for more focused learning, which is something experts can do well, before they turn learners loose to process such information when they do not have the necessary parameters with which to focus their study.

 

6. Your definition of "flip" is very different from "flip" in its original sense. The original flip, as the term suggests, flip by moving lectures to videos (or some other structural activities as you suggested), and move assignments into face-to-face classes. If it was conceptualized to mix and match a variety of elements, we would not be talking about "flip", we would be talking about "stirfry."

 

7. Dr. Eric Mazur’s approach is better known as peer instruction. If one puts all successful practices in the basket of flipped learning and let it take credit, it might be a better idea to call all of them innovations in teaching.

 

8. As you have argued, there are great examples out there of success with flipped learning, but there are also great examples of successful "traditional" teaching methods. In the meantime, there are flipped classroom experiments that have flopped, just as there are lectures that put people to sleep. I think choices should be made based on such factors as learning outcomes, assessment methods and student conditions.

 

【1】https://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/9/myths-and-facts-about-flipped-learning