User talk:Kfranzen/sandbox/draft page Flipped Classroom

Sorry for my late response! I was working to finish my drama club production over the weekend. I agree with many of the comments already stated. I had two additional thoughts as I was reading.

In the traditional vs. flipped classroom section, it seemed at times like information was repeated. Perhaps your beginning section would introduce how "flipping" can be done (the videos, homework, etc) and really focus on the teacher-centered and student-centered difference of these two approaches in this paragraph.

I also think the history section is hard for this! I think the things you chose seem to be appropriate but it seems like there needs to be a better connection to make it an easier read. I wish I had a great idea in how to do that!

Also---are any of your other resources available online and able to be linked to your page like the first one on the list?

KMiller23 (talk)

Thank you for your feed back Shwilliams. Your comments make sense and I will work to incorporate your suggestions this week before going lie with any information. I would love to add another section on sample classrooms and arguments for and against flipped learning, though I am uncertain whether that would be inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry. I hazard to say no.

Thanks! Kfranzen (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kathleen!

I thought I would leave you a few comments, even if I know that you are still in the process of refining your Wikipedia page.

Your opening paragraph is well written and does a god job defining a flipped classroom.

In your Traditional vs Flipped Classroom section, I would add more content on what a flipped classroom would look like/sound like/feel like for both students and teachers. Also, I think you could blend the paragraph (sentence #2) in with the third paragraph (sentences 3-?) to make a more cohesive section.

In the History section, maybe add a little more information about what the authors were writing about in the first 5 paragraphs and last one. The other paragraphs in that section are great! Much more information is given in those middle 3 paragraphs.

Great job with the Notes! They are difficult and time consuming!

Overall, I think your wiki page is looking great, especially since we are all just getting started with this interesting project! Shwilliams1 (talk)

Flipped Classrooms
Hi Kathleen,

This is a very well written article. I look forward to seeing it get integrated into the main article on Flipped Classroom. The fact that you have linked out to various Wiki pages, makes your project that much stronger. Here are my thoughts:
 * The lead section is quite strong and clear. It is easy to understand what you are talking about.
 * Is it possible to give more structure to the traditional vs. flipped classroom section, to make it an easier read? The language used is simple and its easy to understand, however it seems a little repetitive.
 * Can you also add a section about the challenges in implementation of the Flipped classroom?

Thanks, Trawat (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft comments
Hi. I've made some edits to your draft and I have a few comments: Overall I think this is a good effort. If the history section is edited a bit to offer more context for readers I think this will be a really valuable resource for people. Thanks! Let me know if you have any questions about the above or need a hand. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The history section seems like it could be edited down a bit to note where each publication or bit of research had an impact on the field. Right now we mention that with respect to Alison King, but we don't cite a source. Well, we do, but it's King. Her 93 paper can't be used to support the claim that it is widely cited. A history section like this should be an overview of what is important, not a listing of papers in the field. Is there a literature review or follow on paper pointing to King as seminal?
 * The next paragraph gives as much space to Lage, Platt and Treglia for a conference paper as we do King. By doing so, we're sort of implicitly telling the reader they're of equal importance. are they? It's hard to tell
 * I love the UW school of education as much as anyone. I've been to GLS 3-4 times, but remember that wikipedia is a global resource and the article on flipped learning will hopefully cover the practice in all areas. Is the mention of the two UW centers there because they are of comparable importance to the remainder of the elements on the list?