How not to flip your classroom

Over at inside higher ed, Rob Weir reports,

Last spring, my best friend decided to flip his introduction to computer science class. He posted reading assignments and an online quiz on Friday, closed the quiz at 10:59 on Monday, and walked into his 11 a.m. class that day and introduced higher-level material based upon what students were supposed to have mastered. Some students did really well, some had tried taking the quiz without careful reading, and some simply didn't get what the text was telling them. One could take a hardball approach and say that those who tried to skip the reading got what they deserved and the clueless were in the wrong class. Insofar as my friend was concerned, though, flipping flopped.

People, this is a big fail. The guy is throwing away valuable information and is not really trying to help his students learn. In fact, he's kind of being a dick.

How about this? Post some short videos, instead of long reading assignments, have the online quiz due well before the next class, check the quiz to see what students are having problems with, start the next class by with a mini presentation on the problematic stuff, try some peer instruction on that material, give a mini presentation on some higher level stuff and follow that with peer instruction too!

 In Rob's, example, flipping didn't flop, the lazy-ass professor flopped.

Flipping is not "you go read the basics and then I'll lecture all class period on advanced material".

Flipping is "you get prepared before class, and then we will do problem solving during the class period."

Flipping does not excuse the professor from the responsibility of making sure the students understand and master the basic material. Flipping does not put a wall between the online and in-person components of the class.

It is actually much harder to run a flipped class well than to go the old "sage on the stage" route that Rob enjoys so much.

But I will say this, if you aren't going to put the work in, please don't "flip" your class.

Note: this is cross-posted at Cherokee Gothic as well.

Like Magic Mike

Like Mike: Ability contagion through touched objects increases confidence and improves performance 

 Thomas Kramer & Lauren Block
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, July 2014, Pages 215–228

Abstract: Magical thinking refers to irrational peculiar beliefs, including those that conform to the laws of contagion. We propose that touching an object that was previously touched by a high performer increases confidence via magical thinking (ability contagion) and improves actual performance among individuals high in experiential processing. A series of studies provides support for this main proposition. Our results cast doubt on an alternative explanation based on priming, and are obtained controlling for participants’ level of rational processing, motivation, and affect.

Gimme back my bullets

The Fed fired its bullet. The bear wasn't scared. And the bullets may be blanks, anyway. But the point is that there is no secret gun. Or so says Sy Harding...

Do you believe in magic? Ryan Avent does!

Avent joins the crew attributing untapped magical powers to the Federal Reserve:

"Losing its credibility as an inflation-fighter, some of it anyway, is precisely what the Fed needs to accomplish. As Paul Krugman has put it, the Fed needs to promise to be irresponsible at some future point, thereby raising expectations of future inflation. That, in turn, will boost current inflation. Consumers will want to spend their money in the period before its value erodes, and through that mechanism future inflation becomes current inflation.

So the question then becomes: can the Fed convince markets that it will be irresponsible in the future? The answer, quite obviously, is yes. The Onion helpfully suggested one way in which this might be accomplished. At a recent dinner, colleagues of mine joked about other ways to solve the problem. One suggested that Ben Bernanke might ask to have his salary indexed to gold or the Swiss franc. Another said the chairman should take to the podium to tell Americans they'd better start spending their dough soon before it's worthless, lighting a cigar with a $100 bill all the while. More practically, Mr Bernanke could raise his desired inflation target or simply declare that the Fed won't touch rates for a certain period, no matter what happens in the broader economy."

People, if the Fed has credibility as an inflation fighter it is for the Rogoffian reason that we have appointed inflation adverse central bankers. That is, people whose preference is for low inflation.

Please repeat after me:

THE FED HAS NO MECHANISM TO BIND ITSELF TO LIVE UP TO ANY ARBITRARY PROMISES IT MAY MAKE TODAY ABOUT THE FUTURE!!!

Promises to act against one's preferences in the future that are made without any commitment mechanism are simply cheap talk and are extremely unlikely to shape agent's expectations or actions.

We could appoint a central banker whose preference was for high inflation. In that case any promises to create low inflation or deflation in the future would be incredible and ineffective for exactly the same reason today's conservative central bankers' promises to create future inflation would be incredible and ineffective.

This is not a Tinkerbell situation folks; believing in magic is not going to get us through the crisis.

Do you believe in magic?

In a recent post, Scott Sumner claims that the Fed can easily credibly commit to a nominal GDP target. He further claims that the act of choosing the target in itself would allow the Fed to hit the target without any great amount of monetary expansion:

"The Fed has plenty of credibility, that’s not the problem. The problem is that they are using the credibility to assure investors that low inflation is here to stay. With the right target, there would probably be no need for massive quantitative easing, or other extraordinary policies.

The punch line is that the problem isn’t the Fed’s unwillingness to do enough QE, twists, or cuts in IOR, the problem is the Fed’s inadequate target, just like in Japan."

In other words, the Fed can credibly commit to arbitrary future policies so well that a simple announcement of a new policy path will put the economy on that path without any heavy lifting required.

In other other words, magic!

People, the Fed has no ability to make credible commitment to future policies that might conflict with their period by period preferences! Read Kydland & Prescott. Read Barro & Gordon. Repeat after me: time inconsistency, time inconsistency, time inconsistency.

All the Fed can do is act each period according to its own preferences (yes it's weird to treat the Fed as a unitary actor given all the dissents we've seen recently, sorry).

Many societies have responded to this dilemma by invoking the Rogoff gambit; we appoint conservative central bankers. They deliver low inflation not because they are following some policy rule or pre-determined path, but because their preference is for low inflation!

The idea that there's a magic bullet out there that solves our economic problems, that the Fed could fix things by putting out a press release with a couple sentences about their plans for future NGDP growth, is wrong and somewhat dangerous.