I’m inclined to love the flipped classroom, which is convenient since it is the hot thing in education. Really, what’s not to like? Short, entertaining videos that can be watched at home, and thoughtful discussion and meaningful project work in the classroom. It sounds perfect. Classwork becomes a fun experience for kids, making them more likely to want to do it. And students learn higher-level skills — the key skills necessary in this century — critical thinking, problem solving, and project management.
I really want flipped classrooms to work. But there is surprisingly little rigorous research showing that they do. (Or, for that matter, showing that they don’t.) There is a lot of research showing that the characteristics of flipped classrooms work. Consider the following (unless you have really good eyesight, click to enlarge):
So far, all good. But what if the components don’t come together to make an effective solution? Or maybe the solution works just fine for some kids, but not for others?
I’m not (NOT!) saying flipped classrooms don’t work. But I do worry that the promotions associated with them are overreaching a bit. And I worry that at-risk kids (who are often touted as especially benefiting from flipped classrooms), are, instead, left behind.
At-risk kids often have a big bundle of issues, many of which are outside of classroom influence. But there is quite a bit of research to show that schools can make a difference with specific approaches. These are not antithetical to flipped classrooms at all. But there is little research to show, for example, that academic compliance among at-risk youth is better just because the “homework” is entertaining video lectures.
But here’s my concern. Many at-risk kids do not have the grit (stick-to-it-tiveness) to complete homework, and so even if they are technically running the videos, are they actually absorbing info? The best kids will do well no matter what, but everyone loses when so many of our youth do.
Here’s another concern: if educators embrace flipped classrooms because they are more effective and engaging, great. But if communities embrace them as a cheap alternative to costly education, without determining effectiveness, we’ll all lose.
Several times in corporate America I’ve had the pleasure to watch management tell a story to employees. A common one was about the march toward increasingly smaller workspaces. Now there is nothing wrong with smaller workspaces, and sometimes they can benefit collaboration. But management worked so hard to talk about they benefits, and then you look at the research, and much of is by the people who sell the tiny workspaces and is designed to help sell the tiny workspaces. Can’t they just say it is cheaper? Employees can get that.