Some good points here, especially the negative aspects. It seems to me that flipped classrooms are a bandwagon onto which a lot of people are jumping at the moment. I wonder if we will even remember this term (in both senses of the word) this time next year?

Reading what the “critics” say only helps me become more convinced of what a good idea the flipped classroom might be. I say this because some of these concerns are legitimate caveats that can be dealt with and overcome. Others just seem like nay-saying. Responding to all five is easy:

#1 “Do kids really need more screen time?” If an hour or two of carefully planned and selected presentations replace an hour or two of TV watching, then this is not “more” screen time. (By the way, an hour of such videos replaces more than an hour of contact time in a traditional un-flipped setting.)

#2 “Do kids really need more homework?” The homework that Alfie Kohn warns us against in his excellent writings is not a part of flipped classroom. When flipped students are at home, they are not struggling unproductively with poorly learned (or unlearned) concepts just to fill in worksheets or crank out a dozen long division problems while frustrated parents anguish over forcing compliance. And what may take a full hour for a teacher to present or demonstrate in a classroom can be done in a fraction of the time in videos.

#3 “The digital divide.” True, some students can not afford the “latest technology,” but that’s not really needed. The cost of basic touch-screen tablets continues to come down, and this can be subsidized for low-income household. The amount of money we are currently spending on technology and textbooks that get worn out by being dragged home every night can be shifted to help accomplish this. Also, high-speed cable access can be provided relatively inexpensively, especially in homes that are already wired to cable systems. For low-income families, this would not be a market that generates profit but would instead be a way that cable companies can help the cause at practically no cost to them. The digital divide is indeed a problem – something that would have to be addressed to make flipped classrooms work. But, compared to 5 or 10 years ago, it is more surmountable. Bagging a promising shift in the way we teach can not be justified by this criticism.

#4 “Who is getting rich?” This would be an important issue to address. Relying on You-Tube or any other ad-driven medium should be avoided. The teaching profession should adopt flipped classroom standards which exclude subjecting the presentation and especially the creation of curriculum to commercial influences. (This is not a new topic. I remember, as a middle school teacher, how Channel One invaded our classrooms with junk food ads and softball “news” reports. We unplugged the TVs and eventually Channel One went away.)

#5 “Teaching by video is based on a didactic, lecture-based philosophy.” This is no more true for video than it is for the predominating system of forcing our poor students to sit still for 55 minutes while a teacher struggles to deliver 18-minutes-worth of content. Videos, like face-to-face interactions, can include not only lectures, but also demonstrations (science, art, math) and question-and-answer sessions (with real students from, say, the previous year’s discussions that got videotaped for this purpose). Also, multiple versions of any particular lesson can be made available to suit the preferences and differentiated needs of students. As years go by, teachers will develop and become familiar with better and better libraries of videos. Some of the videotaped presentations will be created by students themselves, and if they are good enough, they’ll be available to subsequent students. (I remember some of my students’ excellent dioramas and models that I wanted to keep for demonstration in following years; but, alas, I had to send them home or the moms would have had my head!)

Actually, there are more than these five criticisms that need to be addressed:

#6 Getting teachers up to speed on the technology and techniques of developing and selecting GOOD, HIGH QUALITY, content: There is the danger of getting overwhelmed by a sea of resources, including well-publicized content that turns out to be pretty cruddy. (But this is already a problem; just ask any teacher who has electronically searched for lesson plans, assessments, or rubrics.)

#7 Security/privacy: If classroom interactions are being made available on the internet, bad people might gain identifying information that could lead to exploitation. Secure access and other prudent measures would have to be adopted. (You know, like when you take 3rd-graders on a field trip or send your high-school volleyball team on an overnight roadtrip, or open your auditorium to the public for student performances.)

#8 Severely non-compliant or distracting home environments: Some households are so dysfunctional that students will be unable to find the peace and quiet needed to watch even 30 minutes of video. There are parents who won’t even bother to view a few moments of the presentations to keep tabs on the instruction. There are parents who won’t be willing or able to set aside a time and place for this activity. Of course, these problems already exist. Remediating this will include setting aside time (as after-school programs, for example – something that is already done) to help guide student through the video interactions they missed at home. If anything, the videos will actually be doable for some such households, whereas traditional studying and homework is out of the question.

#9 Noisy classrooms: The school day will be changed from a controlled, quiet time of sitting in rows and columns to time spent in sessions of students noisily interacting with each other, looking at each other’s work, critiquing each other, making presentations (some of which become part of the library for viewing by others). Oh wait, a minute… this would be a problem?