I don't see how it will actually be self-paced, though-- because the "work-work" is still happening IN the classroom in this version of things.
So an advanced student can watch all of this instruction at his/her own pace, all right...
but they can't DO anything about it without the cooperation of whoever is holding the keys to assignments and assessments.
This can be (and already has been) easily addressed by letting software be the key to additional assignments and lectures. First the students watch a video lecture. Next they apply what they have learned in the form of an electronic assignment. The assignment is automatically graded upon completion, and if mastery has been demonstrated, the child advances automatically.
I disagree with you on point two, as well-- if the explanation doesn't make sense the FIRST time, sure, maybe rewinding and watching it again once or twice is a good idea, (for fairly complicated ideas, I mean) but beyond that, the problem is likely to be something more than missing some nuance of the presentation. The problem is likely to be that there is an assumed bit of background knowledge which isn't shared by the student.
I addressed this to some degree with point 3: You have access to more than one lecture on the same topic. If one skips a step that you can't follow, try the next one. Chances are every single lecture on the topic wont have the same problem.
A good teacher only offers the SAME explanation a couple of times to a student. At that point, one switches gears and starts probing to find out what the student is thinking at each step along the way. This is the only method of finding the underlying problem and correcting it efficiently. It's also WAY more efficient at finding trouble spots and working more intensively over those.
That's exactly what in-class time is for in the flipped classroom. Since the teacher isn't giving lectures, they have more time for probing each student's thought process and addressing misunderstandings.
My prediction is that-- in practice, I mean, and based on our experiences with a variation upon this kind of model-- a PG student can watch (or read) the entire YEAR of pre-algebra before the end of September, but then get to SIT and do nothing meaningful, as his/her classmates limp along without much instructional support for months... and months...
In the pilot study I read about, the students were allowed to learn several years worth of material in a single school year. Some of them advanced so quickly that the teachers started looking for ways to slow them down because they didn't feel comfortable teaching material so many years advanced of their usual curriculum.
a) how do students ask questions IN REAL TIME? Because if they cannot, then they will wind up developing misconceptions/stalling until they can get it corrected... which certainly is neither efficient nor good for learning.
I don't see the importance of asking questions in real-time. Then again, I never once asked a question in school. In the flipped classroom, questions are asked the day after lectures are viewed. Students still get to ask questions before they are expected to apply what they have learned, so I don't see the need to develop any misconceptions.
b) what about students who require redirection during instruction? A video recording doesn't notice when Johnny is tuning out. Or is that now on Johnny's mom and dad? Or is it on Johnny himself? Doesn't this just "empower" students to "own their own self-regulation" to an even greater degree? At what point does someone stand up and note how incredibly developmentally inappropriate that whole notion is for children and most adolescents? I mean, sure-- it works. FOR ADULTS. With solid executive function. That's basically what the research here does show. Until mid-20's, most human beings aren't great at KNOWING what works best for themselves in terms of deep learning.
On the flip side (pun fully intended) the whole class doesn't have to be distracted by Johnny's wandering focus. And Susie's. And Billy's... etc. I don't see a great difference in the responsibilities placed on the students due to flipping the classroom. Knowledge has to be acquired through the senses, it can't be downloaded into student brains like in The Matrix. Students need to pay attention or they wont learn. When students fail to learn, progress reports show it, and issues are addressed by the student, teachers, and parents. Students are already expected to supplement what they do in school at home. If they can't focus at home, they wont perform well either way.
Seriously, though, the upshot is that this places the whip in parents' hands, the burden for doing the least entertaining part of "learning" squarely on students who aren't mature enough to self-regulate well, and takes the active portions of learning back into classrooms where there cannot possibly be adequate support for it given student-teacher ratios. What this will mean is even LESS attention in classrooms for kids who are high-potential, and even more use of those kids as miniature teacher's aides, while they gnash their teeth at having to sit through MONTHS of material that they went through in the first few days of school.
Again, you are assuming that students wont be allowed to compact. When I say there is promise in the idea, I say so partly because I expect it to make compacting much more common than it is. I have already addressed how the flipped classroom gives teachers MORE one on one time with students to address their problem areas. If that's not adequate then the traditional classroom is even worse.
