I'd love some further information about "so many reasons" why it doesn't happen.
I am truly puzzled as to what those might be, and how they are particular to an unflipped classroom. I can think of only one reason why it doesn't happen in practice; an instructor who steamrolls through material and is intolerant of disruptions... er--
much like a video recording.
While self-paced learning IS a good differentiation tool, I'm not entirely convinced that flipped classrooms generally support (much less encourage) this.
The danger that I see in flipped classroom pedagogy is that without checks and balances on the process and training for teachers, a mixed-ability classroom could become (probably of necessity)
purely about the needs of the slowest learners in that classroom. Quite probably the slowest learners who are also disadvantaged by having a home environment that doesn't support flipped methodology (as noted upthread) will be the students needing the MOST teacher-time. Without providing differentiation, this could well make things even WORSE than they currently are for the fastest learners. Flipped classrooms also require a much lower student-teacher ratio to work well.
Has anyone here had direct experience with a flipped model with their HG+ child(ren) in a standard brick-and-mortar setting?
The flipped experiences that my DD has had (virtual school-- so EVERY class is "flipped" basically, and some are really no-instructor) support the following observations:
a) without differentiated material, it's just as problematic as any other instructional model-- and in some ways worse (over-analyzing material/assessments) mixed ability classes still don't meet the needs of anyone but the middle of the distribution. (This isn't a problem with either flipped/unflipped, by the way-- but a problem with mixed ability classrooms).
b) students STILL come to class unprepared to work-- then the teacher spends the time on remedial instruction rather than anything that well-prepared (or faster) students can actually use.
I'm also skeptical that instructional video modules (presumably mass-produced by curriculum developers) will be high quality. If textbooks are as poorly produced as they seem to be these days, then why would videos be better? My daughter has experienced that with both Connections and Pearson content.
I also have concerns about "you don't know what you don't know" in both traditional models, and this is one reason why I think that a hybrid approach tends to be the best overall model for the vast majority of learners (no matter their ability). Again, though, it's not something that works with a high student: teacher ratio.
