I'm not sure how deep the author went into flipped classrooms, but I don't find those to be especially valid concerns. The point of a flipped classroom is that the homework and lecture are flipped, so even assigned reading would be done in class, where peers can help and discuss and the teacher or professor can answer questions. It can affect the the timing of the class though. Nor does it necessitate one-on-one interaction. The point is to have the teacher and peers avalible for questions and discussion. One-on-one meetings are far from required, though there are other activities that students can do alone or in groups while these meetings occur. There is also an aspect of the author having overlooked several technologies which have allowed teachers to post lectures, notes, and other papers. Sites like Moodle and Blackboard allow direct interaction through the internet, and give the teachers a password-protected area to post their content. Nor is the in-class interaction something that can easily be lead by non-expert. The most important learning still happens in the classroom, it is just, flipped classroom advocates think the most important learning happens in a different place and manner. Most importantly, flipped classrooms tend to really benefit students. I had a teacher try it out this year, and there were some complaints about the lectures (Khan academy) but not the system. I hope that the author simply wasn't aware of the effects on students. I can understand that author, as a professor, would be worried about his career, and those of his pers, but as a student, I believe the teacher should always put the learning and well-being of the students first. If flipped classrooms have the potential to really benefit students, teachers and professors should look really hard to find a way to make them work, even at some potential risk to themselves.Instantly suspicious of flipping my classroom, I wondered how my students would find time to do their assigned reading if they were watching class videos in their dorm rooms three times a week? I also wondered what the rest of my class would be doing while I personally interacted with other students, one by one. I am yet to get satisfactory responses to either of these concerns.
There's a professor at my university in chemical education who works a lot with the flipped classroom setup. He's done quarter vs. quarter comparisons of his class' performance for flipped vs. traditional setups in intro-level chemistry courses. He sees modest increases in overall scoring of the flipped class' midterms and finals. He makes self-depreciating jabs about it when he gives seminars on the topic like "you see there's an irrefutable increase in the scores of the flipped classroom, unless you're a statistician then it's very refutable". Basically, data suggests the flipped classroom is at least not worse than a traditional setup. Hopefully the flipped version encourages more problem solving and engagement with the topic. The only flipped classroom I took as an undergraduate was poorly implemented, where the setup basically made sure that you had to put in much more time than your standard class to keep up. The class was notoriously disliked and students performed poorly in it. Experiences like that make me wonder, though, if there's a more pessimistic perspective on why there's so little difference between flipped and traditional classroom performances: we all know there are a lot of students that sit through lecture (or don't) and get nothing from it. I attended all my lectures consistently and there were still quite a few that were like that for me. Maybe the average student just doesn't actually get that much out of lectures and gain most of the understanding on their own time anyways, then of course the flipped classroom would perform similarly to traditional ones if that were the case.Most importantly, flipped classrooms tend to really benefit students. I had a teacher try it out this year, and there were some complaints about the lectures (Khan academy) but not the system. I hope that the author simply wasn't aware of the effects on students. I can understand that author, as a professor, would be worried about his career, and those of his pers, but as a student, I believe the teacher should always put the learning and well-being of the students first. If flipped classrooms have the potential to really benefit students, teachers and professors should look really hard to find a way to make them work, even at some potential risk to themselves.
I can't remember most of my professor's names and I'm in school right now for my second Masters. I don't go to school to learn anymore. I go to get a piece of paper so I can make more money. I go to a good school, but it doesn't matter. There are maybe a dozen schools which actually matter, and all the rest are not even talking points during an interview (unless you went to the same school as the hiring manager). I'm sure this instructor thinks that they are supremely important, but if there was a video in front of the class room and I could still graduate, that would be fine with me.
In many of my economics classes I watched videos of other economist giving lectures on the same topics that were covered in class. Some of the best professors I had weren't as good as some of the people I found online. Classroom lectures will be but a memory in twenty years.
That article has a valid point - but I'm pretty sure that, by now, anything that challenges the classical ways of teaching are professional suicides if not careful.