During 2018, the Flipped Learning Global Initiative (FLGI), helped by the International Faculty and Global Standard Project members, has worked out the next generation of Flipped Learning. The Flipped Learning FL 3.0 model is here… and the Global Elements of Effective Flipped Learning is the roadmap to achieve its successful application.
So we have an excellent meta teaching strategy that probably will improve the learning of a million students worldwide. FLGI has designed a complete and rigorous training program to make being effective easier when using the model. The aim is to reach every student in every class, wherever it is. And we have everything prepared.
But… I wonder if the situation is as straightforward as that. I believe almost every student would be happy to be taught through this approach; especially acknowledging the differentiation possibilities the strategy gives. If this is so, why is every student not yet learning through Flipped Learning? Because students (or their families) themselves are not the ones who decide how they will be taught. This is decided by teachers, professors, educators, schools and educational institutions.
Let’s apply the entrepreneurship logic to this situation: we have a good “product,” the FL 3.0, and we have a “client” to reach, students. But these clients are not the ones who will “buy” the product, and they are not aware of its “price”–even in the case that they can appreciate the improved quality this product could give to their education.
Other markets in the economy have the same problem. For example, think of the pharmaceutical market: a pharmaceutical industry has developed a new medicine to improve the treatment of a certain disease. The patients would benefit if they take this new pill, but they cannot get it by themselves. Doctors, medical specialists, hospitals clinical boards are the ones who prescribe the pills and decide how a disease has to be treated. So the pharmaceutical industry has to convince these professionals about the benefits of the new treatment. Also, they have to persuade Social Securities or medical insurance companies about the value of its price… and if it’s worthwhile to pay it, assuming the improvements in health results, as well as taking into account the competence of other medicines that could be prescribed to solve the same problem.
And, in my opinion, a similar situation is the one we are facing trying to promote and introduce FL 3.0 in the educational system. We can not reach students directly. We have to convince teachers to use the approach. Also, school managers, directors and administrators have to be persuaded that this approach would be worthwhile to try. To make things more difficult, in many countries, education is supported by regional or national states and financed with a public budget. Policymakers need convincing that changes are necessary and that the innovation should be financed. And all this, taking into account two other things. First, that there are in the market other methodologies and educational approaches that want to catch educators attention. Second, nowadays any innovation implies a technological renovation that has a lot of costs and not only in monetary terms.
How is it possible to develop a marketing plan with so many variables and involving so many different stakeholders? Perhaps previous performances from these other markets with the same problem could help us to reach every teacher, educator and institution as a bridge to reach every student.
Leave a Reply