That being said, it seems there are two kinds of flippers in this world: Those who assign videos, and those who do not. Some very smart people have pushed this point recently, like Robert Talbert in his blog and his book. So did Brian Bennett on his nodes blog (until last year when he seemed to change his mind). I have detected 3 reasons for this not-just-videos stance:
- to make flipping more appealing & available in communities with tech access problems
- to avoid dependence on ed-tech vulture companies, who I complained about in 2015
- to emphasize the importance of classroom experiences/interactions over the production and consumption of video lessons
I've been trying for months to wrap my head around the flipping-without-videos concept. Robert Talbert's January 2017 piece described 5 different options, all of which involve a structured activity for the individual-space (usually homework) task: a game, a podcast, reading a text.... Even though he writes a bold-faced caveat that you can't just assign chapter 3 of the book and call it flipping, I fear this is still a misleading suggestion. ("But we have class discussions about chapter 3 the next day, in the group-learning space! That means I'm a flipper too, right?!" Uh, no I don't think so.) If we stretch the definition of flipped learning too far, then it will break.
What would that term be?! I thought of vlipping, but that sounds terrible (David Walsh agrees) and we might have trademark issues with a Columbian company. Or we could try vid-flipping, but I don't love that term either. Wait, maybe that's why no one discussed this idea before: the brand naming seems impossible! HELP!!!
* But if it happens, then I claim the Captain America role ;)