The original idea behind "flipped" (and the origin of the term) is that we "flip" the traditional class structure. Instruction is given at home, work is practiced at school. Clear cut, easy, and logical. This way students can work on difficult problems with the teacher, and the easy stuff, the instruction, is now in video form so students can re-watch again and again. Of course, as one begins to examine the issue deeper, problems arise. Students don't always watch the videos. Assignments don't really change. Direct instruction remains the same. In other words, a simple "flip" has value for some, but doesn't really serve as a paradigm shift. This isn't even my revelation, many of the "founders" of the movement have stated the same issue in their books and presentations.
To solve these issues, new variations have arisen. There's "Explore-Flip-Apply", there's "Peer-Instruction", there's "Flipped-Mastery", and my favorite "Gamification". Each serves as a method of improving upon Flipped Learning's original goals. My question is: should we really be calling it "flipped" learning anymore? Aren't we really just focusing about student-centered learning, self-regulation, and design? While Flipped is a nice umbrella, in actuality, it's a misnomer. While the new movements, even Gamification, offer safety and security in their perceived inevitability,they may only be one step on a pathway.