In a flipped classroom, the video lectures don't represent the entirety of all instruction given to the students. Therefore the video format doesn't have to be 100% sufficient for every single concept of every single subject.
Actually, that
is what some radical advocates of this kind of pedagogy are suggesting SHOULD be true.
The reason why Val's experiences and mine are reflective of a practical examination of that approach is that
online coursework DOES tend to use this approach, and it's the only current example available outside of a few hybrid programs (mostly in higher ed).I'm not saying that "visual" is a problem. Far from it. Just that this is removing the give-and-take that
should be happening in classrooms and replacing it with something that research has (repeatedly) shown is NOT 'better' for any students, and IS worse for a good number of them as a substitute for live instruction.
The best strategy based on evidence is one in which students are attending live presentations that
they can watch AGAIN later.That hybrid approach has a LOT to recommend it.
The ideal, from a research/evidence-based perspective is:
a) live lecture (30% of class meeting time)
b) available content for student learning OUTSIDE of class time, including assessments (though security and integrity are huge barriers there, as are ways of including highest levels of Bloom's taxonomy in assessment without a human-human interaction),
c) 'flipped' classroom time-- time to apply concepts learned in a and b; (70% of class meeting time).
That's roughly how I ran my classrooms as a college professor. It's roughly how the most talented of my DD's teachers ran THEIR classes, though they were frequently hampered significantly by the platform which mandated far less classroom time than was actually necessary for 90%+ of students.
That is NOT a pure "flipped" classroom, however. It differs in two particulars:
1. students are given INITIAL instruction by a live instructor who can 'check in' with students in real-time regarding their preparedness and foundation for tackling the material being presented as they observe, and
2. it relies heavily on a 'back-and-forth' approach, not a purely linear/flowcharted one re: learning. It's more integrated, and relies on a wider variety of learning modes. Textbooks or other print materials are also an integral part of this model.
As Bostonian once pointed out--
maybe people who don't like to read aren't actually college material. 
While I know plenty of highly intelligent people whose favored mode ISN'T text, I have to agree on some level that just because some 25% of people prefer VIDEO to textbooks, that isn't a reason to deprive the other 75% of the alternative. Plurality is a very good thing.
