Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 179–200 | Cite as

Use of the flipped classroom instructional model in higher education: instructors’ perspectives

  • Taotao LongEmail author
  • John Cummins
  • Michael Waugh


The flipped classroom model is an instructional model in which students learn basic subject matter knowledge prior to in-class meetings, then come to the classroom for active learning experiences. Previous research has shown that the flipped classroom model can motivate students towards active learning, can improve their higher-order thinking skills, and can improve their collaborative learning skills. However, most current studies focus on students’ experiences with flipped classroom learning. Because so few studies address the instructor’s perspective, and instructors’ perspectives on technology integration can directly influence their practice of incorporating technology in instruction, this study sought to focus on instructors. This paper is a qualitative case study that reveals instructors’ experiences and perspectives on using the flipped classroom model in instruction. Structured interviews were conducted with eight faculty members who either previously had used or planned to use the flipped classroom model. Findings include instructors’ perceived definitions of the flipped classroom, how they improved teaching and learning by using the flipped classroom model, their perceived benefits and challenges of the flipped classroom, and perceived approaches of using it in an effective way. The participants also recommended peer assistance among instructors as valuable support to implement the flipped classroom model in instruction successfully.


Flipped classroom Active learning Students Instructor 



This study has been reviewed and certified by the IRB. The authors give thanks to all the staff at Teaching and Learning Center at The University of Tennessee for their supports in this study.


The study was accomplished with no institutional, private or corporate support funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no potential conflict of interest with any of the software or tools mentioned in this study.


  1. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2013). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert, M., & Beatty, B. J. (2014). Flipping the classroom applications to curriculum redesign for an introduction to management course: Impact on grades. Journal of Education for Business, 89(8), 419–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albert, J., Blanchard, M., Kier, M., Carrier, S., & Gardner, G. (2014). Supporting teachers’ technology integration: A descriptive analysis of social and teaching presence in technical support sessions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(2), 137–165.Google Scholar
  4. Alvarez, B. (2012). Flipping the classroom: Homework in class, lessons at home. Education Digest, 77(8), 18–21.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, J. W. (2000). The “classroom flip”: Using web course management tools to become the guide by the side. In Paper presented at the 11th international conference on college teaching and learning, Jacksonville, FL.Google Scholar
  6. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  7. Bland, L. (2006). Applying flip/inverted classroom model in electrical engineering to establish life-long learning. In Paper presented at the American Society of Engineering Education Conference and Exposition. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  8. Brame, C. J. (2013). Flipping the classroom. Retrieved from
  9. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Demetry, C. (2010). Work in progress—an innovation merging “classroom flip” and team-based learning. In Paper presented at the 40th ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. Dove, A. (2013). Students’ perceptions of learning in a flipped statistics class. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference 2013 (pp. 393–398).Google Scholar
  13. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers and Education, 64, 175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foertsch, J., Moses, G., Strikwerda, J., & Litzkow, M. (2002). Reversing the lecture/homework paradigm using e-Teach web-based streaming video software. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(3), 267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frydenberg, M. (2013). Flipping excel. Information Systems Education Journal, 11(1), 63–73.Google Scholar
  17. Fulton, K. P. (2012). 10 Reasons to flip. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerstein, J. (2011). The flipped classroom model: A full picture. Retrieved from
  19. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  20. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teacher and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2009). Activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hawkins, J. (1997). Imagine the possibilities: The world at your fingertips. In P. Burness & W. Snider (Eds.), Learn and live (pp. 212–215). Nicasio, CA: The George Lucas Educational Foundation.Google Scholar
  23. Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braaak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers and Education, 51, 1499–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.Google Scholar
  26. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers and Education, 49(3), 740–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers and Education, 59(4), 1109–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Luft, J. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development program on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lynch, D., Altschuler, G. C., & McClure, P. (2002). Professors should embrace technology in courses…and colleges must create technology plans. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(19), B15.Google Scholar
  30. Malicky, D. M., Lord, S. M., & Huang, M. Z. (2007). A design methodology for choosing an optimal pedagogy: The pedagogy decision matrix. International Journal of Engineering Education, 23(2), 325–337.Google Scholar
  31. Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  32. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teacher College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computer and Education, 55, 1321–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Overbay, A., Patterson, A., Vasu, E., & Grable, L. (2010). Constructivism and technology use: Findings from the IMPACTing leadership project. Educational Media International, 47(2), 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers and Education, 54, 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shea, P., Pickett, A., & Li, C. S. (2005). Increasing access to higher education: A study of the diffusion of online teaching among 913 college faculty. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education, 6(2), 1–27.Google Scholar
  41. Spotts, T. H. (1999). Embedding ubiquitous use of technology. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 2(4), 92–99.Google Scholar
  42. Stake, R. E. (1998). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Strayer, J. F. (2007). The effect of the classroom flip on the learning environment: A comparison of learning activity in a traditional classroom and a flip classroom that used an intelligent tutoring system (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  44. Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wagner, D., Laforge, P., & Cripps, C. (2013). Lecture material retention: A first trial report on flipped classroom strategies in electronic systems engineering at the University of Regina. In Paper presented at the Canadian engineering education association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  46. Warter-Perez, N., & Dong, J. (2012). Flipping the classroom: How to embed inquiry and design projects into a digital engineering lecture. In Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Pacific South West (ASEE-PSW) section conference, San Luis Obispo, CA.Google Scholar
  47. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Young, T. P., Bailey, C. J., Guptill, M., Thorp, A. W., & Thomas, T. L. (2014). The flipped classroom: A modality for mixed asynchronous and synchronous learning in a residency program. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 15(7), 938–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zappe, S., Messner, J., Litzinger, T., & Lee, H. W. (2009). “Flipping” the classroom to explore active learning in a large undergraduate course. In Paper presented at the American society for engineering education annual conference and exhibition, Austin, TX.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations