Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 362–390 | Cite as

The use of an extended flipped classroom model in improving students’ learning in an undergraduate course

  • Jianpeng GuoEmail author


One of the biggest barriers preventing teachers from utilizing the flipped classroom approach in their teaching practices is the lack of a general and practical framework for guiding the design and implementation of flipped classrooms. This leads to the fact that the effectiveness of the flipped classroom approach is unconfirmed. Building on research findings from the field of learning and instruction, this study proposed a step-by-step general model named the “O-PIRTAS” (Objective, Preparation, Instructional video, Review, Test, Activity, Summary) flipped classroom model and examined its effectiveness in promoting student learning in an undergraduate psychology course. Two classes of 101 first-year undergraduates were taught by the flipped classroom model or the traditional lecture-based approach for 16 weeks. The results supported the effectiveness of the flipped classroom model; the flipped model not only improved the students’ perceptions of the teaching quality and peer interaction engagement but also promoted their generic skills development and examination performance. Instructional implications for implementing flipped instruction are provided, and directions for future research are discussed.


Higher education Flipped classroom Instructional design Teaching strategies Student learning 



This study was based on the project “Learning Mechanism of Flipped Classroom and Its Teaching Effectiveness in Higher Education” supported by The National Social Science Fund of China (CIA150187).


  1. Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research and Development, 34, 1–14.Google Scholar
  2. Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1–11.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1–18.Google Scholar
  5. Al-Zahrani, A. M. (2015). From passive to active: The impact of the flipped classroom through social learning platforms on higher education students’ creative thinking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1133–1148.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of education objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Ari, A. (2011). Finding acceptance of Bloom’s revised cognitive taxonomy on the international stage and in Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11, 767–772.Google Scholar
  8. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5, 243–260.Google Scholar
  10. Battaglia, D. M., & Kaya, T. (2015). How flipping your first-year digital circuits course positively affects student perceptions and learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(4), 1126–1138.Google Scholar
  11. Berge, Z. L., & Collins, M. (1995). Computer-mediated scholarly discussion groups. Computers and Education, 24, 183–189.Google Scholar
  12. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Washington, DC: Internal Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  13. Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.Google Scholar
  14. Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: a survey of the research. Paper presented at the 120th ASEE National conference proceedings, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  15. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals, handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.Google Scholar
  16. Bonawitz, E., Shafto, P., Gweon, H., Goodman, N. D., Spelke, E., & Schulz, L. (2011). The double-edged sword of pedagogy: Instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery. Cognition, 120, 322–330.Google Scholar
  17. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., et al. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.Google Scholar
  18. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Kinshuk, N., & Chen, N. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers and Education, 79, 16–27.Google Scholar
  20. Chung, J., & Chow, S. (2004). Promoting student learning through a student-centred problem-based learning subject curriculum. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(2), 157–168.Google Scholar
  21. Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Education Technology Research Development, 61, 563–580.Google Scholar
  22. DeCaro, M., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). Exploring mathematics problems prepares children to learn from instruction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 552–568.Google Scholar
  23. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332, 862–864.Google Scholar
  24. Diseth, A. (2007). Approaches to learning: Course experience and examination grade among undergraduate psychology students: Testing of mediator effects and construct validity. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 373–388.Google Scholar
  25. Diseth, A., Pallesen, S., Brunborg, G. S., & Larsen, S. (2010). Academic achievement among first semester undergraduate psychology students: The role of course experience, effort, motives and learning strategies. Higher Education, 59, 335–352.Google Scholar
  26. Dodge, B. (1995). WebQuests: A technique for internet-based learning. Distance Educator, 1(2), 10–13.Google Scholar
  27. Douglass, J. A., Thomson, G., & Zhao, C. M. (2012). The learning outcome race: The value of self-reported gains in large research universities. Higher Education, 64, 317–335.Google Scholar
  28. Duffy, T. M. (2009). Building lines of communication and a research agenda. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure (pp. 351–367). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. EDUCAUSE. (2012). 7 things you should know about flipped classrooms. Retrieved March 15, 2019, from
  30. Eisenhut, L. A., & Taylor, C. E. (2015). In-class purposes of flipped mathematics educators. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 6(2), 17–25.Google Scholar
  31. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.Google Scholar
  32. Fyfe, E., Rittle-Johnson, B., & DeCaro, M. (2012). The effects of feedback during exploratory mathematics problem solving: Prior knowledge matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1094–1108.Google Scholar
  33. Gaughan, J. E. (2014). The flipped classroom in world history. History Teacher, 47, 221–244.Google Scholar
  34. Gerstein, J. (2011). The flipped classroom model: A full picture. Retrieved June 17, 2015, from
  35. Gilboy, M. B., Heinerichs, S., & Pazzaglia, G. (2015). Enhancing student engagement using the flipped classroom. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 47, 109–114.Google Scholar
  36. Groves, M. (2005). Problem-based learning and learning approach: Is there a relationship? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 10, 315–326.Google Scholar
  37. Grypp, L., & Luebeck, J. (2015). Rotating solids and flipping instruction. Mathematics Teacher, 109, 186–193.Google Scholar
  38. Guo, J. P. (2018). Building bridges to student learning: Perceptions of the learning environment, engagement, and learning outcomes among Chinese undergraduates. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 195–208.Google Scholar
  39. Guo, J. P., Yang, L. Y., & Ding, Y. (2017). The use of learning study in designing examples for teaching Physics. Research in Science Education, 1, 1–22.Google Scholar
  40. Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on learning scale conference (pp. 41–50). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  41. Hao, Y. W. (2016). Exploring undergraduates’ perspectives and flipped learning readiness in their flipped classrooms. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 82–92.Google Scholar
  42. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.Google Scholar
  43. He, W., Holton, A. J., Farkas, G., & Warschauer, M. (2016). The effects of flipped instruction on out-of-class study time, exam performance and student perceptions. Learning and Instruction, 45, 61–67.Google Scholar
  44. He, W., Holtonb, A., & Farkasc, G. (2018). Impact of partially flipped instruction on immediate and subsequent course performance in a large undergraduate chemistry course. Computers and Education, 125, 120–131.Google Scholar
  45. Herington, C., & Weaven, S. (2008). Action research and reflection on student approaches to learning in large first year university classes. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35, 111–134.Google Scholar
  46. Hibbard, L., Sung, S., & Wells, B. (2016). Examining the effectiveness of a semi-self-paced flipped learning format in a college general chemistry sequence. Journal of Chemical Education, 93, 24–30.Google Scholar
  47. Hill, L. G., & Betz, D. I. (2005). Revisiting the retrospective pretest. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 501–517.Google Scholar
  48. Hoffman, E. S. (2014). Beyond the flipped classroom: Redesigning a research methods course for e3 instruction. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 7, 51–62.Google Scholar
  49. Howitt, C., & Pegrum, M. (2015). Implementing a flipped classroom approach in postgraduate education: An unexpected journey into pedagogical redesign. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 458–469.Google Scholar
  50. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternations. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.Google Scholar
  51. Hung, H.-T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28, 81–96.Google Scholar
  52. Hwang, G. J., & Lai, C. L. (2017). Facilitating and bridging out-of-class and in-class learning: An interactive e-book based flipped learning approach for math courses. Educational Technology and Society, 20, 184–197.Google Scholar
  53. Kahu, E. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 758–773.Google Scholar
  54. Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38, 1008–1022.Google Scholar
  55. Karabulut-Ilgu, A., Jaramillo Cherrez, N., & Jahren, C. T. (2018). A systematic review of research on the flipped learning method in engineering education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49, 398–411.Google Scholar
  56. Klahr, D., & Nigram, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661–667.Google Scholar
  57. Klein, S., Benjamin, R., & Shavelson, R. (2007). The collegiate learning assessment: Facts and fantasies. Evaluation Review, 31, 415–439.Google Scholar
  58. Klein, S., Kuh, G., Chun, M., Hamilton, L., & Shavelson, R. (2005). An approach to measuring cognitive outcomes across higher education institutions. Research in Higher Education, 46, 251–276.Google Scholar
  59. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  60. Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In R. Gonyea & G. Kuh (Eds.), Using student engagement data in institutional research (pp. 5–20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  61. Kuh, G., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student–faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 309–332.Google Scholar
  62. Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552.Google Scholar
  63. Lai, C., & Hwang, G. (2016). A self-regulated flipped classroom approach to improving students’ learning performance in a mathematics course. Computers and Education, 100, 126–140.Google Scholar
  64. Leinhardt, G., & Steele, M. D. (2005). Seeing the complexity of standing to the side: Instructional dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 87–163.Google Scholar
  65. Levy, A., & Bathory, Z. (1994). The taxonomy of objectives in Continental Europe, Mediterranean, the Middle East. In W. Lorin Anderson & L. Sosniak (Eds.), Bloom’s taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective (pp. 146–163). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  66. Liu, C. C., & Tsai, C. M. (2005). Peer assessment through web-based knowledge acquisition: Tools to support conceptual awareness. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42, 43–59.Google Scholar
  67. Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 27–52.Google Scholar
  68. Lo, C. (2018). Grounding the flipped classroom approach in the foundations of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 793–811.Google Scholar
  69. Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2017). Using “first principles of instruction” to design secondary school mathematics flipped classroom: The findings of two exploratory studies. Educational Technology and Society, 20(1), 222–236.Google Scholar
  70. Lo, C., Lie, C., & Hew, F. (2018). Applying “First Principles of Instruction” as a design theory of the flipped classroom: Findings from a collective study of four secondary school subjects. Computers and Education, 118, 150–165.Google Scholar
  71. Maciejewski, W. (2016). Flipping the calculus classroom: An evaluative study. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 35(4), 187–201.Google Scholar
  72. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  73. Marton, F., & Pang, M. F. (2006). On some necessary conditions of learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 193–220.Google Scholar
  74. Mason, G. S., Shuman, T. R., & Cook, K. E. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 430–435.Google Scholar
  75. McCarthy, B. (1996). About learning. Barrington: Excell Inc.Google Scholar
  76. Mcclelland, C. J. (2013). Flipping a large-enrollment fluid mechanics course—Is it effective? Paper presented at Proceedings of the 120th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  77. McGivney-Burelle, J., & Xue, F. (2013). Flipping calculus. PRIMUS, 23(5), 477–486.Google Scholar
  78. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.Google Scholar
  79. McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2005). Why won’t you change your mind? Knowledge of operational patterns hinders learning and performance on equations. Child Development, 76, 883–899.Google Scholar
  80. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.Google Scholar
  81. Moffett, J. (2015). Twelve tips for “flipping” the classroom. Medical Teacher, 37(4), 331–336.Google Scholar
  82. Mok, H. N. (2014). Teaching tip: The flipped classroom. Journal of Information Systems Education, 25(1), 7–11.Google Scholar
  83. Most, S., Scholl, B., Clifford, E., & Simons, D. (2005). What you see is what you set: Sustained inattentional blindness and the capture of awareness. Psychological Review, 112, 217–242.Google Scholar
  84. Narloch, R., Garbin, C. P., & Turnage, K. D. (2006). Benefits of prelecture quizzes. Teaching Psychology, 33(2), 109–112.Google Scholar
  85. Ng, E. (2018). Integrating self-regulation principles with flipped classroom pedagogy for first year university students. Computers and Education, 126, 65–74.Google Scholar
  86. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  87. O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95.Google Scholar
  88. Olson, R. (2014). Flipping engineering probability and statistics—Lessons learned for faculty considering the switch. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 121st ASEE annual conference and exposition, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
  89. Perry, M. (2000). Explanations of mathematical concepts in Japanese, Chinese, and U.S. first and fifth-grade classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 181–207.Google Scholar
  90. Presti, C. R. (2016). The flipped learning approach in nursing education: A literature review. Journal of Nursing Education, 55(5), 252–257.Google Scholar
  91. Ramnanan, C. J., & Pound, L. D. (2017). Advances in medical education and practice: Student perceptions of the flipped classroom. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 8, 63–73.Google Scholar
  92. Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15–22.Google Scholar
  93. Sams, A., & Bergmann, J. (2013). Flip your students’ learning. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 16–20.Google Scholar
  94. Scannapieco, F. (1997). Formal debate: An active learning strategy. Journal of Dental Education, 61, 955–961.Google Scholar
  95. Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macperson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 161–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  96. Schultz, D., Duffield, S., Rasmussen, S. C., & Wageman, J. (2014). Effects of the flipped classroom model on student performance for advanced placement high school chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(9), 1334–1339.Google Scholar
  97. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 475–522.Google Scholar
  98. Schwartz, D., Chase, C., Oppezzo, M., & Chin, D. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 759–775.Google Scholar
  99. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficacy of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 129–184.Google Scholar
  100. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Computer-supported example-based learning: When instructional explanations reduce self-explanations. Computers and Education, 46, 426–445.Google Scholar
  101. Seery, M. K. (2015). Flipped learning in higher education chemistry: Emerging trends and potential directions. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 16(4), 758–768.Google Scholar
  102. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13.Google Scholar
  103. Simons, D., & Chabris, C. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28, 1059–1074.Google Scholar
  104. Sohrabi, B., & Iraj, H. (2016). Implementing flipped classroom using digital media: A comparison of two demographically different groups perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 514–524.Google Scholar
  105. Song, Y., Jong, M. S. Y., Chang, M., & Chen, W. (2017). Guest editorial: “HOW” to design, implement and evaluate the flipped classroom? A synthesis. Educational Technology and Society, 20(1), 180–183.Google Scholar
  106. Strayer, J. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193.Google Scholar
  107. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). Onthe dynamics of students’ approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 279–294.Google Scholar
  108. Taylor, P. T., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Taylor, H. (2009). Gilding the outcome by tarnishing the past. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(1), 31–43.Google Scholar
  109. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.Google Scholar
  110. VanLehn, K. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 513–539.Google Scholar
  111. Velegol, S. B., Zappe, S. E., & Mahoney, E. (2015). The evolution of a flipped classroom: Evidence-based recommendations. Advances in Engineering Education, 4, 1–37.Google Scholar
  112. Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2015). Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course. Computers and Education, 88, 354–369.Google Scholar
  113. Waters, L., & Johnston, C. (2004). Web-delivered, problem-based learning in organisational behaviour: A new form of CAOS. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(4), 413–431.Google Scholar
  114. Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003). The development of students’ learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 361–428.Google Scholar
  115. Wilson, K., & Fowler, J. (2005). Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’ approaches to learning: Comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 87–101.Google Scholar
  116. Wise, A. F., & O’Neill, K. (2009). Beyond more versus less: A reframing of the debate on instructional guidance. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure (pp. 82–105). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  117. Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 49–64.Google Scholar
  118. Zainuddin, Z., & Attaran, M. (2016). Malaysian students’ perceptions of flipped classroom: A case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(6), 660–670.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EducationXiamen UniversityXiamenChina

Personalised recommendations