To Flip or Not to Flip: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis of Flipped Teaching

  • Virginia N. L. Franqueira
  • Peter Tunnicliffe
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 41)


It became almost fashionable to refer to the term “flipped” in higher education. Expressions like flipped learning and flipped classroom are often used interchangeably as an indication of innovation, flexibility, creativity and pedagogical evolution. We performed an exploratory study on this topic following the Critical Interpretive Synthesis methodology for analysis of the literature. Our findings indicated that the term “Flipped Learning” is misleading and that, in fact, the synthetic concept behind it is “Flipped Teaching”. We derived a synthesising argument, in the format of two synthesis models, of the potential benefits promoted by flipped teaching and the potential issues which affect its success in practice. Those models allow STEM course tutors not only to make informed decisions about whether to flip teaching or not, but also to better prepare for flipping.


Flipped learning Teaching Pedagogy Higher education 


  1. 1.
    Baepler, P., Walker, J., Driessen, M.: It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Comput. Educ. 78, 227–236 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker, J.W.: The ‘Classroom Flip’: using web course management tools to become the guide by the side. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on College Teaching and Learning. pp. 9–17. ERIC, Institute of Education Sciences (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnett-Page, E., Thomas, J.: Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 9(59) (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrows, H.S.: A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Med. Educ. 20(6), 481–486 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bates, S., Galloway, R.: The inverted classroom in a large enrolment introductory physics course: a case study. In: Proceedings of the HEA STEM Learning and Teaching Conference. The Higher Education Academy (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biggs, J.: Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bishop, J.L., Verleger, M.A.: The flipped classroom: a survey of the research. In: Proceedings of the 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. American Society for Engineering Education (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R.: Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Cognitive Domain. David McKay Company, Handbook I (1956)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Booth, T.: Towards Inclusive Schools, chap. Mapping Inclusion and Exclusion: Concepts for All?, pp. 96–108. David Fulton, London (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bransford, J., Sherwood, R., Hasselbring, T., Kinzer, C., Williams, S.: Cognition, Education, and Multimedia: Exploring Ideas in High Technology, chap. Anchored instruction: why we need it and how technology can help, pp. 115–141. Lawrence Erlbaum (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Butt, A.: Students views on the use of a flipped classroom approach: evidence from australia. Bus. Educ. Accred. 6(1), 33–43 (2014)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Chen, N.S.: Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Comput. Educ. 79, 16–27 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., Sutton, A.: Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 10(1), 45–53 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwala, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., Hsu, R., Katbamna, S., Olsen, R., Smith, L., Riley, R., Sutton, A.J.: Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 6(35) (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Entwistle, V., Firnigl, D., Ryan, M., Francis, J., Kinghorn, P.: Which experiences of health care delivery matter to service users and why? A critical interpretive synthesis and conceptual map. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 17(2), 70–78 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Flipped Learning Network:
  17. 17.
    Gajewski, R.R., Jaczewski, M.: Flipped computer science classes. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems. pp. 795–802. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grabinger, R.S., Dunlap, J.C.: Rich environments for active learning: a definition. J. Assoc. Learn. Technol. 3(2), 5–34 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guglielmino, L.M.: Development of the self-directed learning readiness scale. Ph.D. thesis, University of Georgia, U.S.A. (1977)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guney, A., Al, S.: Effective learning environments in relation to different learning theories. Procedia Social Behav. Sci. 46, 2334–2338 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., Arsfstrom, K.M.: A review of flipped learning. Flipped Learn. Netw. (2013)
  22. 22.
    Herreid, C.F., Schiller, N.A.: Case studies and the flipped classroom. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 42(5) (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim, G., Patrick, E., Srivastava, R., Law, M.: Perspective on flipping circuits I. IEEE Trans. Educ. 57(3), 188–192 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lage, M.J., Platt, G.J., Treglia, M.: Inverting the classroom: a gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. J. Econ. Educ. 31(1), 30–43 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Love, B., Hodge, A., Grandgenett, N., Swift, A.W.: Student learning and perceptions in a flipped linear algrebra course. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 45(3), 317–324 (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lublin, J.: Deep, surface and strategic approaches to learning. Centre for Teaching and Learning. UCD Dublin, nd (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mackenzie, M., Conway, E., Hastings, A., Munro, M., O’Donnell, C.: Is candidacy a useful concept for understanding journeys through public services? A critical interpretive literature synthesis. Soc. Policy Adm. 47(7), 806–825 (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marwedel, P., Engel, M.: Flipped classroom teaching for a cyber-physical system course - an adequate presence-based learning approach in the internet age. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Workshop on Microelectronics Education. pp. 11–15. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mason, G., Shuman, T., Cook, K.: Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Trans. Educ. 56(4), 430–435 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moore, M.G.: Theorectical Principles of Distance Education, chap. Theory of Transactional Distance, pp. 22–38. Routledge, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Novak, G.M., Patterson, E.T., Gavrin, A.D., Christian, W., Forinash, K.: Just in time teaching. Am. J. Phys. 67(10) (1999)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prince, M.: Does active learning work? A review of the research. J. Eng. Educ. 93(3), 223–231 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roehl, A., Reddy, S.L., Shannon, G.J.: The flipped classroom: an opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. J. Family Consum. Sci. 105(2), 44–49 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Strayer, J.F.: The effects 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. Ph.D. Thesis, Ohio State University, Ohio, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Strayer, J.F.: How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learn. Environ. Res. 15(2), 171–193 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Topping, K., Ehly, S. (eds.): Peer-assisted Learning. Routledge (1998)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vygotsky, L.S.: Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1978)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yarbro, J., Arfstrom, K.M., McKnight, K.: Extension of a review of flipped learning. Flipped Learn. Netw. (2014)
  39. 39.
    Yelamarthi, K., Drake, E.: A flipped first-year digital circuits course for engineering and technology students. IEEE Trans. Educ. PP(99) (2014)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zappe, S., Leicht, R., Messner, J., Litzinger, T., Lee, H.W.: “Flipping” the classroom to explore active learning in a large undergraduate course. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE Conference. American Society for Engineering Education (2009)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zarestky, J., Bangerth, W.: Teaching high performance computing: lessons from a flipped classroom, project-based course on finite element methods. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Education for High-Performance Computing. pp. 34–41. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Virginia N. L. Franqueira
    • 1
  • Peter Tunnicliffe
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computing and MathematicsUniversity of DerbyDerbyUK
  2. 2.Department of EducationUniversity of DerbyDerbyUK

Personalised recommendations