See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350966353

Flipped Classroom in the Educational System: Trend or Effective Pedagogical

Model Compared to Other Methodologies?

Article in Educational Technology & Society · April 2021

CITATIONS READS

43 5,794

1 author:

Héctor Galindo-Domínguez
University of the Basque Country
74 PUBLICATIONS 1,005 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Héctor Galindo-Domínguez on 19 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Galindo-Dominguez, H. (2021). Flipped Classroom in the Educational System: Trend or Effective Pedagogical Model
Compared to Other Methodologies? Educational Technology & Society, 24 (3), 44–60.

Flipped Classroom in the Educational System: Trend or Effective

Pedagogical Model Compared to Other Methodologies?
Héctor Galindo-Dominguez
Facultad de Educación y Psicología, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Spain // [email protected]

(Submitted October 29, 2020; Revised December 20, 2020; Accepted March 16, 2021)

ABSTRACT: Flipped Classroom methodology is gaining relative importance as time goes by, in part due to the
spreading and accessibility of technological resources in the educational field. Nonetheless, the effectiveness of
this methodology is still being discussed. In this sense, the aim of this study is to analyse whether flipped
classroom methodology is a more effective methodology than other methodologies. For this purpose, a
systematic review was carried out, considering as valid studies those that had a pre-post and a control group.
Based on a total of 61 studies (n = 5541 students) from 18 databases, results revealed that Flipped Classroom
methodology is more effective than other methodologies in terms of learning achievement, in secondary and
higher education, and it could be more beneficial than other methodologies in other constructs as motivation,
self-efficacy, cooperativeness and engagement, among others. In primary education, findings revealed that
Flipped Classroom could be as effective as other methodologies with regard to learning achievement, and other
construct, such as self-concept and social climate. Depending on the educational stage, the effect size of
differences was between 1.36 to 1.80 times larger in the case of Flipped Classroom group in comparison with
control group. Based on these results, the Flipped Classroom could be more beneficial in comparison with
traditional methodologies that are mainly used in higher education. However, it would not more beneficial in
other educational stages where traditional approaches are not commonly used, such as in primary education.

Keywords: Flipped classroom, Primary education, Secondary education, Higher education, Effectiveness

1. Introduction
Flipped Classroom methodology is defined as a methodology in which the more practical part of the class (e.g.,
activities and problem solving), and traditionally done by students outside class, is moved into the classroom
session; while what traditionally was done in class (e.g., presentation of information and information
transmission teaching) is moved outside and prior to the class (Låg & Grøm, 2019). Flipped Classroom, correctly
applied, could be considered as an active learning methodology as it is an instructional method that engages
students in their learning process (Bishop & Verleger, 2013; Prince, 2004). The term Flipped Classroom is
relatively new within the educational field (Berrett, 2012). However, it is not a novel teaching methodology since
over the last decade analogous terms, such as inverted classroom (Lage, Platt & Treglia, 2000), just-in-time
teaching (Novak, 2011) and inverted learning (Davis, 2013) have been studied in the literature to explain this
approach, and which emphasize students’ work before attending a class (Hung, 2015).

From previous systematic reviews it has seen how the quantity of Flipped Classroom studies was significantly
higher in Higher Education than in other educational stages (Uzunboylu & Karagözlü, 2017). Furthermore, the
quantity of studies based on Flipped Classroom and performed in Higher Education represent between the 52%
and 79% of the total quantity of studies around Flipped Classroom, in comparison with studies carried out in
Primary Education that represent around 6% to 7%, and in Secondary Education, it represents from 6% to 8% of
the total quantity of studies around the Flipped Classroom (Cheng, Hwang, & Lai, 2020; Uzunboylu &
Karagözlü, 2017).

From previous literature, the vast majority of Flipped Classroom interventions are done in the same way (Cheng
et al., 2020). Firstly, out-of-class, students access through a learning platform or system, where all the resources
are uploaded. This platform has the aim of fostering the learning process around these resources. Secondly, in-
class, there are 3 main strategies used: issue discussions, practicing or performing exercises, and group projects
(Cheng et al., 2020).

With regard to the matter studied, previous reviews revealed that the main aim of a great number of previous
Flipped Classroom papers is to discover the effectiveness of this methodology in terms of academic
performance, far from other affective constructs like motivation or satisfaction (Cheng et al., 2020; Galindo-
Domínguez & Bezanilla, 2018; Galindo-Domínguez & Bezanilla, 2019).

ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). This article of the journal of Educational Technology & Society is available under Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND
44
3.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). For further queries, please contact Journal Editors at [email protected].
Results are mostly in favour of Flipped Classroom methodology. In previous reviews, the vast majority of
studies revealed positive or, at least, neutral direct or indirect effects, mainly on academic performance and
satisfaction with the experience (Chen, Hwang & Lai, 2020; Galindo-Domínguez, 2018; Galindo-Domínguez &
Bezanilla, 2019; Lag & Grøm, 2019; O’Flaherty & Phillips, 2015). However, this information has not been
contrasted with other methodologies. Nevertheless, other meta-analysis has shown that, in spite of the large
number of studies that revealed small positive effects when applying Flipped Classroom methodology, some also
pointed out negative effect sizes for the flipped classroom condition (Chen, Ritzhaupt, & Antonenko, 2019).

Chen’s et al. (2018) meta-analysis studied the impact of Flipped Classroom interventions on university students
comparing their pre-post academic performance values. Their findings revealed how Flipped Classroom
interventions had a statistical significant impact within university students (n = 7; p < .005), especially in those
students enrolled in the health area. This conclusion was also reached by other meta-analysis such as Låg &
Grøm’s (2019) study, but, on the other hand, Gillete’s et al. (2018) meta-analysis did not find significant
differences between Flipped Classroom and traditional lecture methodology. This is the reason why some
authors claim that there is a lack of evidence for the efficiency of Flipped Classroom methodology (e.g.,
Betihavas, Bridgman, Kornhaber, & Cross, 2016).

However, most of the previous studies which compare pre and post values with a control group, show the
effectiveness of this methodology against traditional methodology in terms of different constructs in Higher
Education (e.g., Kurt, 2017; Lin & Hwang, 2018; Chang, Kao & Hwang, 2020; Chyr et al., 2017), but some
discrepancies appear in Secondary Education (e.g., Kumar, Chang & Chang, 2016; Wei et al., 2020; Gómez-
García, Sellés, & Ferriz, 2019) and primary education (e.g., Galindo-Domínguez, 2019a; Galindo-Domínguez,
2019b; Ferriz, Sebastiá, & García, 2017; Cheung & Chen, 2020).

Although this review can make an approximation to the impact of this methodology, the results are still
incomplete. Specifically, as the literature points out, there is a clear scarcity of previous evidence of meta-
analyses and systematic reviews which compares the effectiveness of flipped classroom with other
methodologies (Chen et al., 2019).

The justification for this study has its origin in that previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews are focused
only on the impact of flipped classroom experiences, but they do not follow a specific selection of the research
design of flipped classroom studies (Uzunboylu & Karagözlü, 2017; Cheng et al., 2020). Therefore, it is
important, in order to go in depth, to select, analyse and compare studies of at least, pre and post phases, with a
control group. This type of design could be the most beneficial one for having a closer and accurate sight of the
effectiveness of the flipped classroom, in such a way that it permits to compare the effectiveness of an
intervention with the passage of time and according to a specific group.

In addition, there is no previous evidence of meta-analysis or systematic reviews which compare the
effectiveness of the flipped classroom depending of the educational stage. In this sense, previous meta-analyses
and systematic reviews do not differentiate the educational stage of students, and in fact, this could be a critical
factor to take into account when applying a Flipped Classroom intervention (e.g., Uzunboylu & Karagözlü, 2017;
Cheng et al., 2020). Due to the fact that the psychosocial characteristics of students are different in each of the
different stages, this differentiation may have consequences on the effectiveness of a certain methodology.

Furthermore, there is a significant gap on the constructs studied in previous meta-analyses and systematic
reviews, in a way that the vast majority of them are focused on the effectiveness of the Flipped Classroom only
considering students’ learning achievement (Chen et al., 2018; Galindo-Domínguez, 2018; Gillete et al., 2018;
Låg, & Grøm, 2019). In this sense, this study also analyses the impact of other cognitive, affective and social
constructs. It is important to compare the effectiveness of educational methodologies in order to be able to
provide teachers with as much information as possible, and thus, base their pedagogical practice on scientific
evidence and make justified decisions. This does not necessarily mean that what they do will work, but it means
that they already have prior scientific support on which to rely to try to select the best available option, and
therefore, allow them to improve their pedagogical practice. It is important to take into account the integral
development of the student as it is one of the objectives of the 21st century education, collected in the curricula
and educational laws of several countries (for instance, Spain, France, and the United Kingdom). It is for this
reason that it is necessary to study the potential of this methodology not only from its cognitive aspect, but also
from emotional-affective and social aspects.

45
2. Methodology
2.1. Objective

The aim of this paper is to carry out a systematic review considering research that study the impact of Flipped
Classroom methodology within the educational system. More specifically, this study analyses the effectiveness
of Flipped Classroom interventions in comparison with control methodologies. For this purpose, this research
will answer the following questions:
• Is the Flipped Classroom methodology as effective as other methodologies?
• Is the Flipped Classroom methodology as effective at the different educational system stages?
• If not, at what educational stages is the Flipped Classroom methodology most effective?

2.2. Documentary search

In order to achieve the objective of this study, certain national and international databases were used. In this case,
an exhaustive search was performed in the databases of Web of Science, Scopus, InCites, ProQuest,
ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Psyc, EBSCOHost, ACM, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, Emerald Insight, DOAJ,
Google Scholar, PubMed, ResearchGate, SciELO and Dialnet. Within these databases, the search for documents
did not have a starting date but had a deadline of October 2020. These databases were selected because they are
the databases that collect the scientific journals with the highest quality and impact at national and international
levels. In this specific case, as it is a systematic review, the main interest in the selection of solid and quality
studies justifies the usage of these databases.

The search looked into the, the possible crosses between the keywords Flipped Classroom, Flipped Learning and
Flipped, with control group and post were done. All these keywords were also translated and used in the same
way in Spanish.

2.3. Inclusion criteria

After this first search, a wide range of potential documents was obtained (n = 150). Nevertheless, some of them
were rejected because they did not fit the inclusion criteria followed for this systematic review. The followed
criterion was the next one:
• Accessibility: All results obtained from selected databases were taken into account. Those studies,
regardless the format (paper, proceedings…), that were not accessible for the author had to be excluded (n =
5).
• Topic: With regard to the topic, only studies focused on Flipped Classroom methodology were taken into
account. In this sense, 15 studies were not included in the analysis.
• Sample: It was a required condition that the Flipped Classroom was within the educational system. From
this criterion 2, studies focused on the labour field were rejected.
• Construct studied: All cognitive, social and emotional constructs were studied. From this analysis, studies of
satisfaction with the experience (n = 7) were excluded due to the fact that the focus was to analyse
psychological constructs, which were widely studied and consolidated in the scientific literature, as they
could provide higher quality and accurate information.
• Methodology: All included studies had to follow a quantitative methodology in order to permit comparisons
and extract conclusions based on data. Consequently, 19 studies were rejected from this systematic review
as they used qualitative methods or they were meta-analysis.
• Design: In order to permit solid comparisons, it was required to select studies with a control and
experimental group, as well as studies with a pre and a post phase. Hence, those studies without a control
group (n = 16) and/or without a pre and post phase (n = 22) were excluded from the analysis. Finally, there
were some studies that mixed the methodology of the experimental and the control group, that is, what was
at first the control group swapped to the experimental group, and vice versa. These studies (n = 2) were not
included as they would significantly complicate drawing conclusions.
• Language: Studies that were not in Spanish or English were excluded.
• Once the studies passed through the explained criteria, a total of 61 research studies were selected, 58 in
English and 3 in Spanish. The process of this analysis was performed by an adapted PRISMA flow diagram
(Moher et al., 2009), as gathered in Figure 1. These studies analysed the impact of Flipped Classroom based
on different constructs. 31 of them analysed the data by means of the repeated measures ANOVA, and 30 of
them analysed the data by means of an analysis of covariance after observing that in the pre phase the
46
 control and experimental groups did not show significant differences. The results of this study are based on
these 61 research studies.

Noteworthy to mention that in those multidimensional constructs that did not provide an overall score, the
arithmetic mean amongst the different dimensions were done.

Finally, as the countries in which the studies were carried out have different educational systems, and therefore,
different ages for each educational group, the grouping mode for this analysis could be affected. That is why the
studies were grouped with respect to educational stages as follows: (1) Primary Education: it was considered as
primary education those students from 6 to 12 years old; (2) Secondary Education: It was considered as
secondary education those students from 12 to 16; (3) It was considered as university education those students
beyond 18 years old. No studies were found with the selected criteria for students aged 16 to 18 years. This post-
high school stage is called differently depending on the country. To name a few, in Spain it is known as
Baccalaureate, in the United Kingdom the A level of the General Certificate of Education (GCE), in Saudi
Arabia Tawjahiya or in Belgium Higher Secondary Education.

Figure 1. PRISMA Flow diagram of the inclusion criteria

2.4. Data analysis

After gathering the research studies in line with the initial criteria, their content was analysed. For this purpose,
SPSS Statistics 23.0 was used. Through this software some interesting variables from all the selected studies
were gathered (educational stage, intervention’s duration, construct studied, sample of the control and
experimental group, type of methodology followed in the control and experimental group, and means and
standard deviations of the control and experimental group for the pre and post phase). To encode the constructs,
the objective of each study was analysed, and in those studies in which more than one construct was analysed,
more than 1 row was used in the database (1 row for each construct studied in the investigation). Finally, an
inductive analysis according to the typology of the constructs studied was carried out, allowing to classify the
total of constructs into: (1) cognitive constructs, those related to cognitive intelligence. Specifically, academic
performance was found as the main cognitive construct; (2) affective-emotional constructs, that is, those
constructs that are mainly related to the management and understanding of the individual’s internal emotions,
and which have an impact on their well-being and productivity. Specifically, self-concept, motivation,
engagement, self-direction, metacognition, self-regulation and anxiety; (3) social constructs, namely, those
internal or external constructs that have a high impact on the processes of interaction with other individuals.
Specifically, competitiveness, cooperativeness and social climate.

47
An attempt was made to achieve the highest reliability in this data analysis process by establishing in advance a
series of variables, which can be seen in Tables 1 and 2. In the case of Table 1, where the differences between
the pre and post data for the control group and the experimental group are collected, the selected studies did not
use an instrument with validated and reliable psychometric properties. In the case of Table 2, all the studies make
use of instruments previously validated and consolidated by previous theories. It should be highlighted that in all
cases the study was carried out with convenience samples.

After the database was consolidated, a descriptive analysis was carried out through the means and standard
deviations of all selected studies. Then, Cohen’s d was calculated by its formula d = (M2 – M1) / SDpooled.

Finally, in order to perform a comparison between the control and the experimental group, the repeated measures
ANOVA was carried out. Firstly, the repeated measures ANOVA was carried out considering pre and post
phases of control group as within-subject factors and educational stage as between-subject factor. Then, the same
procedure was carried out with the experimental group. In these analyses, the differences between pre and post,
as well as the impact of the educational level along time were studied. This analysis provided 2 different plots,
one for each group. That is the reason why an external graphic software was used to combine both plots in one in
order to facilitate the interpretation between groups.

3. Results
Firstly, the impact of Flipped Classroom methodology on academic performance was studied. As gathered in
Table 1, a total of 31 studies were included in this analysis: 3 studies focused on primary education, 9 studies
focused on secondary education and 19 studies focused on university education. Other studies also analysed the
impact of Flipped Classroom on academic performance, but used an analysis of Covariance, thus, making it
impossible to introduce and compare the data with the information shown in Table 1. Nonetheless, these studies
are used for justification or rejection of the findings.

It is important to highlight that all the control groups were grouped under the name of “control methodologies,”
which according to the authors of these studies, mainly used a traditional methodology. Nevertheless, in practice,
it is likely that to a lesser degree, other types of methodologies not indicated in the “description of the
intervention”section of the different studies were used.

The overall results from this analysis and confirmed through the repeated measures ANOVA showed that,
regardless the educative stage, the post values were higher than the pre values for both: control group (p = .013)
and experimental group (p = .003). The interaction between time and educational level resulted in non-significant
differences in both groups, experimental group (p = .680) and control group (p = .456), stating that, regardless
the educational stage of the sample, all of them improve their academic performance. Nonetheless, these results
required further analysis, in order to detect possible significant differences amongst the different educational
stages.

At this point, it is required to analyse and compare the impact of the group (experimental and control) at each
educational stage.

As illustrated in Figure 2, it is shown that in Primary Education (n = 3), Flipped Classroom methodology is not
more significant in the control group’s methodology as experimental (x̄pre = 6.51 ± 2.92; x̄Post = 14.34 ± 5.49; p =
.147) and the control group (x̄Pre = 6.24 ± 3.32; x̄Post = 12.80 ± 5.55; p = .132) obtained non-significant
differences from pre phase to post phase. These results show that, regardless the methodology used, the impact
on the academic performance is low. However, these results should be taken carefully as only 2 studies could be
analysed. Some causes with regard this piece of information are discussed later on. This idea is supported by
other primary education-focused studies which carried out a different methodology. More specifically, in Ferriz’s
et al. (2017) study it was shown how there was not a statistical significant difference between students who learnt
through Flipped Classroom methodology and students who studied through the conventional methodology on
their academic performance.

48
 Figure 2. Impact of control and experimental groups’ interventions on academic performance

With regard to secondary education (n = 9), the results reveal how the control group did not improve their
academic performance significantly with their intervention (x̄pre = 17.62 ± 18.42; x̄Post = 22.36 ± 23.65; p =
.205) in comparison with the students from the experimental group, who improved significantly their academic
performance with their Flipped Classroom intervention (x̄pre = 17.67 ± 18.68; x̄Post = 29.16 ± 30.44; p = .050).
This information matches with the conclusion of Djamàa’s (2020) study, which revealed a significant benefit for
secondary school students who learnt with Flipped Classroom approach in comparison with students who learnt
with a more traditional approach.

Finally, concerning university education, the results reveal how both groups, control (x̄pre = 38.32 ± 24.62;
x̄Post = 48.90 ± 27.98; p = .002) and experimental (x̄pre = 38.80 ± 24.96; x̄Post = 53.70 ± 30.32; p = .000),
improved significantly their academic performance with their intervention. These results are also supported by
other quantitative studies that could not be included in Table 1, as they used a different type of analysis (an
ANCOVA, for instance). In this sense, Mattis (2015), Jian (2019), Wasserman et al. (2017), Chang et al. (2019),
and Lai, Ting, and Yueh (2020) supported the idea that Flipped Classroom methodology could be even more
beneficial than a more traditional approach to improve university students’ academic performance. This does not
mean that the control methodologies are not effective (which in fact, as can be seen in Figure 2, the control group
students also show improvement), but that the Flipped Classroom methodology could be even better in higher
education.

From these results, the Flipped Classroom could be potentially beneficial, especially from secondary education
till university education, and equally beneficial than other methodologies used in primary education. If effect
sizes between control and experimental group are compared (dividing the effect size of the experimental group
by the control group), it can be seen how primary education students (n = 3) from experimental group obtained a
1.60 times larger effect size in comparison with students from the control group. Nonetheless, when removing
excessive large effect size studies (Elian & Hamaidi; 2018) the experimental group showed 1.36 times larger
effect sizes. In the case of secondary school students, the effect size was larger for experimental group students,
in a way that the experimental group obtained a 3.67 times larger effect size in comparison with students from
the control group. This information should be taken into account with care as there is a study from Mahmoud
(2020) with a very large Cohen’s d values. Withdrawing this study, the effect size is still larger (1.80 times) for
the experimental group in comparison with the control group. Finally, in the case of university education, the
effect size was 1.65 times larger (1.60 times if dismissing Sezer & Abay’s study due to a very large Cohen’s d)
for the experimental group than for the control group.

49
 Table 1. Main results of the different studies that had a pre-post and control and experimental group about
academic performance ordered by effect size
Authors Intervention Control Group (CG) Experimental Group (EG) Results
n Pre Post d n Pre Post d
Primary Education
Elian & Hamaidi 3 weeks 22 4.72 ± 16.27 4.95 22 4.63 ± 19.09 8.70 EG >
(2018) * 2.18 ± 2.47 2.12 ± 1.01 CG
Jiménez & N/D 21 3.95 ± 6.40 ± 1.53 19 5.03 ± 8.33 ± 2.78 EG =
Domínguez (2018) 1.50 1.68 1.28 1.08 CG
Cheung & Chen 4 weeks 95 10.05 15.75 1.62 94 9.89 ± 15.62 1.53 EG =
(2020) ± 4.09 ± 2.82 3.64 ± 3.84 CG
Overall 46 6.24 ± 12.80 2.7 45 6.51 ± 14.34 4.33
3.32 ± 5.55 2.92 ± 5.49
Overall [without 58 7.00 ± 11.07 1.57 56,5 7.46 ± 11.97 2.15
outliers] * 2.79 ± 2.25 2.46 ± 2.46
Secondary Education
Mahmoud (2020)* 4 months 75 33.33 34.17 0.39 73 33.23 69.98 10.99 EG >
± 1.72 ± 2.47 ± 1.80 ± 4.37 CG
Schmeisser et al. 40 weeks 22 11.86 39.45 6.92 21 9.52 ± 36.76 3.98 EG =
(2018) ± 5.42 ± 1.54 6.63 ± 7.05 CG
Eyitayo (2017) 3 weeks 33 5.73 ± 7.14 ± 0.53 33 5.12 ± 10.82 2.29 EG >
2.75 2.54 2.53 ± 2.44 CG
Gómez-García et al. 3 weeks 26 4.52 ± 6.17 ± 1.04 30 5.43 ± 7.85 ± 1.59 EG =
(2019) 1.61 1.55 1.66 1.37 CG
Wei et al. (2020) 5 weeks 44 60.00 75.52 0.66 44 60.82 88.95 1.30 EG >
± ± ± ± CG
23.82 22.68 22.93 20.10
Namaziandost & N/D 25 12.40 14.71 0.42 25 13.38 18.88 1.00 EG >
Shafiee (2018) ± 5.12 ± 5.70 ± 3.78 ± 6.72 CG
Hamdani (2019) 3 months 39 2.26 ± 2.62 ± 0.36 38 2.65 ± 2.99 ± 0.42 EG >
0.93 1.03 0.83 0.78 CG
Kumar et al. (2016) 6 weeks 41 9.12 ± 8.81 ± -0.18 41 9.49 ± 9.97 ± 0.21 EG >
1.26 2.00 1.90 2.55 CG
Mustapha (2020) 13 lessons 20 19.08 12.72 -4.50 20 19.40 16.20 -1.26 EG >
± 0.24 ± 1.98 ± 0.24 ± 3.58 CG
Overall 36,1 17.62 22.36 0.62 36,1 17.67 29.16 2.28
± ± ± ±
18.42 23.65 18.68 30.44
Overall [without 31,2 15.66 20.89 0.66 31,5 15.72 24.05 1.19
outliers] * ± ± ± ±
18.66 24.84 18.97 28.13
Higher Education
Sezer & Abay (2018)* 8 weeks 19 33.52 61.00 6.07 19 33.15 82.10 11.19 EG >
± 3.62 ± 5.28 ± 4.01 ± 4.71 CG
Robert et al. (2017) 25 hours 137 46.90 86.10 5.03 137 48.30 86.00 4.56 EG =
± 9.80 ± 5.00 ± ± 5.30 CG
10.40
Penichet et al. (2017) N/D 35 4.26 ± 6.31 ± 1.29 29 2.86 ± 8.31 ± 3.96 EG =
1.60 1.57 1.46 1.28 CG
Zheng et al. (2018) 6 months 61 38.13 76.32 3.22 76 37.36 82.30 3.91 EG =
± ± ± ± 9.39 CG
13.01 10.56 13.23
Wyk (2018) 6 months 162 58.30 69.01 1.96 209 58.77 72.15 3.59 EG =
± 3.78 ± 6.71 ± 3.15 ± 4.21 CG
Talan & Gulsecen 7 weeks 40 15.45 30.45 2.74 40 16.40 33.95 3.53 EG =
(2019) ± 4.95 ± 5.94 ± 5.27 ± 4.65 CG
Haghighi et al. (2018) 7 30 27.30 36.37 1.79 30 27.80 42.70 3.36 EG >
lessons ± 4.87 ± 5.22 ± 3.97 ± 4.85 CG
Karabatak & Polat 8 weeks 31 30.42 45.48 1.31 35 30.80 53.11 3.10 EG >
(2020) ± ± 9.55 ± 6.41 ± 7.87 CG
13.15
Lin & Hwang (2018) 18 16 17.12 19.62 1.57 33 18.60 22.12 2.36 EG >
weeks ± 1.89 ± 1.20 ± 1.69 ± 1.26 CG
Alsancak & Özdemir 3 weeks 34 57.20 72.04 1.40 32 61.80 79.41 1.95 EG >
(2018) ± ± 9.63 ± ± 7.35 CG
11.40 10.40
Kazanidis et al. (2018) 12 62 43.13 55.77 1.44 66 43.06 61.46 1.92 EG >
50
 weeks ± 5.66 ± ± 5.57 ± CG
11.02 12.33
Sommer & Ritzhaupt 15 31 3.10 ± 6.55 ± 2.64 41 3.53 ± 6.51 ± 1.88 EG =
(2018) weeks 1.51 1.06 1.87 1.23 CG
Zainuddin & Jacqueline 12 30 74.43 79.77 0.86 31 78.26 89.64 1.53 EG >
(2017) weeks ± 8.29 ± 2.67 ± 9.45 ± 4.61 CG
Chu et al. (2019) 5 hours 75 65.33 75.07 0.54 76 59.21 80.92 1.28 EG >
± ± ± ± CG
18.55 14.55 18.85 14.62
Fan et al. (2020) 6 198 5.38 ± 5.48 ± 0.15 287 5.39 ± 5.71 ± 0.53 EG >
months 0.66 0.63 0.64 0.56 CG
Hava (2018) 5 weeks 33 81.45 82.20 0.15 26 80.15 83.30 0.44 EG =
± 5.03 ± 4.84 ± 8.60 ± 5.03 CG
Knežević et al. (2020) 8 weeks 30 11.26 14.86 0.94 30 11.03 12.16 0.25 EG >
± 4.78 ± 2.51 ± 4.63 ± 4.35 CG
Foldnes (2016) 6 142 60.70 50.10 -3.16 93 62.50 63.20 0.20 EG >
months ± 2.70 ± 3.90 ± 2.70 ± 4.00 CG
Cabi (2018) 4 weeks 31 54.84 56.64 -0.10 28 58.33 55.29 -0.17 EG =
± ± ± ± CG
18.56 14.79 18.98 16.11
Overall 63 38.32 48.90 1.57 69,3 38.80 53.70 2.59
± ± ± ±
24.62 27.98 24.96 30.32
Overall [without 65,4 38.59 48.23 1.32 72,1 39.11 52.12 2.12
outliers]* ± ± ± ±
25.31 28.63 25.64 30.39

Apart from academic achievement, there is a large list of constructs that have also been considered in the
literature and are analysed below.

Table 2. Main results of the different studies that had a pre-post and control and experimental group about
different psychological constructs ordered by effect size
Construct Authors Inte. Control Group (CG) Experimental Group (EG) Results
n Pre Post d n Pre Post d
Primary Education
Self-concept Galindo- 7 weeks 437 3.95 ± 3.99 ± 0.06 385 4.03 ± 4.06 ± 0.04 EG =
Domínguez 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.64 CG
(2019)
Social climate Galindo- 7 weeks 437 4.06 ± 4.04 ± -0.03 385 4.10 ± 4.07 ± - EG =
Domínguez 0.57 0.54 0.55 0.50 0.05 CG
(2019)
Secondary Education
Motivation Ruiz (2016) 4 23 45.64 46.40 0.04 25 43.00 66.00 1.44 EG >
months ± ± ± ± CG
17.00 17.02 13.61 17.95
Engagement Ayçiçek, & 4 weeks 20 11.80 13.74 0.34 20 13.84 16.72 0.49 EG >
Yanpar, ± 5.56 ± 5.58 ± 5.90 ± 5.76 CG
(2018)
Higher Education
Self-direction Chyr et al. 6 35 3.16 ± 3.18 ± 0.10 34 3.14 ± 3.30 ± 0.73 EG >
(2017) months 0.15 0.22 0.18 0.25 CG
Hava (2018) 5 weeks 33 105.75 108.60 0.24 26 106.73 110.34 0.33 EG =
± ± ± ± CG
10.69 12.44 11.29 10.03
Self-efficacy Kurt (2017) 14 30 136.07 155.87 1.00 32 125.22 162.72 1.53 EG >
weeks ± ± ± ± CG
20.40 19.13 27.30 21.03
Chu et al. 5 hours 75 63.61 82.15 1.09 76 62.76 89.03 1.40 EG >
(2019) ± ± ± ± CG
16.39 17.52 21.66 15.19
Chyr et al. 6 35 3.95 ± 3.71 ± -0.43 34 3.83 ± 4.39 ± 1.05 EG >
(2017). months 0.40 0.67 0.50 0.56 CG
Namaziandost 14 27 23.88 23.40 -0.12 31 24.77 26.09 0.35 EG >
& Çakmak weeks ± 3.86 ± 3.65 ± 3.97 ± 3.52 CG
(2020)
Motivation Karabatak & 8 weeks 31 3.63 ± 3.53 ± 0.16 35 3.34 ± 3.70 ± 0.62 EG >

51
 Polat (2020) 0.58 0.64 0.57 0.58 CG
Metacognition Fan et al. 6 198 3.30 ± 3.52 ± 0.43 287 3.41 ± 3.59 ± 0.34 EG =
(2020) months 0.49 0.52 0.51 0.52 CG
Competitiveness Eon & Rok 6 76 3.73 ± 3.58 ± -0.15 81 3.62 ± 3.07 ± - EG <
(2018) months 1.00 0.99 0.89 0.95 0.59 CG
Cooperativeness Eon & Rok 6 76 3.54 ± 3.63 ± 0.10 81 3.50 ± 4.04 ± 0.59 EG >
(2018) months 0.79 0.90 0.82 0.99 CG
Self-regulation Hava (2018) 5 weeks 33 62.36 62.93 0.08 26 63.61 61.50 - EG =
± 6.81 ± 6.23 ± 6.15 ± 8.35 0.28 CG
Engagement Chyr et al. 6 35 4.16 ± 4.11 ± 0.10 34 4.06 ± 4.31 ± 0.60 EG >
(2017) months 0.44 0.49 0.32 0.49 CG
Anxiety Chang & 16 40 3.61 ± 3.01 ± -0.74 45 3.71 ± 2.89 ± - EG <
Koong weeks 0.84 0.78 0.75 0.67 1.15 CG
(2019)

Firstly, in relation to primary education, besides the information gathered in Table 2, Ferriz et al. (2017) revealed
that both, students who applied Flipped Classroom methodology and students who applied a more traditional
methodology significantly reduced their discouragement. Hence, based on these studies, the effectiveness of
Flipped Classroom in comparison with other methodologies in primary education does not reveal striking
findings. Nonetheless, this information should be taken carefully as only 4 pre-post with control group studies
using an ANCOVA have been analysed.

Secondly, in relation to secondary education, besides the information gathered in Table 2, Gómez-García et al.
(2019) affirm that the Flipped Classroom approach was not a more effective approach than a more traditional
methodology in order to improve students’ motivation. In this sense, further research about the impact of flipped
classroom methodology on social and emotional constructs is required as only 3 studies pre-post with control
group using an ANCOVA have been analysed in secondary education.

Thirdly, in relation to higher education, besides the information gathered in Table 2, Jian (2019) and Chang et al.
(2019) demonstrated how Flipped Classroom methodology at university fosters students’ learning motivation
more significantly than traditional approaches. In addition, Beth et al. (2016) and Jdaitawi (2019) make evident
that Flipped Classroom methodology could be more beneficial than traditional approaches in order to improve
students’ self-regulation.

Finally, there are a group of studies not included in table 1 or in table 2, which are not focused on comparing the
effectiveness of Flipped Classroom methodology in contrast of other methodologies, but they compare the
effectiveness of an adaptation of Flipped Classroom methodology against the conventional Flipped Classroom
methodology.

Thus, there is some evidence that the Flipped Classroom methodology complemented with gamification
(Aşıksoy, 2018), Reflective thinking-promoting mechanisms (Chen, 2019), RSI (Recognize, Summarize,
Inquire) approach (Chang et al., 2020), KM (Knowledge Management) models (Thongkoo, Panjaburee, &
Daungcharone, 2019) and Collective issue-quests systems (Chen & Hwang, 2019) could provide a significant
improvement on university students’ academic performance in comparison with the conventional Flipped
Classroom methodology. The same happens in the case of motivation (Liu, Sands-Meyer, & Audran, 2019;
Aşıksoy, 2018), self-regulation (Chen & Hwang, 2019), self-efficacy (Liu, Sands-Meyer, & Audran, 2019), and
self-concept, critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Chang et al., 2020) improving more significantly these
constructs on students applying the adaptation of Flipped Classroom in comparison with students applying a
more conventional approach of Flipped Classroom.

4. Discussion
The main objective of this study has been to explore the effectiveness of Flipped Classroom methodologies in
comparison with other teaching methodologies along the different stages of educational system.

As observed from the repeated measures and Figure 2, findings reveal that the Flipped Classroom could be more
beneficial than control methodologies when applied to Secondary and Higher Education students, and equally
beneficial than control methodologies when applying it to Primary Education students. These results are partially
coherent and complementary with previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews (Chen et al, 2018; Galindo-
Domínguez, 2018; Låg & Grøm, 2019) and contrary to other meta-analyses (Gillete et al., 2018). Based on this
conclusion, some considerations should be taken into account.
52
Indeed, the main benefit often commented around the flipped classroom is that students who use this
methodology are more prone to develop higher order skills under teacher guidance and peer support, due to the
fact that in-time class is more focused on cooperative learning and practical tasks (Berrett, 2012). This change
could permit teachers to develop in-class high order thinking skills, based on Bloom’s (1984) taxonomy, and to
establish a prior autonomous, but guided preparation before class working on low order thinking skills of
Bloom’s taxonomy (Hung, 2015). However, it is important to highlight other potential benefits over traditional
teaching models cited in the literature, like a more personalized teaching and learning process (O’Flaherty &
Phillips, 2015), a better management and organization of class time (Herreid, Schiller, Herreid, & Wright, 2014),
and an improvement of the responsibility of students for their own learning process (O’Flaherty & Phillips,
2015). Nonetheless, critical reviews of the Flipped Classroom have revealed that there could be problems and
future challenges related to this methodology. In this way, Lo and Hew (2017) highlight as negative points (1)
that students could not be satisfied after using this methodology because they are not familiar with it and are not
used to the routine or procedure it involves; (2) that students believe that the videos are very long and / or cannot
pay enough attention when watching them. This may be due to the boredom and passivity that they can generate;
(3) that certain students require clearer instructions from the teacher to work the practical part of the lesson in
class; (4) that, like homework, activities before class take time and this makes students be overwhelmed by work
at home; (5) that students cannot ask their doubts immediately during and after viewing the videos.

Firstly, it is thought that the effectiveness of the Flipped Classroom methodology is linked to the autonomy and
responsibility of the student, as students are required to be autonomous for the preparation of the class. From
teachers’ view, it should be highlighted that, due to students’ level of maturity and the disparity of the level of
maturity amongst students, there are difficulties when giving primary school students a great deal of freedom of
choice, and therefore, hand over to them the management of their learning process (Admiraal, Nieuwenhuis,
Kooij, Dijkstra, & Cloosterman, 2019). This could be one of the main reasons why, despite the fact that primary
education teachers foster students’ autonomy, it is complex to develop a totally autonomous learning processes
in children. In addition, in some cases, such as self-concept among others, it should be taken into account that
these constructs are considered stable constructs and require large periods of time to modify them (Galindo-
Domínguez, 2019b). It may be that for this reason, no significant differences have been found. Focusing on
Higher Education, it is true that the literature has emphasized that having the responsibility of one’s own learning
is, in some cases, more demanding and more frustrating when there is an obvious lack of structure and direction
(Boud, 1995; McKay & Emmison, 1995). However, one of the main aims university teachers attempt to foster in
their students, differently from school pupils, is to actively pursue their own autonomy in their learning progress
(Scoot, Furnell, Murphy, & Goulder, 2015; Thomas, Hockings, Ottaway, & Jones, 2015). In addition, data has
shown how final-year university students tend to have higher levels of their own progression and learning than
previous year students (Brown, 2007). In this sense, autonomy in students’ learning process could be a clear
factor that could have a significant impact on carrying out Flipped Classroom interventions, as students are
required, among other activities, to read documents, watch videos, connect to the internet, pay attention to their
tasks.

Secondly, it is though that the effectiveness of Flipped Classroom methodology is linked to the accessibility to
digital resources and the presence of a medium-high digital competence. Research from last decade (Frederick,
2002) has shown how OECD countries were divided into two groups, based on the accessibility of children to
ICT. The first group included highly developed OECD members. This group presents high ICT access rates for
children, providing them with an Internet connection and digital resources in schools that facilitate their access to
the net. Nevertheless, there was still a divided line in terms of accessibility to Internet at home caused, mainly by
socioeconomic factors, such as parents’ income. Previous literature has shown that this is the main dividing
factor (UNICEF, 2017). The second group included the least developed countries. These groups had not yet
provided ICT access to their children at school or through other means. The present context, however, has
improved in such a way that from 2006 to 2015, the percentage of children from OECD countries who had
access to the Internet at home had been significantly increased up to a 95%. Nonetheless, this situation is not
equal for countries like Mexico and Peru, where only one out of two students have access to the Internet at home
(OECD, 2017), and this figure is even worse in low-income countries, like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, where
only 1 out of 20 children under 15 year old has access to the internet (UNICEF, 2017). Based on these findings,
this fact means a limitation to the Flipped Classroom’s methodology as the resources require the need the
internet for out-of-class preparation. The lack of access to these technological resources could be more notorious
among younger students than among older students who, due to their autonomy and possibility to having a wage
that permit them to buy these devices, while the former could have more difficulties in accessing the Internet and
having a quality equipment.

Thirdly, it is thought that in Primary Education a wide variety of methodologies are commonly used, like
projects or problem-solving in comparison with other educational stages, where the traditional lecture is still one
53
of the most common methodologies used. Furthermore, previous studies have revealed that at university, around
70% of the activities in which teachers are engaged consist of traditional lectures to students and the most
common methodologies used are not active methodologies (Rutkiene, & Tandzegolskiene, 2015; Schmidt,
2010). Therefore, introducing an innovative methodology correctly, like Flipped Classroom, could lead to
positive results. This has been previously discussed in the literature, pointing out the potential benefits of active
methodologies, such as cooperative learning, experimental learning, and innovative usage of new technologies in
education, against a more traditional and passive learning style (e.g., Khan, 2008; Pedró, 2007; Uddin & Khan,
2018). On the contrary, in primary education, despite the fact that Flipped Classroom studies have considered the
control group as the group that based their intervention on a traditional methodology, against all odds, it is
extremely difficult to find a traditional class in these stages. As a large number of studies have pointed out
(Buljubašić & Petrović, 2014; Skutil, Havlíčková, & Matějíčková, 2015), in primary education and even, in
secondary education, there is a wide variety of methodologies that are commonly used, such as cooperative
learning, experiential learning, problem solving, presentations, mind maps, games and simulations, to name a
few. In this sense, it is possible that Flipped Classroom methodology could not be as effective as other
methodologies within primary education students, when other active learning methodologies are used. In
addition, it should be taken into account what Låg and Grøm (2019) claim regarding the novelty of this
methodology. In fact, as it is a recent teaching method, first-time usage of new methods may be more prone to
unexpected obstacles due to teachers’ and students’ inexperience. Hence, it would be reasonable to expect
possible significant improvements in comparison with other methodologies in the future.

Even so, these results have several theoretical and practical implications that should be highlighted. Concerning
theoretical implications, these results reveal the theories and basis behind the Flipped Classroom methodology,
as being, at least, equally effective as other teaching methodologies. This means that future studies could
gradually improve this methodology, for example, unifying a series of indicators or models that would function
as a reference to apply effective interventions in the Flipped Classroom. In addition, having shed some light on
the effectiveness of this methodology, it could help teachers to justify their teaching processes based on more
scientific evidence. Thus, it may be possible to create impact teaching programs based on this methodology and
continue assessing its effectiveness with the passage of time.

Another important idea is that, the flipped classroom is generally compared with other control methodologies
(mainly traditional methodologies). Nonetheless, it has been gradually seen how flipped classroom adaptations
are being compared with a more traditional flipped classroom model. This could be an interesting future research
line, as the results would allow the scientific community to know which complementary methodologies work in a
better way than the conventional flipped classroom.

Finally, in spite of the fact that this systematic review has been performed to the best of our possibilities, this
study has some limitations that should be taken into account when interpreting these results.

Firstly, due to the complexity of pedagogical practices, the interventions from the experimental group and the
control group could have varied. In this sense, despite the fact that the data has been clustered under the Flipped
Classroom methodology tag, in practice, teachers could have interpreted this methodology in a different way,
and they could have implemented it in a different way. The same phenomenon happens in the case of the control
group, which, in some cases, it is classified under the Control methodology tag, when in practice teachers could
have developed different practical activities, which could bias the conclusions of this study. In this sense, it is
important for future studies to try to provide a more in-depth description of the interventions carried out in the
classroom, both for interventions based on the Flipped Classroom (duration of the intervention, methodologies
used, sequencing followed, subjects in which it has been intervened, and so on), and those based on other
methodologies, and thus, be able to make the strongest possible groupings. In the case of this research, there
have been cases in which it has been impossible to know their duration, or that the duration provided has been so
short that it would be difficult to show solid changes. In this sense, it would be interesting for future research to
propose interventions of a longer duration in time (of some months or even of some years) that would allow to
attribute a greater causal relationship of the results to the methodology used.

Secondly, there are some important variables that have not been considered as they are not described within the
different studies. In this sense, personal variables like teacher’s expertise in the Flipped Classroom or contextual
variables, such as the impact of the socioeconomic context, could have a significant impact on the results. In this
sense, future studies should try to provide more contextual information about the intervention, and which may
allow the researcher to clearly analyse each study with as many significant variables as possible.

Thirdly, it should be highlighted how this study includes studies until October 2020. Recently, there is an
important interest that this topic, and this is reflected in the scientific and educational field, having as a result an
54
exponential amount of research around the subject. In this sense, it is possible that from the new studies could
have appeared before the publication of this article.

Fourthly, it should be taken into account that the conclusions of this study are based on a small number of studies
available in the current literature. That is why, future studies could repeat the same study with the same
methodology in order to compare and contrast the findings of those studies with the results of the present
research.

Fifthly, it is necessary to take into account the sample selection procedure followed in the studies. It should be
remembered that the sample selection method used is always a non-probabilistic method, and which on certain
occasions can lead to certain limitations, such as the lack of representation of certain groups over the total
population. It is a complex limitation to overcome, but it would be interesting if future studies could try to carry
out research following completely random sampling system. However, despite these limitations, this study has
some strengths. For instance, it has been the first systematic review that compares the effectiveness of Flipped
Classroom methodology in comparison to other methodologies regarding numerous constructs beyond academic
performance. In addition, the results have allowed to know how the effectiveness of this methodology could
vary depending on the educational stage taken into account, and this could be a significant contribution to the
scientific community.

Lastly, it is noteworthy to comment amongst the limitations how the content analysis process was performed
solely by the author of the article. In order to avoid subjective biases, future studies could attempt to carry out
this content analysis process with the presence of more than 1 researcher.

It is clearly important to continue investigating the effectiveness of active methodologies insofar teachers want to
base their practice on scientific evidence, leaving aside educational fashions and trends without scientific basis,
and thus, get to know which methodologies are those that work best in a specific context. Moreover, it is also
necessary to continue providing and conducting in-depth comparative research to provide teachers with effective
tools.

Acknowledgement
The author would like to express his gratitude to Dr. Donna Fernández for her assistance.

References
Admiraal, W., Nieuwenhuis, G., Kooij, Y., Dijkstra, T., & Cloosterman, I. (2019). Perceived autonomy support in primary
education in the Netherlands: Differences between teachers and their students. World Journal of Education, 9(4), 1-12.
Aşıksoy, G. (2018). The Effects of the gamified flipped classroom environment (GFCE) on students’ motivation, learning
achievements and perception in a physics course. Quality & Quantity, 52, 129-145.
Berrett, D. (2012). How “flipping” the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
58(25), 16-18.
Beth, A., Hedges, A., Benedict, N. J. & Donihi, A. (2016). Combination of a flipped classroom format and a virtual patient
case to enhance active learning in a required therapeutics course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(10), 1-
8.
Betihavas, V., Bridgman, H., Kornhaber, R., & Cross, M. (2016). The Evidence for “flipping out”: A Systematic review of
the flipped classroom in nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 38, 15-21.
Bishop, J. L. & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The Flipped classroom: A Survey of the research. In W. W. Buchanan (Pres.), 120th
ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition (pp. 1-18). ASEE.
Bloom, B.S. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Boud, D.J. (1995). Enhancing learning through self assessment. London, UK: Kogan Page.
Brown, J. (2007). Feedback: the student perspective. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 12(1), 33–51.
Buljubašić, V. & Petrović, A. (2014). Teaching and lesson design from primary and secondary teachers’ perspective. Život i
škola, 60(31), 76-90.

55
Chang, B., Chang, C., Hwang, G., & Kuo, F. (2019). A Situation-based flipped classroom to improving nursing staff
performance in advanced cardiac life support training course. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1062-1074.
Chang, C., Kao, C., & Hwang, G. (2020). Facilitating students’ critical thinking and decision making performances: A
Flipped classroom for neonatal health care training. Educational Technology & Society, 23(2), 32–46.
Chen, K., Monrouxe, L., Lu, Y., Jenq, C., Chang, Y., Chang, Y., & Chai, P. Y. (2018). Academic outcomes of flipped
classroom learning: a meta-analysis. Medical Education, 52, 910-924.
Chen, L., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Antonenko, P. (2019). Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’
learning outcomes: A Meta‑analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 793-824.
Chen, M. A. (2019). A Reflective thinking‐promoting approach to enhancing graduate students’ flipped learning engagement,
participation behaviors, reflective thinking and project learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5),
2288-2307.
Chen, P. & Hwang, G. (2019). An IRS-facilitated collective issue-quest approach to enhancing students’ learning
achievement, self-regulation and collective efficacy in flipped classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4),
1996-2013.
Cheng, S., Hwang, G., & Lai, C. (2020). Critical research advancements of flipped learning: A Review of the top 100 highly
cited papers. Interactive Learning Environments, doi:10.1080/10494820.2020.1765395
Cheung, C. & Chen, Y. (2020). Implementing the flipped classroom approach in primary English classrooms in China.
Education and Information Technologies, 25, 1217-1235.
Chyr, W.-L., Shen, P.-D., Chiang, Y.-C., Lin, J.-B., & Tsia, C.-W. (2017). Exploring the effects of online academic
helpseeking and flipped learning on improving students’ learning. Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 11–23.
Davis, C. (2013). Flipped or inverted learning: Strategies for course design. In E. G. Smyth & J. X. Volker (Eds.), Enhancing
instruction with visual media: Utilizing video and lecture capture (pp. 241-265). Pennsylvania, USA: IGI Global.
Djamàa, S. (2020). Lecture in the living room, homework in the classroom: The Effects of flipped instruction on graduate
EFL students’ exam performance. Computers in the Schools, 37(3), 141-167.
Elian, S. A. & Hamaidi, D. A. (2018). The Effect of using flipped classroom strategy on the academic achievement of fourth
grade students in Jordan. International journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(2), 110-125.
Ferriz, A., Sebastiá, S., & García, S. (2017). Clase invertida como elemento innovador en Educación Física. Efectos sobre la
motivación y la adquisición de aprendizajes en Primaria y Bachillerato [Flipped Classroom as an innovative element in
Physical Education: effects on the motivation and the acquisition of learning in Primary and Baccalaureate]. In R. Roig-Vila
(Ed.), Investigación en docencia universitaria. Diseñando el futuro a partir de la innovación educativa (pp. 211-222).
Madrid, Spain: Octaedro.
Frederick, S. (2002). The Global digital divide: Focusing on children. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law
Journal, 24(4), 477-504.
Galindo-Domínguez, H. (2018). Un meta-análisis de la metodología Flipped Classroom en el aula de Educación primaria [A
meta-analysis about flipped classroom methodology in primary education classroom]. EDUTEC, Revista Electrónica de
Tecnología Educativa, 63, 73-85.
Galindo-Domínguez, H. (2019a). Efectividad de la metodología Flipped Classroom en la mejora del clima social en el aula de
Educación Primaria [Effectiveness of the Flipped Classroom methodology in improving the social climate in the primary
education classroom]. Aloma, 37(2), 63-69.
Galindo-Domínguez, H. (2019b). Influence of flipped classroom methodology on the self-concept of primary education
students. Aloma, 37(2), 35-42.
Galindo-Domínguez, H. y Bezanilla, M. J. (2019). A Systematic review of flipped classroom methodology at university level
in Spain. Innoeduca. International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation, 5(1), 81-90.
Gillete, C., Rudolph, M., Kimble, C., Rockich-Winston, N., Smith, L., & Broedel-Zaugg, K. (2018). A Meta-analysis of
outcomes comparing flipped classroom and lecture. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 82(5), 433-440.
Gómez-García, J., Sellés, S., & Ferriz-Valero, A. (2019). Flipped Classroom Como Propuesta en la Mejora del Rendimiento
Académico y Motivación del Alumnado en Educación Física [Flipped Classroom as a Proposal to Improve the Academic
Performance and Motivation of the Pupil in Physical Education]. Revista Kronos, 18(2), 1-12.
Herreid, C. F., Schiller, N. A., Herreid, K. F., & Wright, C. B. (2014). A Chat with the survey monkey: Case studies and the
flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44, 75–80.
Hung, H. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 28(1), 81-96.

56
Jdaitawi, M. (2019). The Effect of flipped classroom strategy on students learning outcomes. International Journal of
Instruction, 12(3), 665-680.
Jian, Q. (2019). Effects of digital flipped classroom teaching method integrated cooperative learning model on learning
motivation and outcome. The Electronic Library, 37(5), 842-859.
Khan, S. (2008). An Experimental study to evaluate the effectiveness of cooperative learning versus traditional learning
method [International Islamic University]. Retrieved from http://prr.hec.gov.pk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/414/1/582S.pdf
Kumar, K., Chang, C., & Chang, C. (2016). The Impact of the flipped classroom on mathematics concept learning in high
school. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 134–142.
Kurt, G. (2017). Implementing the flipped classroom in teacher education: Evidence from Turkey. Educational Technology &
Society, 20(1), 211-221.
Låg, T. & Grøm, R. (2019). Does the flipped classroom improve student learning and satisfaction? A Systematic review and
meta-analysis. AERA Open, 5(3), 1-17.
Lage, M.J., Platt, G., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A Gateway to creating an inclusive learning
environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30-43.
Lai, T., Ting, F., Yueh, H. (2020). The Effectiveness of team-based flipped learning on a vocational high school economics
classroom. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(1), 130-141.
Lin, C.J. & Hwang, G. J. (2018). A Learning analytics approach to investigating factors affecting EFL students’ oral
performance in a flipped classroom. Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 205-219.
Liu, C., Sands-Meyer, S., & Audran, J. (2019). The Effectiveness of the student response system (SRS) in English grammar
learning in a flipped English as a foreign language (EFL) class. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1178-1191.
Lo, C. K. & Hew, K. F. (2017). A Critical review of flipped classroom challenges in K-12 education: possible solutions and
recommendations for future research. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(4). doi:10.1186/s41039-
016-0044-2
Mahmoud, I. (2020). The Impact of flipped classroom on developing Arabic speaking skills. The Asia-Pacific Education
Researcher, 29, 295-306.
Mattis, K. V. (2015). Flipped classroom versus traditional textbook instruction: Assessing accuracy and mental effort at
different levels of mathematical complexity. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20, 231-248.
Mckay, J. & Emmison, M. (1995). Using learner-centred learning (LCL) in undergraduate sociology courses. ANZ Journal of
Sociology, 31(3), 94-103.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaf, J., Altman, D. G., & Prisma Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews
and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
Novak, G.M. (2011). Just-in-time teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(128), 63-73.
O’Flaherty, J. & Phillips, C. (2015). The Use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A Scoping review. The Internet and
Higher Education, 25, 85-95.
OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’ Well-being. OECD Publishing.
Pedró, F. (2005). Comparing traditional and ICT-enriched university teaching methods: Evidence from two empirical studies.
Higher Education in Europe, 30(3), 399-411.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A Review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
Rutkiene, A. & Tandzegolskiene, I. (2015). Students’ attitude towards learning methods for self-sufficiency development in
higher education. In V. Lubkina & S. Usca (Eds), Society. Integration. Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific
Conference (pp. 348-357). Rēzekne, Latvia: Rēzeknes Augstskola.
Schmidt, H. G., Cohen, J., Van der Molen, H. T., Splinter, T. W., Bulte, J., Holdrinet, R., Van Rossum, H. J. (2010).
Learning more by being taught less: A “time-for-self-study” theory explaining curricular effects on graduation rate and study
duration. Higher Education, 60, 287-300.
Scott, G. W., Furnell, J., Murphy, C. M., & Goulder, R. (2015). Teacher and student perceptions of the development of
learner autonomy: A Case study in the biological sciences. Studies in Higher Education, 40(6), 945–956.
Skutil, M., Havlíčková, K., Matějíčková, R. (2015). Teaching methods in primary education from the teacher’s point of view.
In I. Önder (Pres.), ERPA International Congress on Education (pp. 26). Les Ulis Cedex, France: SHS Web of Conferences.
Thomas, L., Hockings, C., Ottaway, J., & Jones, R. (2015). Independent learning: students’ perspectives and experiences.
London, UK: Higher Education Academy.

57
Thongkoo, K., Panjaburee, P., & Daungcharone, K. (2019). Integrating inquiry learning and knowledge management into a
flipped classroom to improve students’ web programming performance in higher education. Knowledge Management & E-
Learning, 11(3), 304-324.
Uddin, F. & Khan, N. (2018). Comparing traditional teaching method and experiential teaching method using experimental
research. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 5(2), 276-288.
UNICEF (2017). Children in a digital world. New York, NY: UNICEF publications.
Uzunboylu, H. & Karagözlü, D. (2017). The Emerging trend of the flipped classroom: A Content analysis of published
articles between 2010 and 2015. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 54, 1-13.
Wasserman, N. H., Quint, C., Norris, S. A., & Carr, T. (2017). Exploring flipped classroom instruction in calculus III.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 545-568.
Wei, X., Cheng, L., Chen, N., Yang, X., Liu, Y., Dong, Y., Zhai, X. & Chatterjee, K. (2020). Effect of the flipped classroom
on the mathematics performance of middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1461-
1484.

Appendix: List of references from the systematic review

Alsancak, D. & Özdemir, S. (2018). The Effect of a flipped classroom model on academic achievement, self-directed learning
readiness, motivation and retention. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6(1), 76-91.
Aşıksoy, G. (2018). The Effects of the gamified flipped classroom environment (GFCE) on students’ motivation, learning
achievements and perception in a physics course. Quality & Quantity, 52, 129-145.
Ayçiçek, B. & Yanpar, T. (2018). The Effect of flipped classroom model on students’ classroom engagement in teaching
English. International journal of Instruction, 11(2), 385-398.
Beth, A., Hedges, A., Benedict, N. J. & Donihi, A. (2016). Combination of a flipped classroom format and a virtual patient
case to enhance active learning in a required therapeutics course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(10), 1-
8.
Cabi, E. (2018). The Impact of the flipped classroom model on students’ academic achievement. International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3), 1-21.
Chang, B., Chang., C.,Hwang, G., & Kuo, F. (2019). A Situation-based flipped classroom to improving nursing staff
performance in advanced cardiac life support training course. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1062-1074.
Chang, C. & Koong, H. (2019). Classroom interaction and learning anxiety in the IRSIntegrated flipped language classrooms.
Asia-Pacific Edu Res, 28(3), 193-201.
Chang, C., Kao, C., & Hwang, G. (2020). Facilitating students’ critical thinking and decision making performances: A
Flipped classroom for neonatal health care training. Educational Technology & Society, 23(2), 32–46.
Chen, M. A. (2019). A Reflective thinking‐promoting approach to enhancing graduate students’ flipped learning engagement,
participation behaviors, reflective thinking and project learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5),
2288-2307.
Chen, P. & Hwang, G. (2019). An IRS-facilitated collective issue-quest approach to enhancing students’ learning
achievement, self-regulation and collective efficacy in flipped classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4),
1996-2013.
Cheung, C. & Chen, Y. (2020). Implementing the flipped classroom approach in primary English classrooms in China.
Education and Information Technologies, 25, 1217-1235.
Chu, T., Wang, J., Monrouxe, L., Sung, Y., Kuo, C., Ho, L., Lin, Y. (2019). The Effects of the flipped classroom in teaching
evidence based nursing: A Quasi-experimental study. Plos ONE, 14(1), 1-12.
Chyr, W.-L., Shen, P.-D., Chiang, Y.-C., Lin, J.-B., & Tsia, C.-W. (2017). Exploring the effects of online academic
helpseeking and flipped learning on improving students’ learning. Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 11–23.
Craft, E. & Linask, M. (2020). Learning effects of the flipped classroom in a principles of microeconomics course. The
Journal of Economic Education, 51(1), 1-18.
Djamàa, S. (2020). Lecture in the living room, homework in the classroom: The Effects of flipped instruction on graduate
EFL students’ exam performance. Computers in the Schools, 37(3), 141-167.
Elian, S. A. & Hamaidi, D. A. (2018). The Effect of using flipped classroom strategy on the academic achievement of fourth
grade students in Jordan. International journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(2), 110-125.

58
Eon, J. & Rok, H. (2018). The Impact of flipped learning on cooperative and competitive mindsets. Sustainability, 10, 79.
Eyitayo, E. (2017). The Effects of a flipped classroom model of instruction on students’ performance and attitudes towards
chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26, 127-137.
Fan, J., Tseng, Y., Chao, L., Chen, S., & Jane, S. (2020). Learning outcomes of a flipped classroom teaching approach in an
adult-health nursing course: A Quasi-experimental study. BMC Medical Education, 20, 317.
Ferriz, A., Sebastiá, S., & García, S. (2017). Clase invertida como elemento innovador en Educación Física. Efectos sobre la
motivación y la adquisición de aprendizajes en Primaria y Bachillerato [Flipped Classroom as an innovative element in
Physical Education: effects on the motivation and the acquisition of learning in Primary and Baccalaureate]. In R. Roig-Vila
(Ed.), Investigación en docencia universitaria. Diseñando el futuro a partir de la innovación educativa (pp. 211-222).
Madrid, Spain: Octaedro.
Foldnes, N. (2016). The Flipped classroom and cooperative learning: Evidence from a randomised experiment. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 39-49.
Galindo-Domínguez, H. (2019a). Efectividad de la metodología Flipped Classroom en la mejora del clima social en el aula de
Educación Primaria [Effectiveness of the Flipped Classroom methodology in improving the social climate in the primary
education classroom]. Aloma, 37(2), 63-69.
Galindo-Domínguez, H. (2019). Influence of Flipped Classroom methodology on the self-concept of primary education
students. Aloma, 37(2), 35-42.
Gómez-García, J., Sellés, S., & Ferriz-Valero, A. (2019). Flipped Classroom Como Propuesta en la Mejora del Rendimiento
Académico y Motivación del Alumnado en Educación Física [Flipped Classroom as a Proposal to Improve the Academic
Performance and Motivation of the Pupil in Physical Education]. Revista Kronos, 18(2), 1-12.
Haghighi, H., Jafarigohar, M., Khoshsima, H., & Vahdany, F. (2018). Impact of flipped classroom on EFL learners’
appropriate use of refusal: Achievement, participation, perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(3), 261-293.
Hava, K. (2018). The Impact of digital citizenship instruction through flipped classroom model on various variables.
Contemporary educational technology, 9(4), 390-404.
Hwang, G. & Lai, C. (2017). Facilitating and bridging out-of-class and in-class learning: An Interactive e-book-based flipped
learning approach for math courses. Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 184–197.
Jdaitawi, M. (2019). The Effect of flipped classroom strategy on students learning outcomes. International Journal of
Instruction, 12(3), 665-680.
Jian, Q. (2019). Effects of digital flipped classroom teaching method integrated cooperative learning model on learning
motivation and outcome. The electronic Library, 37(5), 842-859.
Jiménez-Millán, A. & Domínguez, J. (2018). Análisis de la eficacia del enfoque flipped learning en la enseñanza de la lengua
española en educación primaria [Analysis of the effectiveness of the flipped learning approach in the teaching of Spanish in
primary education]. Didacticae, 4, 85-107.
Karabatak, S. & Polat, H. (2020). The Effects of the flipped classroom model designed according to the ARCS motivation
strategies on the students’ motivation and academic achievement levels. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 1475-
1495.
Kazanidis, I., Pellas, N., Fotaris, P., & Tsinakos, A. (2018). Can the flipped classroom model improve students’ academic
performance and training satisfaction in Higher Education instructional media design courses? British Journal of Educational
Technology, 50(4), 2014-2027.
Kırmızı, Ö., & Kömeç, F. (2019). The Impact of the flipped classroom on receptive and productive vocabulary learning.
Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 437-449.
Knežević, L., Županec, V. & Radulović, B. (2020). Flipping the classroom to enhance academic vocabulary learning in an
English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Course. Sage Open. doi:10.1177/2158244020957052
Kumar, K., Chang, C., & Chang, C. (2016). The Impact of the flipped classroom on mathematics concept learning in high
school. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 134–142.
Kurt, G. (2017). Implementing the flipped classroom in teacher education: Evidence from Turkey. Educational Technology &
Society, 20(1), 211-221.
Lai, T., Ting, F., Yueh, H. (2020). The Effectiveness of team-based flipped learning on a vocational high school economics
classroom. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(1), 130-141.
Lin, C., Hwang, G., Fu, Q. & Chen, J. (2018). A Flipped contextual game-based learning approach to enhancing EFL
students’ English business writing performance and reflective behaviors. Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 117–131.

59
 Lin, C.J. & Hwang, G. J. (2018). A Learning analytics approach to investigating factors affecting EFL students’ oral
performance in a flipped classroom. Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 205-219.
Liu, C., Sands-Meyer, S., & Audran, J. (2019). The Effectiveness of the student response system (SRS) in English grammar
learning in a flipped English as a foreign language (EFL) class. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1178-1191.
Lo, C. K. & Hew, K. F. (2017). A Critical review of flipped classroom challenges in K-12 education: possible solutions and
recommendations for future research. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(4). doi:10.1186/s41039-
016-0044-2
Mahmoud, I. (2020). The Impact of flipped classroom on developing Arabic speaking skills. The Asia-Pacific Education
Researcher, 29, 295-306.
Mattis, K. V. (2015). Flipped classroom versus traditional textbook instruction: Assessing accuracy and mental effort at
different levels of mathematical complexity. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20, 231-248.
Mustapha, H. (2020). Flipped classroom as a supporting plan for Iranian EFL learners’ English improvement in super
intensive courses. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(9), 1101-1105.
Namaziandost, E. & Çakmak, F. (2020). An Account of EFL learners’ self-efficacy and gender in the Flipped Classroom
Model. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 4041-4055.
Namaziandost, E. & Shafiee, S. (2018). The Effect of implementing flipped classrooms on iranian junior high school
students’ reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(6), 665-673.
Penichet-Tomas, A., Jimenez-Olmedo, J. M., Pueo, B., & Carbonell-Martínez, J. A. (2017). Content learning in primary
education degree by means of flipped classroom. In L. Gónez., A. López., & I. Candel (Eds.), EDUlearn 17: 9th international
conference on education and new lerning technologies (pp. 3900-3905). Barcelona, Spain: IATED Academy.
Robert, F. et al. (2017). Randomized controlled study of a remote flipped classroom neuro-otology curriculum. Frontiers in
Neurology, 8, 349.
Ruiz, J. L. (2016). El efecto del flipped classroom en la motivación por el aprendizaje del inglés como lengua extranjera en
estudiantes de nivel pre-intermedio. AtoZ: novas práticas em informação e conhecimento, 5(2), 104-114.
Schmeisser, C. M. & Medina-Talavera, J. A. (2018). Estudio comparativo entre metodología de aula invertida y metodología
tradicional en clases de español, inglés y matemáticas. MLS-Educational Research, 2(2), 159-176.
Sezer, B., & Abay, E. (2018). Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model in medical education. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 63(6), 853-868.
Sommer, M. & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2018). Impact of the flipped classroom on learner achievement and satisfaction in an
undergraduate technology literacy course. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research. Journal of Information
Technology Education: Research, 17, 159-182.
Souza, M. J. & Rodrigues, P. (2015). Investigating the effectiveness of the flipped classroom in an introductory programming
course. The New educational review, 40(2), 129-139.
Talan, T. & Gulsecen, S. (2019). The Effect of a flipped classroom on students’ achievements, academic engagement and
satisfaction levels. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(4), 31-60.
Thongkoo, K., Panjaburee, P., & Daungcharone, K. (2019). Integrating inquiry learning and knowledge management into a
flipped classroom to improve students’ web programming performance in higher education. Knowledge Management & E-
Learning, 11(3), 304-324.
Wasserman, N. H., Quint, C., Norris, S. A., & Carr, T. (2017). Exploring flipped classroom instruction in calculus III.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 545-568.
Wei, X., Cheng, L., Chen, N., Yang, X., Liu, Y., Dong, Y., Zhai, X. & Chatterjee, K. (2020). Effect of the flipped classroom
on the mathematics performance of middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1461-
1484.
Wyk, M. M. (2018). Flipping the economics class in a teacher education course. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24,
373-399.
Ye, X., Chang, Y., & Lai, C. (2019). An Interactive problem-posing guiding approach to bridging and facilitating pre- and in-
class learning for flipped classrooms. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1075-1092.
Zainuddin, Z. & Jacqueline, C. (2017). Exploring students’ competence, autonomy and relatedness in the flipped classroom
pedagogical model. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(1), 115-126.
Zheng, M., Chu, C., Jim, Y., Gou, W. (2018). The Mapping of on-line learning to flipped classroom: Small private online
course. Sustainability, 10(3), 748.

60

View publication stats