1. Introduction
There has been a rapid increase in the use of instructional approaches that blend online and face-to-face delivery to promote student-centered, active learning (Al-Samarraie et al., 2020). Among these blended models, the flipped classroom (also referred to as the inverted classroom) has gained significant attention in higher education, particularly within business schools (Strelan et al., 2020; Wolfe, 2020; Yamarik, 2019). Although specific implementations vary (DeLozier & Rhodes, 2017; Picault, 2019), there is general consensus that a flipped classroom comprises two core components: an asynchronous online learning phase, during which students acquire foundational subject knowledge through self-regulated engagement with course materials prior to class; and a synchronous face-to-face learning phase, during which students participate in interactive learning activities (Cheng et al., 2019; Yilmaz & Baydas, 2017). A central feature of the flipped classroom involves transforming traditional in-person lectures into an online format to free up class time for active learning experiences (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015; Cheng et al., 2019). Compared to conventional teaching methods, flipped classrooms offer the potential to enhance student learning by balancing pre-class, self-directed study with in-class, instructor-led engagement. Indeed, several meta-analyses across disciplines have reported positive outcomes associated with flipped classroom implementations (Al-Samarraie et al., 2020; Strelan et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2019).
Although the flipped classroom concept offers potentially unique pedagogical advantages compared to traditional approaches, its effectiveness from a learning standpoint relies heavily on students’ pre-class preparation and in-class participation (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015; Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018). Both components are essential and engage distinct types of learning. For example, using Bloom’s taxonomy, Huang and Lin (2017) and Lo (2018) argued that pre-class preparation entails lower-order cognitive processes in terms of remembering and understanding, whereas in-class participation fosters higher-order learning through the application, analysis, evaluation, and creation of knowledge. Accordingly, some researchers have emphasized the importance of pre-class preparation (e.g., Price & Walker, 2021; J. N. Walsh & Rísquez, 2020), while others have highlighted the benefits of in-class engagement, including direct interaction with the instructor, real-time feedback and guidance, and collaborative peer learning (Al-Samarraie et al., 2020; Yamarik, 2019). Even so, simply shifting lectures to an online format and prioritizing interactive learning during class time does not guarantee that students will be sufficiently motivated to commit to both preparatory and participatory tasks. For instance, Becker and Proud (2018) found that fewer than 50% of students across three business courses accessed all assigned instructional videos before class. Similarly, in a flipped Introduction to Management course, Fadol et al. (2018) reported a student absence rate of 20.6%, significantly higher than that in the traditional lecture-based version. Additionally, a group of instructors teaching various business and professional communication courses identified the most significant drawback of the flipped classroom model as students’ tendency to neglect out-of-class assignments, rendering them ill-prepared for the in-class learning experience (Hall & DuFrene, 2016).
Overall, despite a growing body of literature on student learning experiences and outcomes in flipped classrooms (Kantanen et al., 2019), comparatively less attention has been devoted to the critical roles of student pre-class preparation and in-class participation. In the business education literature in particular, these components are frequently overlooked or taken for granted in discussions of successful flipped classroom implementation. Consequently, scholars have called for further research into the antecedents and consequences of students’ pre-class preparation and in-class engagement in flipped learning environments (e.g., Beenan & Arbaugh, 2019; Price & Walker, 2021; J. N. Walsh & Rísquez, 2020). Moreover, it is widely acknowledged in higher education that students’ perceived usefulness of out-of-class and/or in-class learning tasks can influence their subsequent participation (Kantanen et al., 2019; Leaper, 2011; Sletten, 2017). Nevertheless, limited empirical evidence exists on how students’ perceived usefulness of the online and in-class components of flipped classrooms affects their pre-class preparation, in-class participation, and overall learning outcomes.
The primary objective of this paper is to bridge the identified gaps within the current literature. In doing so, it seeks to make two key contributions. First, this paper offers an extensive review of flipped classroom research, focusing on student pre-class preparation and in-class participation. This review provides a comprehensive overview of current studies on the factors that influence and result from these behaviors, serving as a critical step towards a deeper understanding of student learning in flipped classroom environments. Second, this paper proposes and empirically tests, through the lens of expectancy-value theory and cognitive load theory, a framework elucidating how the perceived usefulness of online and in-class components motivates business students to engage in pre-class preparation and in-class participation. This framework ultimately aims to explain how such motivation contributes to students’ perceived learning and skills development. In this context, usefulness is defined as the extent to which students believe that each component contributes to learning a given subject and leads to stronger academic performance. Empirical findings reveal statistically significant relationships between students’ perceived usefulness of the online component and their pre-class preparation, and between their pre-class preparation and perceived learning and skills development. Understanding student perceptions in these areas is essential, given their demonstrated positive association with learning outcomes (Garnjost & Lawter, 2019; Taber, 2019).
The overall structure of the paper is as follows. It begins with a comprehensive review of the literature on the antecedents and consequences of student pre-class preparation and in-class participation in flipped classroom settings, followed by the introduction of a conceptual framework. Aligned with this framework, seven hypotheses are formulated. An empirical study designed to test these hypotheses is subsequently presented, along with a discussion of practical implications and directions for future research.
2. Literature Review
Flipped classrooms have been widely adopted in the teaching of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines, demonstrating considerable success in terms of student learning experiences and outcomes (Al-Samarraie et al., 2020; Balaban et al., 2016). By contrast, there is ongoing debate regarding the extent to which this approach positively influences teaching and learning in business education (Price & Walker, 2021; Yamarik, 2019). Beyond fundamental differences in curriculum and course objectives, a key distinction between STEM and business education lies in the latter’s typically more inductive nature, wherein lectures are used to convey theoretical knowledge with the aim of encouraging students to adopt a more academic approach to their professional practices (Hung, 2015; A. Walsh & Powell, 2020). Indeed, a meta-analysis of 198 flipped classroom studies across various disciplines revealed that learning outcomes among business students were significantly lower than those observed in STEM fields (Strelan et al., 2020). Overall, the success of flipped classrooms in business schools appears more equivocal. Despite their centrality in STEM-based flipped classroom environments, the roles of pre-class preparation and in-class participation have been underexamined within business education contexts (Beric-Stojsic et al., 2020; Dombrowski et al., 2018; Hanson, 2016).
2.1. Antecedents and Consequences of Business Students’ Pre-Class Preparation
As noted earlier, the implementation of the flipped classroom concept has grown exponentially in business schools, encompassing a wide range of subjects, including accounting (Williams et al., 2019), business communication (Sherrow et al., 2016), business decision-making (Swart & Wuensch, 2016), business law (Murray et al., 2019), cross-cultural management (Desai et al., 2018), economics (Picault, 2019), finance (Lopes & Soares, 2018), human resource management (Huang & Lin, 2017), knowledge management (J. N. Walsh & Rísquez, 2020), management information systems (Adkins, 2014), marketing (Scovotti, 2016), organizational behavior (Beenan & Arbaugh, 2019), and operations management (Asef, 2015).
Several antecedents to business students’ pre-class preparation in flipped classroom settings have been identified. Fadol et al. (2018) found that students with high absence rates in a flipped Introduction to Management course accessed online course materials less frequently than those with low absence rates. Gelan et al. (2018) reported a positive association between students’ performance on oral examinations and the effort they invested in pre-class preparation during a flipped Business French course. In this context, effort was measured by the time spent studying online learning sessions, the number of online materials reviewed, and the timeliness of accessing those sessions. In a flipped Knowledge Management course, J. N. Walsh and Rísquez (2020) found that students’ pre-class preparation, indicated by the frequency and timeliness of accessing online video lectures, varied according to gender and language profile. In a flipped Organizational Behavior course, Beenan and Arbaugh (2019, p. 4) found that students’ autonomous motivation orientation, defined as a tendency to “focus effort and attention on activities that enhance learning,” positively influenced their out-of-class preparation, measured by the time spent watching online video lectures. Becker and Proud (2018) investigated three flipped statistics and econometrics courses and found that students’ pre-class preparation, assessed via self-reported frequency of accessing online videos and time spent on problem-solving tasks, was positively linked to their preference for the flipped classroom over traditional methods. However, in flipped Leisure Services and Hospitality Management courses, Xiu and Thompson (2020) found that students’ use of online course materials was unrelated to their motivational beliefs, including perceived control of learning, self-efficacy, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and task value.
Regarding the consequences of pre-class preparation, Adkins (2014) reported that students in a flipped Management Information Systems course who engaged more with pre-class materials (e.g., reading texts, listening to audio lectures, completing quizzes) achieved higher scores on subsequent in-class quizzes. Similarly, in a flipped Introduction to Management course, Fadol et al. (2018) observed a positive relationship between the frequency with which students accessed online lecture materials and their overall course grades.
2.2. Antecedents and Consequences of Business Students’ In-Class Participation
Three studies have examined the antecedents of students’ in-class participation within the context of flipped business courses. Becker and Proud (2018) found that pre-class preparation, measured by the self-reported frequency of accessing online teaching videos and the time spent working on problem-solving questions, was positively associated with in-class attendance. In a flipped International Economics course, Yamarik (2019) reported a negative association between students’ midterm exam scores and their subsequent in-class attendance, suggesting that some students may have perceived attendance as nonessential to their academic performance. Regarding personal characteristics, Beenan and Arbaugh (2019) found that students’ autonomous motivation orientation was unrelated to their self-reported participation in team-based in-class activities.
The impact of in-class participation in flipped learning environments is generally evident, with studies in disciplines such as Principles of Economics (Balaban et al., 2016), Introductory Microeconomics (Calimeris, 2018), and Managerial Accounting Principles (Downen & Hyde, 2016) demonstrating a positive relationship between student attendance in face-to-face sessions and academic outcomes. However, Yamarik (2019) reported a negative correlation between class attendance after the midterm exam and students’ final exam scores.
3. A Framework of the Flipped Classroom and Associated Hypotheses
Several theoretical frameworks have been proposed to explain the anticipated pedagogical advantages of the flipped classroom model. These include adult learning theory (Pence, 2016), constructivism theory (Sohrabi & Iraj, 2016), learning space theory (Burford & Chan, 2017), levels of processing theory (He et al., 2018), psychological contract theory (Beenan & Arbaugh, 2019), and transactional distance theory (Swart & Wuensch, 2016). Additionally, to understand students’ learning experiences and outcomes in flipped classrooms, researchers have applied cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988), expectancy-value theory (Eccles et al., 1983), goal-setting theory (Schwarzenberg & Navón, 2020), priming theory (Strelan et al., 2020), self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), and self-efficacy theory (McCord & Jeldes, 2019). Among these, two theoretical perspectives are especially pertinent to the objectives of this study. First, expectancy-value theory addresses the perceived usefulness of a learning task in relation to subsequent engagement. Second, cognitive load theory provides insight into the potential positive effects of the flipped classroom model on students’ perceptions of learning (M. A. Chen et al., 2019; Haghighi et al., 2019). As elaborated below, these two perspectives inform the framework presented in Figure 1.
3.1. Perceived Usefulness, Pre-Class Preparation, and In-Class Participation
Expectancy-value theory posits that learners are more likely to engage in a learning task when they both expect to succeed and perceive the task as valuable (Eccles et al., 1983; Leaper, 2011). Learning tasks carry at least two dimensions of value: intrinsic value, which refers to the enjoyment derived from the task itself, and extrinsic value, which relates to the task’s perceived usefulness in achieving future goals (cf. Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Applied to online learning in the flipped classroom (OFC) context, students’ perceptions of the usefulness of OFC activities may depend on their beliefs about both intrinsic and extrinsic values. Specifically, students are likely to regard OFC as useful if they believe it facilitates subject mastery (intrinsic value) and contributes to higher test performance (extrinsic value). Wigfield and Eccles (2000) further argued that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations shape learners’ perceptions of value. Intrinsic motivation reflects the extent to which an activity is inherently interesting or enjoyable, whereas extrinsic motivation concerns its implications for external rewards or outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to Abeysekera and Dawson (2015), flipped classroom pedagogy fosters both forms of motivation by satisfying key psychological needs: autonomy (the desire of the self to be in control), competence (the desire to be competent in interacting with the environment), and relatedness (the desire to be attached to a social group). Building on this perspective, students’ intrinsic motivation to engage with OFC may increase when the approach is perceived as enjoyable, conducive to learning, and supportive of autonomy and competence. Similarly, extrinsic motivation may be enhanced when OFC is seen as instrumental in improving academic performance, which would further reinforce feelings of autonomy and competence. Overall, students’ perceived usefulness of OFC is expected to positively influence their pre-class preparatory efforts, as these perceptions foster both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to engage with online course materials.
Students’ perceived usefulness of OFC is positively associated with their pre-class preparation.
The concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are also applicable in explaining variations in students’ perceived usefulness of in-class participation within the flipped classroom (IFC). Specifically, the motivation to attend in-person classes may be enhanced when attendance is perceived as beneficial for learning and as contributing to autonomy and competence (intrinsic motivation), as well as when it is viewed as instrumental in improving test performance (extrinsic motivation). Intrinsic motivation may be further strengthened by students’ sense of relatedness, developed through active engagement with instructors and peers during classroom activities (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015). Indeed, all three psychological needs (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness) may be supported through IFC experiences (Strelan et al., 2020).
Students’ perceived usefulness of IFC is positively associated with their in-class participation.
The perceived usefulness of OFC is grounded in the premise that pre-class preparation facilitates the acquisition of subject-matter knowledge, which is subsequently deepened through in-class participation. Ideally, students’ pre-class preparation provides a foundational understanding, enabling meaningful engagement with instructors and peers (Day & Foley, 2006). This engagement, in turn, fosters feelings of competence, autonomy, and relatedness, which are key psychological needs supporting effective IFC. This expectation is consistent with empirical findings demonstrating a positive relationship between pre-class preparation and in-class participation (Becker & Proud, 2018; Fadol et al., 2018).
Students’ pre-class preparation is positively associated with their in-class participation.
3.2. Pre-Class Preparation, In-Class Participation, Perceived Learning, and Skills Development
Cognitive load theory posits that human working memory is significantly limited in both duration and capacity, making cognitive overload a common occurrence across various learning contexts (Sweller, 1988). When cognitive resources are directed toward processing extraneous information, fewer remain available for the deep comprehension and generalization necessary for sustained learning (C. Chen & Yen, 2021). This theory is particularly relevant to the flipped classroom model. For instance, Comber and Brady-Van den Bos (2018) and He et al. (2018) argue that the self-regulated nature of online learning enables students to manage their working memory more effectively, thereby reducing cognitive overload. From this viewpoint, self-regulated engagement with online learning resources is posited to enhance the storage and retention of subject-matter knowledge more efficiently than traditional lecture-based instruction. This advantage stems from the ability to review materials repeatedly and in ways that align with individual learning preferences. Consequently, cognitive overload is minimized, promoting enhanced learning outcomes and skills development (see Figure 1). Supporting this view, students’ pre-class preparation in flipped classroom settings has been positively associated with perceived learning in Pharmacology (Hanson, 2016) and skills development in Otorhinolaryngology (Dombrowski et al., 2018).
Students’ pre-class preparation is positively associated with (H4a) their perceived learning and (H4b) their skills development.
Cognitive load theory also carries important implications for in-class participation. As illustrated in Figure 1, during the face-to-face component of the flipped classroom, instructors can tailor active learning strategies to accommodate varying levels of student knowledge, thereby helping to prevent cognitive overload (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015; Çakiroğlu et al., 2020). Consequently, students’ in-class participation is expected to contribute positively to both learning outcomes and skills development. This expectation is supported by empirical evidence: student participation has been shown to positively influence perceived learning (e.g., Beric-Stojsic et al., 2020, in a flipped medicine course) and course performance (e.g., Downen & Hyde, 2016, in a flipped managerial accounting course).
Students’ in-class participation is positively associated with (H5a) their perceived learning and (H5b) their skills development.
4. Method
4.1. Participants
The study was conducted in conjunction with a 15-week flipped course in Organizational Behavior (OB), offered as part of a business diploma program at a publicly funded college in Eastern Canada. A total of 106 students enrolled in the Winter 2016 semester were invited to complete a questionnaire during class sessions held between Weeks 13 and 15. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Eighty-seven students completed the questionnaire; five responses with incomplete data were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 82 students (a 77% response rate). Approximately 80% of respondents were under 25 years of age, 54% were in the first year of the program, and gender distribution was nearly even, with 52% identifying as male.
4.2. Course Design
The course was designed to provide an overview of Organizational Behavior (OB) theories and principles, along with their application in a business context. It included both an asynchronous online curriculum module and a synchronous in-class component. The online flipped classroom portion (OFC) delivered in-depth explanations of OB concepts and theories through pre-recorded video lectures, assigned readings, and practice quizzes. This content was published weekly on the Blackboard learning platform. Each week, students were expected to spend 30–45 min preparing for the upcoming two-hour in-person class by reviewing the online materials.
During the in-class session (IFC), the instructor began with a brief review of the intended learning outcomes. Students then engaged in interactive group work using active learning strategies such as discussions, case studies, role plays, and simulations. The instructor circulated throughout the classroom to consult with groups, respond to questions, and provide support as needed. Each session concluded with a short quiz designed to assess students’ understanding of the intended learning outcomes. Table 1 outlines the weekly course content, and the assessments used to evaluate student performance.
4.3. Instruments
The primary research variables included students’ perceived usefulness of both OFC and IFC, and their level of pre-class preparation and in-class attendance, as well as their perceived learning and skills development. Unless otherwise specified, responses were collected using a five-point Likert-type scale (4 = Strongly Agree; 3 = Moderately Agree; 2 = Moderately Disagree; 1 = Strongly Disagree; 0 = Not Sure). The internal reliability of the measurement items was validated through a pilot study involving 73 students enrolled in the same flipped Organizational Behavior course during the Winter 2015 semester.
4.3.1. Perceived Usefulness of OFC/IFC
Six items (see Table 2), adapted from instruments developed by Moran and Milsom (2015) and Yoshida (2016), were used to evaluate students’ perceived usefulness of OFC. These adaptations were necessary because, at the time of data collection, no single scale encompassed all relevant aspects of online learning (e.g., PowerPoint presentations, video lectures, and online quizzes). Item means were calculated, with higher scores indicating greater perceived usefulness. The internal consistency of this scale was acceptable, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85.
Students’ perceived usefulness of IFC was assessed using four modified items from Moran and Milsom (2015). Again, mean scores were calculated, with higher scores reflecting higher perceived usefulness. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.82.
4.3.2. Pre-Class Preparation
Following the methodologies of Fadol et al. (2018) and Pejuan and Antonijuan (2019), a single self-reported item was used to assess students’ pre-class preparation: “On average, how many minutes did you read and study in-class materials prior to coming to class?” Responses were collected using a six-point scale: 0 = 10 min or less; 1 = 10–30 min; 2 = 30–60 min; 3 = 60–90 min; 4 = 90–120 min; 5 = 120 min or more.
4.3.3. In-Class Attendance
In line with Becker and Proud (2018) and Fadol et al. (2018), a single self-reported item was used to assess students’ in-class attendance: “On average, how often did you attend the classes in this course?” Responses were recorded using a four-point scale: 3 = Once a week; 2 = Twice a month; 1 = Once a month; 0 = Less than once a month.
4.3.4. Perceived Learning
At the time of data collection, no single scale existed to assess all targeted dimensions of student learning, such as understanding concepts, theories, and principles; enhancing personal development; and applying acquired knowledge. Consequently, five modified items (see Table 2) were adapted from instruments developed by Kim et al. (2014), Sinouvassane and Nalini (2016), and Wong et al. (2014). mean scores were calculated, with higher scores indicating greater levels of perceived learning. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.85.
4.3.5. Perceived Skills Development
Based on the learning objectives of the flipped Organizational Behavior (OB) course, six items were developed to assess students’ perceived skills development (see Table 2). Mean scores were calculated, with higher values indicating greater levels of perceived skills development. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.86.
4.3.6. Control Variables
J. N. Walsh and Rísquez (2020) found that students’ gender was associated with the level of pre-class preparation effort, while Beric-Stojsic et al. (2020) examined gender as a predictor of in-class participation in the flipped classroom. Accordingly, gender was controlled for in the data analysis (0 = Male; 1 = Female). Students’ learning habits have also been shown to influence learning behavior in both traditional lecture-based courses and online learning environments (Hung, 2015; Yang et al., 2018). To assess these habits, ten items originally developed by Biggs et al. (2001) were adapted. These items were designed to evaluate surface learning, a habit characterized by the pursuit of narrow academic goals with minimal effort. A five-point Likert-type scale was used (4 = Strongly Agree; 3 = Moderately Agree; 2 = Moderately Disagree; 1 = Strongly Disagree; 0 = Not Sure), and mean scores were calculated such that higher values reflected stronger tendencies toward negative learning habits. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.89.
4.4. Data Analysis Approach
SPSS 26.0 was utilized for all data analyses. To examine the construct validity of the ten items measuring the perceived usefulness of OFC and IFC, as well as the eleven items evaluating perceived learning and skills development, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with oblique rotation (direct oblimin; Meyers et al., 2006) was performed. Bivariate correlations and hierarchical multiple regression analyses were subsequently conducted to explore the relationships among the research variables.
5. Results
5.1. Construct Validity Test
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with direct oblimin rotation, conducted on items related to OFC and IFC, revealed two distinct factors, as intended (see Table 2). Specifically, six items measuring the perceived usefulness of OFC loaded significantly onto Factor 1 (factor loadings ranged from 0.84 to 0.56), while four items assessing the perceived usefulness of IFC loaded significantly onto Factor 2 (loadings ranged from 0.86 to 0.65). As expected, the two factors were moderately correlated (r = 0.53). A second EFA, also using direct oblimin rotation, supported the hypothesized structure: six items measuring perceived skills development loaded significantly onto Factor 1 (loadings ranged from 0.83 to 0.63), and five items measuring perceived learning loaded significantly onto Factor 2 (loadings ranged from 0.88 to 0.59). These two factors were similarly correlated (r = 0.53).
5.2. Perceived Usefulness, Pre-Class Preparation, and In-Class Participation
Bivariate correlation analysis (see Table 3) indicated that students’ perceived usefulness of OFC was positively associated with pre-class preparation (r = 0.26, p < 0.05). In contrast, the perceived usefulness of IFC showed no significant relationship with in-class attendance (r = 0.10, p > 0.05). These findings remained consistent when controlling for student gender in the multiple regression analysis (see Table 4, Models 1 and 2). Specifically, students’ perceived usefulness of OFC remained positively associated with pre-class preparation (β = 0.24, p < 0.05), while their perceived usefulness of IFC continued to show no significant association with in-class attendance. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported, whereas Hypothesis 2 was not.
Additionally, pre-class preparation was not significantly correlated with in-class attendance (r = −0.07, p > 0.05; see Table 3). This non-significant relationship persisted after controlling for student gender via multiple regression (β = −0.16, p > 0.05; see Table 4, Model 3), leading to the rejection of Hypothesis 3.
5.3. Pre-Class Preparation, In-Class Participation, Perceived Learning, and Skills Development
Table 2 indicates that students’ pre-class preparation was positively associated with both perceived learning (r = 0.31, p < 0.01) and skills development (r = 0.34, p < 0.01). In contrast, in-class attendance was not significantly related to either perceived learning (r = 0.05, p > 0.05) or skills development (r = −0.14, p > 0.05). These relationships remained consistent after controlling for students’ learning habits through multiple regression analysis (see Table 4, Models 4–7). Specifically, pre-class preparation continued to be positively associated with perceived learning (β = 0.31, p < 0.05) and skills development (β = 0.26, p < 0.05), supporting Hypotheses 4a and 4b. Conversely, in-class attendance remained unrelated to both perceived learning (β = 0.02, p > 0.05) and skills development (β = −0.21, p > 0.05), leading to the rejection of Hypotheses 5a and 5b.
6. Discussion
6.1. Perceived Usefulness, Pre-Class Preparation, and In-Class Participation
As anticipated, students’ perceived usefulness of OFC positively influenced their pre-class preparation. This finding aligns with the idea that when students perceive online course materials as beneficial for learning and improving test performance, they are both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated to invest greater effort in studying those materials prior to class.
Surprisingly, the study found that neither the perceived usefulness of IFC nor pre-class preparation was significantly related to in-class attendance. This may be attributable to the habitual nature of attendance, which tends to be resistant to change (e.g., routine class attendance; Y. Chen et al., 2014). Consequently, even when instructors facilitate meaningful in-class interactions, many students may simply not be present to benefit from them. Indeed, habitual resistance has been identified as a major impediment to the successful implementation of flipped classroom pedagogy (Boeve et al., 2017; Green & Schlairet, 2017). Similarly, previous research suggests that many students struggle to adapt their learning behaviors to the flipped classroom model (Y. Chen et al., 2014; He et al., 2016). This challenge may be more pronounced among male students, who were found to attend class less frequently than their female counterparts (see Table 3). Overall, the perceived usefulness of IFC may not be sufficient to overcome entrenched patterns of classroom non-attendance.
The lack of a relationship between pre-class preparation and class attendance may reflect some students’ perception that their pre-class efforts were sufficient for mastering the material, thereby reducing the perceived need for additional in-class activities. For these students, the OFC component alone may evoke feelings of competence, autonomy, and relatedness typically associated with classroom participation. This interpretation aligns with research suggesting that the availability of online course materials can negatively impact attendance (Asarta & Schmidt, 2015; He et al., 2015). Indeed, Yamarik (2019) observed that some business students in a flipped classroom format exhibited irregular class attendance, attributing their absence to the perception that online lectures served as an adequate substitute for in-person sessions. Thus, paradoxically, well-developed online content may inadvertently undermine class attendance.
6.2. Pre-Class Preparation, In-Class Participation, Perceived Learning, and Skills Development
Pre-class preparation had a positive impact on both perceived learning and skills development in the flipped classroom, even after accounting for students’ learning habits. This finding aligns with the view that self-regulated online learning enables students to manage working memory effectively and avoid cognitive overload. In-class attendance, however, did not correlate with either outcome when students’ learning habits were factored into the analysis. These results were unexpected, as in-class active learning activities are generally assumed to reduce cognitive overload. Three explanations stand out. First, IFC emphasizes active learning activities. As previously noted, engaging in these activities enhances students’ perceived learning and skills development by reducing cognitive overload. However, the effectiveness of such activities depends heavily on their implementation. That is, their impact is influenced by factors such as the instructor’s knowledge, experience, and motivation in applying the approach; these factors can significantly affect students’ in-class learning outcomes (Alcalde & Nagel, 2019; Gelan et al., 2018). Second, students’ perceptions of learning under any instructional method are shaped by their prior expectations (Jian, 2019). Based on this insight, it can be argued that, through pre-class online preparation and interactions with proponents of the flipped classroom model, some students may develop elevated expectations regarding the value of the active learning component. However, such expectations are not always met. When this occurs, students perceive a discrepancy between their actual and anticipated learning experiences, resulting in lower perceived learning outcomes. Third, students’ motivational orientation plays a critical role in their self-regulated learning efforts and in-class participation. Specifically, when students’ motivational orientation is not aligned with online learning components or in-class activities, they are less likely to invest effort in these areas. Indeed, Beenan and Arbaugh (2019) found that an autonomous motivational orientation positively influenced the time students spent watching online video lectures prior to class; however, it was not associated with their self-reported participation in team-based in-class activities. In summary, the instructional proficiency of the flipped classroom instructor, students’ expectations of in-class active learning activities and motivational orientation may help explain the unexpected finding regarding the relationship between student in-class participation and perceived learning and skills development.
Regarding overall perceptions of the flipped classroom model, it is notable that students viewed it positively in terms of both learning and skills development. Specifically, students rated their perceived learning and skills development as 3 out of 4, on average (see Table 3). This finding supports the efficacy of the flipped classroom in business education, as students’ perceptions are positively associated with learning outcomes (Garnjost & Lawter, 2019; Taber, 2019).
7. Practical Implications
The findings from this study underscore the importance of the perceived usefulness of OFC, as it positively correlates with pre-class preparatory work, which in turn enhances students’ perceived learning and skills development in the flipped classroom context. Accordingly, this study suggests five strategies to enhance students’ perceptions of the usefulness of online materials: (1) incorporating adult learning principles into both the design and delivery of online content (Diel et al., 2020); (2) fostering meaningful connections between pre-class online learning and knowledge acquisition through tools such as online tests, discussions, and reflection journals; (3) allocating a portion of the course grade (e.g., 10%) to pre-class work; (4) consistently communicating the benefits of pre-class preparation for knowledge acquisition, course performance, and career development; and (5) fully leveraging technology to create an inclusive learning environment that accommodates diverse learning styles.
As noted earlier, habitual resistance has been identified as a major obstacle to the successful implementation of flipped classroom pedagogy (Boeve et al., 2017; Green & Schlairet, 2017). The findings of this study suggest that many students struggle to adjust their learning habits within the flipped classroom format, which may account for the non-significant relationships observed between the perceived usefulness of IFC and students’ in-class participation, perceived learning, and skills development. Accordingly, instructors may need to implement targeted interventions to cultivate positive learning habits, particularly regarding class attendance (e.g., assessing students’ learning habits followed by one-to-one coaching, or offering formal training seminars on effective learning strategies). The active learning component should also be evaluated for its effectiveness in achieving course objectives. In addition, increasing the weight of in-class participation, explicitly linking active learning activities to exam content, and normalizing student expectations regarding active learning may be necessary to enhance engagement.
8. Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Although this study provides preliminary evidence supporting three anticipated relationships within the framework (i.e., the positive associations between students’ perceived usefulness of OFC and their pre-class preparatory work, perceived learning, and skills development), several limitations should be addressed in future research.
First, the sample size was relatively small (N = 82); therefore, the findings should be interpreted as exploratory. Expanding the study to include larger samples from diverse educational institutions and a broader range of business courses would enhance generalizability. Prashar (2015) found that students in a flipped Introductory Operations Management course within an MBA program reported higher levels of perceived learning and skills development compared to those in conventional classrooms. Thus, it would be valuable to examine larger samples across different program levels (e.g., Master of Business Administration vs. Bachelor of Business Administration), as well as from similar business programs at different universities. Additionally, because the data were collected during a single semester, the results may not fully capture the scope of students’ course-related learning. Future research should consider employing longitudinal designs to examine learning and skills development in flipped classrooms over the duration of students’ business diploma programs.
Second, each of the major variables relied on students’ self-reports, which may have artificially inflated the observed relationships due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Self-reported data can also be influenced by social desirability bias (Chung & Monroe, 2003), halo effects, and the Hawthorne effect (Elledge, 2018). Measuring pre-class preparation and in-class participation using single-item indicators also raises concerns about the reliability and construct validity of these measures. Taken together, these limitations may restrict the generalizability of the study’s findings. Therefore, future research should employ multi-item instruments to more robustly assess both constructs. While the use of objective measures offers an alternative, such measures also present notable limitations. For instance, LMS-generated data cannot reliably distinguish between simply accessing online materials and actively engaging with them (Diel et al., 2020; Lambert et al., 2019). Similarly, objective data on class attendance do not account for students’ level of engagement during class time (Freguia, 2017). Despite these limitations, examining the flipped classroom using both subjective and objective metrics remains important for enhancing the generalizability of findings. Indeed, LMS data have been used to assess students’ pre-class preparation (J. N. Walsh & Rísquez, 2020), while objective measures have also been applied to evaluate class participation (Yamarik, 2019). Furthermore, although not without limitations (e.g., Stehle et al., 2012), test scores and course grades can serve as proxies for student learning and skills development (Fadol et al., 2018). To summarize, the exclusive use of a single self-report indicator for attendance restricts the comprehensive interpretation of the data. Future research should incorporate multi-source or objective measurements (e.g., attendance systems and LMS logs).
Third, although student gender and learning habits were controlled for (Hung, 2015; Yang et al., 2018), other variables may have influenced the findings. For example, business students’ learning outcomes in the flipped classroom may be affected by their learning styles (Calimeris & Sauer, 2015), instructional approach preferences (Hao, 2016), prior subject-matter knowledge (Jovanović et al., 2017), and previous experience with the flipped classroom model (Green & Schlairet, 2017). Future research with larger sample sizes could more effectively incorporate these additional control variables to strengthen the robustness and generalizability of the findings.
Fourth, future research should expand the framework developed in this study by incorporating contextual factors that may influence pre-class preparation and in-class participation. Relevant considerations include the accessibility of online teaching platforms (Borokhovski et al., 2016), class scheduling and physical classroom settings (Calimeris, 2018), and class size (Graham et al., 2017). Furthermore, the instructor represents a crucial element of the learning context. As noted earlier, instructors’ knowledge and experience with the flipped classroom model (Hao & Lee, 2016; Kakosimos, 2015), along with their teaching style (Rose et al., 2016), are likely to shape students’ learning experiences and outcomes.
9. Conclusions
While the findings of this study are exploratory in nature, the framework developed and empirically tested offers an important starting point for understanding the antecedents and impact of students’ pre-class preparation and in-class attendance on the effectiveness of the flipped classroom model. The perceived usefulness of OFC was found to be critical to students’ pre-class preparatory efforts, which, in turn, were positively associated with their perceived learning and skills development within the flipped classroom context. Accordingly, it would be valuable to investigate the extent to which these preliminary findings can be replicated across larger samples and using alternative research methodologies.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Research Ethics Board of George Brown College (REB file number: 6004597) on 25 June 2018.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Dataset available upon request from the author.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 A framework of student pre-class preparation and in-class participation in the flipped classroom.
Weekly learning subjects and assessments.
| Weekly Learning Subjects | Course Assessments |
|---|---|
| Week 1: Organizational Behavior and People Centered Management Week 2: Social Perceptions and Attribution Factors Influencing Individual Behavior Week 3: Self-Concept Personality and Emotions Week 4: Values, Attitudes, Job Satisfaction, And Foundations of Motivation Week 5: Fundamental Concepts of Group Behavior Week 6: Communicating in the Digital Age Week 7: Conflict and Negotiation Week 8: Intersession Week; No Class Week 9: Writing the Second Test Week 10: Power, Politics and Decision Making Week 11: Leadership Week 12: Organizational Culture, Socialization and Mentoring Week 13: Managing Change and Job Stress Week 14: Group Project Presentation Week 15: Writing the Final Exam | Test #1 (10% of course grade): Conducted in Week 4; Consisting of multiple-choice and short-answer questions. Reflection journal #1 (5% of course grade): Due in Week 6; Including three sections in terms of reviewing, applying, and reflecting with a minimum of 150 words. Test #2 (20% of course grade): Conducted in Week 9; Consisting of multiple-choice and short-answer questions. Reflection journal #2 (5% of course grade): Due in Week 13; Including three sections in terms of reviewing, applying, and reflecting with a minimum of 150 words. Team research project (20% of course grade): Teams of 4–5 students will research one or two key Organizational Behavior concepts, theories, or approaches (e.g., motivation); Each team will submit an 11–12 page research report and present findings in class during Week 14. Final exam (20% of course grade): Held in Week 15; Consisting of multiple-choice and short-answer questions. Online participation (10% of course grade): Completing online practice quizzes and contributing to online discussions. In-class participation (10% of course grade): Attending face-to-face sessions and completing in-class quizzes. |
Principal-component analyses.
| Subscale Item | Factor Loading | Subscale Item | Factor Loading | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | ||
| Perceived usefulness of OFC | Perceived learning | ||||
| 1. On-line materials increased my interest in the course. | 0.82 | 0.35 | 1. I learn more from the flipped classroom over traditional (lecture-based) classes. | 0.39 | 0.88 |
| 2. On-line materials had a good fit to in-class lectures. | 0.84 | 0.48 | 2. I feel that flipped classroom is a more effective way than the traditional (lecture-based) method to learn OB concepts, theories and principles. | 0.43 | 0.86 |
| 3. On-line materials enhanced the effectiveness of in-class lectures. | 0.81 | 0.38 | 3. Flipped classroom greatly enhances my understanding of OB concepts, theories and principles. | 0.42 | 0.82 |
| 4. Watching learning module videos posted on Blackboard greatly enhanced my understanding of course contents. | 0.77 | 0.42 | 4. My learning in the flipped classroom has helped my personal development. | 0.43 | 0.68 |
| 5. Reviewing narrated PowerPoints posted on Blackboard greatly enhanced my understanding of course contents. | 0.66 | 0.52 | 5. I can apply the knowledge acquired in the flipped classroom to my work or other non-class related activities. | 0.46 | 0.59 |
| 6. Completing practice quizzes posted on Blackboard prior to coming to class greatly enhanced my understanding of course contents. | 0.56 | 0.32 | |||
| Perceived usefulness of IFC | Perceived skills development | ||||
| 1. Listening to the instructor reviewing information about selected topics in the mini lectures greatly enhanced my learning of course materials. | 0.64 | 0.65 | 1. Flipped classroom enabled me to apply OB theories to analyze real-world issues and problems | 0.81 | 0.43 |
| 2. Grouping up with classmates to discuss questions posed in class greatly enhanced my learning of course materials. | 0.51 | 0.82 | 2. Flipped classroom provided me opportunities to think and behave ethically. | 0.76 | 0.39 |
| 3. Working on assignments/exercises in class greatly enhanced my learning of course materials. | 0.44 | 0.85 | 3. Flipped classroom enabled me to analyze the impact of individual and team behaviours on organizational productivity. | 0.80 | 0.44 |
| 4. Studying cases in class greatly enhanced my learning of course materials. | 0.40 | 0.86 | 4. Flipped classroom enabled me to synthesize information to make decisions | 0.80 | 0.34 |
| 5. Flipped classroom helped me develop the ability to plan and manage my own work. | 0.83 | 0.52 | |||
| 6. Flipped classroom helped me develop the ability to work as a team member. | 0.63 | 0.38 | |||
| Eigenvalue | 4.90 | 1.22 | Eigenvalue | 5.15 | 1.50 |
| % variance explained | 48.99 | 12.24 | % variance explained | 46.84 | 13.63 |
Note: Numbers in boldface indicate high factor loading.
Bivariate correlation analyses.
| Variables | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Gender | 0.48 | 0.50 | |||||||
| 2. Learning habits | 2.73 | 0.74 | −0.39 ** | ||||||
| 3. Perceived usefulness of OFC | 3.22 | 0.57 | 0.10 | ||||||
| 4. Perceived usefulness of IFC | 3.23 | 0.59 | 0.04 | −0.19 | −0.60 ** | ||||
| 5. Pre-class preparation | 1.51 | 1.12 | 0.26 * | −0.21 | 0.26 * | 0.26 * | |||
| 6. In-class attendance | 2.78 | 0.57 | 0.28 * | −0.29 * | −0.05 | 0.10 | −0.07 | ||
| 7. Perceived learning | 3.07 | 0.67 | 0.14 | −0.16 | 0.73 ** | 0.52 ** | 0.31 ** | 0.05 | |
| 8. Perceived skills development | 3.11 | 0.74 | 0.16 | −0.17 | 0.69 ** | 0.41 ** | 0.34 ** | −0.14 | 0.61 ** |
0 = Male and 1 = Female. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Multiple regression analyses (Beta and p-values).
| Dependent Variables | Pre-Class Preparation | In-Class Participation | Perceived Learning | Skills Development | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 | |
| Control variables | |||||||
| Gender | 0.28 * | 0.29 * | 0.08 * | ||||
| Learning Habits | −0.16 | −0.16 | −0.17 | −0.17 | |||
| Model F Value | 6.29 * | 7.06 * | 7.03 * | 1.55 | 1.55 | 2.07 | 2.07 |
| R2 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
| Adjusted R2 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| Independent variables | |||||||
| Perceived Usefulness of OFC | 0.24 * | ||||||
| Perceived Usefulness of IFC | 0.09 | ||||||
| Pre-Class Preparation | −0.16 | 0.31 * | 0.26 * | ||||
| In-Class Participation | 0.02 | −0.21 | |||||
| Model F Value | 5.60 ** | 3.84 * | 4.60 * | 3.90 * | 0.77 | 3.50 * | 2.48 |
| R2 | 0.14 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.07 |
| Adjusted R2 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.09 | −0.01 | 0.07 | 0.04 |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Abeysekera, L.; Dawson, P. Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development; 2015; 34,
Adkins, J. K. Relevance of student resources in a flipped MIS classroom. Information Systems Education Journal; 2014; 12,
Akçayır, G.; Akçayır, M. The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education; 2018; 126, pp. 334-345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021]
Alcalde, P.; Nagel, J. Why does peer instruction improve student satisfaction more than student performance? A randomized experiment. International Review of Economics Education; 2019; 30, 100149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2018.10.001]
Al-Samarraie, H.; Shamsuddin, A.; Alzahrani, A. I. A flipped classroom model in higher education: A review of the evidence across disciplines. Educational Technology Research and Development; 2020; 68,
Asarta, C. J.; Schmidt, J. R. The choice of reduced seat time in a blended course. The Internet and Higher Education; 2015; 27, pp. 24-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.006]
Asef, V. A. The flipped classroom of operations management: A not-for-cost-reduction platform. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education; 2015; 13,
Balaban, R. A.; Gilleskie, D. B.; Tran, U. A quantitative evaluation of the flipped classroom in a large lecture principle of economics course. The Journal of Economic Education; 2016; 47,
Becker, R.; Proud, S. Flipping quantitative tutorials. International Review of Economics Education; 2018; 29, pp. 59-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2018.01.004]
Beenan, G.; Arbaugh, B. Flipping class: Why student expectations and person-situation fit matter. International Journal of Management in Education; 2019; 17,
Beric-Stojsic, B.; Patel, N.; Blake, J.; Johnson, D. Flipped classroom teaching and learning pedagogy in the program planning, implementation, and evaluation graduate course: Students’ experiences. Pedagogy in Health Promotion; 2020; 6,
Biggs, J.; Kember, D.; Leung, D. Y. P. The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology; 2001; 71,
Boeve, A. J.; Meijer, R. R.; Bosker, R. J.; Vugteveen, J.; Hoekstra, R.; Albers, C. J. Implementing the flipped classroom: An exploration of study behaviour and student performance. Higher Education; 2017; 74,
Borokhovski, E.; Bernard, R. M.; Tamim, R. M.; Schmid, R. F.; Sokolovskaya, A. Technology-supported student interaction in post-secondary education: A meta-analysis of designed versus contextual treatments. Computers & Education; 2016; 96, pp. 15-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.004]
Burford, M. R.; Chan, K. Refining a strategic marketing course: Is a “flip” a good “fit”?. Journal of Strategic Marketing; 2017; 25,
Calimeris, L. Effects of flipping the principles of microeconomics class: Does scheduling matter?. International Review of Economics Education; 2018; 29, pp. 29-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2018.01.002]
Calimeris, L.; Sauer, K. M. Flipping out about the flip: All hype or is there hope?. International Review of Economics Education; 2015; 20, pp. 13-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2015.08.001]
Chen, C.; Yen, P. Learner control, segmenting, and modality effects in animated demonstrations used as the before-class instructions in the flipped classroom. Interactive Learning Environments; 2021; 29,
Chen, M. A.; Hwang, G.; Chang, Y. 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; 2019; 50,
Chen, Y.; Wang, Y.; Kinshuk, J.; Chen, N. Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the flipped model instead?. Computers & Education; 2014; 79, pp. 16-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.004]
Cheng, L.; Ritzhaupt, A. D.; Antonenko, P. Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development; 2019; 67,
Chung, J.; Monroe, G. S. Exploring social desirability bias. Journal of Business Ethics; 2003; 44,
Comber, D. P. M.; Brady-Van den Bos, M. Too much, too soon? A critical investigation into factors that make flipped classrooms effective. Higher Education Research & Development; 2018; 37,
Çakiroğlu, Ü.; Güven, O.; Saylan, E. Flipping the experimentation process: Influences on science process skills. Educational Technology Research and Development; 2020; 68,
Day, J. A.; Foley, J. D. Evaluating a web lecture intervention in a human-computer interaction course. IEEE Transactions on Education; 2006; 49,
DeLozier, S. J.; Rhodes, M. G. Flipped classrooms: A review of key ideas and recommendations for practice. Educational Psychology Review; 2017; 29,
Desai, S. V.; Jabeen, S. S.; Abdul, W. K.; Rao, S. A. Teaching cross-cultural management: A flipped classroom approach using films. International Journal of Management Education (Elsevier Science); 2018; 16,
Diel, R.; Avdic, A.; Kemp, P. S. Flipped ophthalmology classroom: A better way to teach medical students. Journal of Academic Ophthalmology; 2020; 12,
Dombrowski, T.; Wrobel, C.; Dazert, S.; Volkenstein, S. Flipped classroom frameworks improve efficacy in undergraduate practical courses—A quasi-randomized pilot study in Otorhinolaryngology. BMC Medical Education; 2018; 18,
Downen, T.; Hyde, B. Flipping the managerial accounting principles course: Effects on student performance, evaluation, and attendance. Advances in Accounting Education; 2016; 19,
Eccles, J. S.; Adler, T. F.; Futterman, R.; Goff, S. B.; Kaczala, C. M.; Meece, J. L.; Midgley, C. Spence, J. T. Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. Achievement and achievement motivation; W. H. Freeman: 1983; pp. 75-146.
Elledge, R. Current thinking in medical education research: An overview. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; 2018; 56,
Fadol, Y.; Aldamen, H.; Saadullah, S. A comparative analysis of flipped, online and traditional teaching: A case of female middle eastern management students. The International Journal of Management Education; 2018; 16,
Freguia, S. Webcasts promote in-class active participation and learning in an engineering elective course. European Journal of Engineering Education; 2017; 42,
Garnjost, P.; Lawter, L. Undergraduates’ satisfaction and perceptions of learning outcomes across teacher- and learner-focused pedagogies. International Journal of Management Education; 2019; 17,
Gelan, A.; Fastre, G.; Verjans, M.; Martin, N.; Janssenswillen, G.; Creemers, M.; Lieben, J.; Depaire, B.; Thomas, M. Affordances and limitations of learning analytics for computer-assisted language learning: A case study of the VITAL project. Computer Assisted Language Learning; 2018; 31,
Graham, M.; McLean, J.; Read, A.; Suchet-Pearson, S.; Viner, V. Flipping and still learning: Experiences of a flipped classroom approach for a third-year undergraduate human geography course. Journal of Geography in Higher Education; 2017; 41,
Green, R. D.; Schlairet, M. C. Moving toward heutagogical learning: Illuminating undergraduate nursing students’ experiences in a flipped classroom. Nurse Education Today; 2017; 49, pp. 122-128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.11.016]
Haghighi, H.; Jafarigohar, M.; Khoshsima, H.; Vahdany, F. Impact of flipped classroom on EFL learners’ appropriate use of refusal: Achievement, participation, perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning; 2019; 32,
Hall, A. A.; DuFrene, D. D. Best practices for launching a flipped classroom. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly; 2016; 79,
Hanson, J. Surveying the experiences and perceptions of undergraduate nursing students of a flipped classroom approach to increase understanding of drug science and its application to clinical practice. Nurse Education in Practice; 2016; 16,
Hao, Y. Exploring undergraduates’ perspectives and flipped learning readiness in their flipped classrooms. Computers in Human Behavior; 2016; 59, pp. 82-92. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.032]
Hao, Y.; Lee, K. S. Teaching in flipped classrooms: Exploring pre-service teachers’ concerns. Computers in Human Behavior; 2016; 57, pp. 250-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.022]
He, W.; Gajski, D.; Farkas, G.; Warschauer, M. Implementing flexible hybrid instruction in an electrical engineering course: The best of three worlds?. Computers & Education; 2015; 81, pp. 59-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.09.005]
He, W.; Holton, A.; Farkas, G.; Warschauer, M. The effects of flipped instruction on out-of-class study time, exam performance, and student perceptions. Learning and Instruction; 2016; 45, pp. 61-71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.07.001]
He, W.; Holton, A. J.; Farkas, G. Impact of partially flipped instruction on immediate and subsequent course performance in a large undergraduate chemistry course. Computers & Education; 2018; 125, pp. 120-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.020]
Huang, C.; Lin, Y. Flipping business education: Transformative use of team-based learning in human resource management classrooms. Educational Technology & Society; 2017; 20,
Hung, H. Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning; 2015; 28,
Jian, Q. Effects of digital flipped classroom teaching method integrated cooperative learning model on learning motivation and outcome. The Electronic Library; 2019; 37,
Jovanović, J.; Gašević, D.; Dawson, S.; Pardo, A.; Mirriahi, N. Learning analytics to unveil learning strategies in a flipped classroom. The Internet and Higher Education; 2017; 33,
Kakosimos, K. E. Example of a micro-adaptive instruction methodology for the improvement of flipped-classrooms and adaptive-learning based on advanced blended-learning tools. Education for Chemical Engineers; 2015; 12, pp. 1-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2015.06.001]
Kantanen, H.; Koponen, J.; Sointu, E.; Valtonen, T. Including the student voice: Experiences and learning outcomes of a flipped communication course. Business & Professional Communication Quarterly; 2019; 82,
Kim, M. K.; Kim, S. M.; Khera, O.; Getman, J. The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. The Internet and Higher Education; 2014; 22, pp. 37-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.003]
Lambert, S.; Pond, K.; Witthaus, G. Making a difference with lecture capture? Providing evidence for research-informed policy. The International Journal of Management Education; 2019; 17,
Leaper, C. More similarities than differences in contemporary theories of social development?. Advances in Child Development and Behavior; 2011; 40, pp. 337-378. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-386491-8.00009-8]
Lo, C. K. Grounding the flipped classroom approach in the foundations of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development; 2018; 66,
Lopes, A. P.; Soares, F. Perception and performance in a flipped financial mathematics classroom. International Journal of Management Education; 2018; 16,
McCord, R.; Jeldes, I. Engaging non-majors in MATLAB programming through a flipped classroom approach. Computer Science Education; 2019; 29,
Meyers, L. S.; Gamst, G.; Guarino, A. J. Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation; Sage Publications: 2006.
Moran, K.; Milsom, A. The flipped classroom in counselor education. Counselor Education and Supervision; 2015; 54,
Murray, I.; Cianfrini, M.; Clements, J.; Wilson-Rogers, N. Taxation, innovation and education: Reflections on a flipped lecture room. Journal of the Australasian Tax Teachers Association; 2019; 14,
Pejuan, A.; Antonijuan, J. Independent learning as class preparation to foster student-centred learning in first-year engineering students. Research in Post-Compulsory Education; 2019; 24,
Pence, P. L. “Flipping” a first-year medical–surgical associate degree registered nursing course: A 2-year pilot study. Teaching and Learning in Nursing; 2016; 11,
Picault, J. The economics instructor’s toolbox. International Review of Economics Education; 2019; 30, 100154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2019.01.001]
Podsakoff, P.; MacKenzie, S.; Jeong-Yeon, L.; Podsakoff, N. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology; 2003; 88,
Prashar, A. Assessing the flipped classroom in operations management: A pilot study. Journal of Education for Business; 2015; 90,
Price, C.; Walker, M. Improving the accessibility of foundation statistics for undergraduate business and management students using a flipped classroom. Studies in Higher Education; 2021; 46,
Rose, E.; Claudius, I.; Tabatabai, R.; Kearl, L.; Behar, S.; Jhun, P. The flipped classroom in emergency medicine using online videos with interpolated questions. The Journal of Emergency Medicine; 2016; 51,
Ryan, R.; Deci, E. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology; 2000; 25,
Schwarzenberg, P.; Navón, J. Supporting goal setting in flipped classes. Interactive Learning Environments; 2020; 28,
Scovotti, C. Experiences with flipping the marketing capstone course. Marketing Education Review; 2016; 26,
Sherrow, T.; Lang, B.; Corbett, R. The flipped class: Experience in a university business communication course. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly; 2016; 79,
Sinouvassane, D.; Nalini, A. Perception of flipped classroom model among year one and year three health science students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology; 2016; 6,
Sletten, S. R. Investigating flipped learning: Student self-regulated learning, perceptions, and achievement in an introductory biology course. Journal of Science Education and Technology; 2017; 26,
Sohrabi, B.; Iraj, H. Implementing flipped classroom using digital media: A comparison of two demographically different groups perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior; 2016; 60, pp. 514-524. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.056]
Stehle, S.; Spinath, B.; Kadmon, M. Measuring teaching effectiveness: Correspondence between students’ evaluations of teaching and different measures of student learning. Research in Higher Education; 2012; 53,
Strelan, P.; Osborn, A.; Palmer, E. The flipped classroom: A meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines and education levels. Educational Research Review; 2020; 30, 100314. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314]
Swart, W.; Wuensch, K. L. Flipping quantitative classes: A triple win. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education; 2016; 14,
Sweller, J. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science; 1988; 12,
Taber, K. S. Experimental research into teaching innovations: Responding to methodological and ethical challenges. Studies in Science Education; 2019; 55,
Walsh, A.; Powell, P. Re-imagining the MBA: An arts-based approach. Higher Education Pedagogies; 2020; 5,
Walsh, J. N.; Rísquez, A. Using cluster analysis to explore the engagement with a flipped classroom of native and non-native English-speaking management students. The International Journal of Management Education; 2020; 18,
Wigfield, A.; Eccles, J. S. Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology; 2000; 25,
Williams, B.; Horner, C.; Allen, S. Flipped vs. traditional teaching perspectives in a first year accounting unit: An action research study. Accounting Education; 2019; 28,
Wolfe, M. H. Integrating data analysis into an introductory macroeconomics course. International Review of Economics Education; 2020; 33, 100176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2020.100176]
Wong, T. H.; Ip, E. J.; Lopes, I.; Rajagopalan, V. Pharmacy students’ performance and perceptions in a flipped teaching pilot on cardiac arrhythmias. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education; 2014; 78,
Xiu, Y.; Thompson, P. Flipped university class: A study of motivation and learning. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research; 2020; 19, pp. 41-63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.28945/4500] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40732629]
Xu, P.; Chen, Y.; Nie, W.; Wang, Y.; Song, T.; Li, H.; Li, J.; Yi, J.; Zhao, L. The effectiveness of a flipped classroom on the development of Chinese nursing students’ skill competence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Education Today; 2019; 80, pp. 67-77. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.06.005] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31279251]
Yamarik, S. Flipping the classroom and student learning outcomes: Evidence from an international economics course. International Review of Economics Education; 2019; 31, 100163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2019.100163]
Yang, X.; Li, J.; Xing, B. Behavioral patterns of knowledge construction in online cooperative translation activities. The Internet and Higher Education; 2018; 36, pp. 13-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.08.003]
Yilmaz, R. M.; Baydas, O. An examination of undergraduates’ metacognitive strategies in pre-class asynchronous activity in a flipped classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development; 2017; 65,
Yoshida, H. Perceived usefulness of “flipped learning” on instructional design for elementary and secondary education: With focus on pre-service teacher education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology; 2016; 6,
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
