Flipped Classroom Learning is a relatively new teaching approach, which gives numerous benefits to those employing it. The theoretical background for this approach is the active learning theory supposing that students should engage in meaningful activities during the learning process (Chen et al., 2018). Flipped Classroom is unique among other active learning models because it challenges students to study before class and then participate in a discussion with a teacher. Reportedly, Flipped Classroom Learning “increases motivation, satisfaction, performance, and class attendance rate” (Chen et al., 2018, p. 911). Therefore, this method can encourage individuals to be dedicated to studying, and subsequently produce a more educated community than under other learning approaches.
It is logical that when drafting a Flipped Classroom education plan, one should consider pre-class, post-class, and class activities. The in-person discussions must be engaging to keep students motivated and allow for active participation. As for the pre-and post-class activities, they can benefit from digital technologies. A teacher can assign a text or a video lecture to prepare for a group meeting, and ask the students to submit a reflection paper or another form of individual work afterward. This strategy will prevent unmotivated students from passing the course as free-riders and serve as an additional incentive to participate in in-class activities. Finally, educators can borrow from online-education experiences and incorporate online platforms and learning management systems into their curriculum. However, academic studies show that Flipped Classroom Learning does not help develop practical skills (Chen et al., 2018). Therefore, it might be redundant to implement it in skill-focused subjects, since planning and executing a Flipped Classroom study plan is too expensive and time-consuming.
Chen, K. S., Monrouxe, L., Lu, Y. H., Jenq, C. C., Chang, Y. J., Chang, Y. C., & Chai, P. Y. C. (2018). Academic outcomes of flipped classroom learning: a meta‐analysis. Medical education, 52(9), 910-924.