Flipped Classroom: Modern Technologies in Teaching


Usually, the teacher gives lectures in the classroom at school, while very little time is left for questions and exercises. Learning revolves around the classroom, where many students find it difficult to assimilate the material thoroughly. Most teachers spend their time explaining the material and delivering knowledge, and little time is spent teaching how to analyze, evaluate, and create something. The flipped classroom is a learning model where the teacher provides self-study material at home and hands-on practice in classroom practice (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018). Flip learning is characterized by the use of vodcasts, podcasts, and pre-casting.

Flipped Classroom technology was invented by educators Jonathan Bergman and Aaron Sams and used in high school to help absent students. Initially, D. Bergman and A. Sams created PowerPoint presentations of their lessons with voice-overs, following by copyright videos (Tucker, 2012). Salman Khan can be considered one of the adherents and founders of this approach. He has created a resource with short video lectures in various disciplines that can be used by schoolchildren and students around the world (Weeraratne & Chin, 2018). The principle of remote viewing of a short lecture, on which Khan’s whole idea is based, lies at the heart of “flipped learning.”

It is natural to assume that the development of technology has given impetus to such a phenomenon as the inverted class. The widespread integration of technology into secondary school education has its pros and cons. Many have now gained access to a wealth of information, and there is still a need for educational literature. However, technology is not a panacea and does not guarantee student motivation and sometimes even diminishes them.

This paper tests the thesis that the development of technology contributes to a change in the roles of the student and teacher in the learning process and that such a change in the context of modernity is positive. It is worth noting that over time, people change, which is already making adjustments to the learning process, even without educational reforms. Perhaps the response of the people responsible for the learning process is not as fast as students’ response to the development of technology and time. However, in this case, the transition from the traditional education system is difficult due to long-rooted traditions in which technologies are introduced gradually. The radical move to the flipped classroom is still at the stage of a daring experiment, but it will likely soon become standard practice.

Use of Technologies

Technologies within the framework of this method imply their use at the stage of preparing home lectures and by students when viewing them, analyzing, and further developing the knowledge gained. Therefore, a minimum set of techniques is required for both the teacher and the student. An obligatory factor is Internet access since even lectures for self-study are now online (Rusek et al., 2017). Every day there are more and more teaching materials on each general school topic, including those in the public domain.

Followers often note the environmental friendliness of the approach since it does not need to print out many sheets with control and reference materials. In addition, this approach saves space in the workplace, adds independence to the student, who now decides for himself what is at his workplace. This autonomy is also significant when teaching material. Ideally, students spend as much time as they need to master it, which can almost eliminate academic failure as a result (Awidi & Paynter, 2019). Finally, it is much easier to join the process since the lack of stationery will no longer be an obstacle to the assimilation of the material, and any place in the world with Internet access can become a workplace for a student.

Sometimes the flipped classroom model is blamed for the weakening of the teacher’s role. The transition to this model opens the way to increasing the importance of the teacher’s role in learning. The time freed up by pre-casting can be spent on more complex professional tasks – strengthening and expanding the knowledge that students received independently (Awidi & Paynter, 2019). Other critics of the flipped class argue that this model degrades the traditional aspect of education by not promptly asking the lecturer questions (Pickering & Roberts, 2018). The teacher should also think about how important this or that topic is in the course and how much this knowledge can be “turned over” since some topics are not suitable for this. Finally, today’s learners are accustomed to daily dynamic content as many learn smartphones and computers early.

Consequently, the exact requirements will be provided for home lectures; however, creating this content is resource-intensive and somewhat tricky. In addition, various problems cannot be considered in advance: the student’s personal preferences, religious views, social status and civic position, illness, and missing one lesson from the complex. Nevertheless, most of the above are surmountable at the global level and only take time to implement. The introduction of technology into most children’s lives from an early age in one way or another changes the role of the student in the educational process, which requires a departure from traditions and the response of the teacher’s role to these changes.

Education Theories

Fundamental learning theories have four approaches. Behaviorism focuses on the learning environment, and according to Skinner, it is necessary to positively reinforce the correct behavior of students (Brau et al., 2020). Cognitivism emerged as a response to behaviorists and focused on promoting how students think about problems. It strives to make learning meaningful to every student in a specific context (Tu, 2019).

The focus is on how students interact with and process the world. Constructivism asserts that no knowledge exists outside of man; there is no objective reality. Knowledge is the process of developing an understanding of something in a very personal way through situational activities (O’Connor, 2020). Students create meaning from their experience that is different from the meaning of others, even those who participate in the same experience. Finally, connectivism is a new learning theory presented by Siemens that reflects the growing interest in networked learning theories. Siemens argues that connectivism is a theory of learning in the digital age, as previous theories inadequately account for learning when addressing the knowledge requirements in the information age (Downes, 2019). Connectivism also views learning as a social process and knowledge as an external entity.

Starting with the fact that science, which opens up new horizons and paradigms of the scientific picture of the world, also uses technological developments at the forefront, education does not lag at all. Various kinds of computer experiments, discussion of the results of these experiments in social networks, search and publication of materials on the Internet, and interaction with an interactive whiteboard. These technologies have changed the roles of learners and teachers and raised the bar for teacher competence (Mechlova & Malcik, 2012).

The environment, which means so much within the framework of behaviorism, has changed, and distance communication, one of the foundations of connectivism, has become more frequent. The availability, openness of information has changed thinking in the context of cognitivism, raising the price of specific knowledge that cannot be found in a couple of minutes on the web. Finally, constructivism at the meta-level has not undergone global changes, but the same Internet network and the openness of science results bring knowledge closer to the views of objectivism. Therefore, we can conclude that each of the four fundamental learning theories is modified under the influence of technology, knowingly changing the roles of teachers and students. The positive impact of these changes is described below.

TPACK Framework

The flipped learning format has several advantages through the lens of changing student and teacher roles. First, several studies have shown improvements in student performance over the traditional approach (Lo & Hew, 2017; Zuber, 2016). Second, paradoxically, this methodology increases student engagement rates (Gilboy et al., 2015). It is explained by the fact that students gain more autonomy and freedom in the classroom and homework framework, start to manage their time better, and get more rest. However, such indicators as creative and critical thinking have not yet been thoroughly researched, although they are of high importance in developing a secondary school child.

The role of the teacher is modified primarily based on his knowledge and skills. The integration of technological knowledge in pedagogical practice originally appeared in the writings of Shulman, but now another aspect is included that determines the framework of the teacher’s body of knowledge – content (Shulman, 1986; Koehler et al., 2013). The resulting model is called TPACK and represents the standard framework for educational technology implementation (Archambault & Barnett, 2010). TPACK is a practical framework reflecting the complex relationship between content, pedagogy, and technology in many studies.

The TPACK structure model in the context of a central focus using innovative interaction pedagogy explores the many benefits of new technologies to improve the efficiency and accessibility of content. Researchers note that the effectiveness of the introduction of new pedagogical technologies largely depends on the involvement of students who are focused on modern technologies and use multisensory modalities as pedagogical communications that support interaction opportunities and contribute to effective learning.

The three key objectives of the intelligent teaching technology pedagogy concept are to engage TPACK in peer learning, involvement of TPACK in the framework of multisensory learning, demonstrating the implementation of the modeled approach through research in evaluating the effectiveness of innovations focused on the education of the future. However, this model is highly susceptible to various personal and institutional factors (Voithofer et al., 2019). However, the consequences of influence are fixated on the model itself and are only a lack of understanding within the framework of the traditional approach.

Flip learning is based on technology and the synthesis of meaningful knowledge with technological knowledge, which aligns with Shulman’s theory (Shulman, 1987). Pedagogy, in the context of modern technologies, also responds to SMART learning, and within the flipped classroom, it contributes to the development of the same kind of complex technological and meaningful knowledge among students. In addition, a focus on education and student development can enhance the current SAMR model for assessing technology within education (Hamilton et al., 2016).

Technological knowledge becomes an integral basis for the teacher’s pedagogical competence, which should be focused not only on integrating specific content into the technology of the teaching process but also on technological knowledge in general. The changed role of the teacher positively corrects competence in that the interpretation of the content to technology provides a new vector for the application of this knowledge, new points of view that are most effective for the younger generation (Hughes, 2005). Flipped classroom allows increasing the time and effect of using technology in comparison with the traditional approach.


The inverted classroom is becoming the primary trend in the modernization of education, even despite the factors that hinder its popularity. First, the official educational authorities in different countries so far provide only grant support to enthusiastic teachers. Without official support, it is mainly the fans of the teaching craft who decide to introduce inverted education. Secondly, judging by the implementation experience, the model may not be to the taste of both students and their parents.

In addition, teachers may have problems with peers if the average performance in overturned classrooms improves markedly. However, the main problem of introducing the inverted classroom model is a significant increase in the volume of teacher’s work in the transition period. It is necessary to redraw the curriculum and divide the available material so that it is transferred to vodcast and part is left for classwork. It is necessary to develop tests to control students, create a system for assessing independent work at home and teamwork in the classroom, master the tools for developing vodcasts.

Consequently, the main recommendations will include state support, methodological and general advanced training in the field of technical knowledge of middle school teachers and the psychological aspects of its application, and the creation of a step-by-step transition strategy. Teachers can, year after year, constantly, for additional encouragement, create a new school curriculum, point-by-point testing controversial issues. The development of technology does not stand still and requires such changes, as children are increasingly becoming dependent on online technologies, and the modern realities of the pandemic make a necessity out of possibility.


Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334-345.

Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656-1662.

Awidi, I. T., & Paynter, M. (2019). The impact of a flipped-classroom approach on the student learning experience. Computers & Education, 128, 269-283.

Brau, B., Fox, N., & Robinson, E. (2018). Behaviorism. In R. Kimmons, The Students’ Guide to Learning Design and Research. EdTech Books. Web.

Downes, S. (2019). Recent work in connectivism. European Journal of Open, Distance, and E-Learning (EURODL), 22(2), 113-132.

Gilboy, M. B., Heinerichs, S., & Pazzaglia, G. (2015). Enhancing student engagement using the flipped classroom. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 47(1), 109-114.

Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441.

Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-302.

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?. Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19.

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(1), 1-22.

Mechlova, E., & Malcik, M. (2012). ICT in changes of learning theories. In 2012 IEEE 10th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA) (pp. 253-262). IEEE.

O’Connor, K. (2020). Constructivism, curriculum and the knowledge question: tensions and challenges for higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 1-11.

Pickering, J. D., & Roberts, D. J. (2018). Flipped classroom or an active lecture?. Clinical Anatomy, 31(1), 118-121.

Rusek, M., Stárková, D., Chytrý, V., & Bílek, M. (2017). Adoption of ICT innovations by secondary school teachers and pre-service teachers within chemistry education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4), 510.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Tu, D. (2019). Beauty and Comparative Education Research Methods: A Consideration for Aesthetic Cognitivism. In Interrogating and Innovating Comparative and International Education Research (pp. 34-48). Brill.

Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education next, 12(1), 82-83.

Voithofer, R., Nelson, M. J., Han, G., & Caines, A. (2019). Factors that influence TPACK adoption by teacher educators in the US. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1427-1453.

Weeraratne, B., & Chin, B. (2018). Can Khan Academy e-Learning Video Tutorials Improve Mathematics Achievement in Sri Lanka?. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 14(3), 93-112.

Zuber, W. J. (2016). The flipped classroom, a review of the literature. Industrial and Commercial Training, 48(2), 97–103.

Cite this paper

Select style


ChalkyPapers. (2023, April 15). Flipped Classroom: Modern Technologies in Teaching. Retrieved from https://chalkypapers.com/flipped-classroom-modern-technologies-in-teaching/


ChalkyPapers. (2023, April 15). Flipped Classroom: Modern Technologies in Teaching. https://chalkypapers.com/flipped-classroom-modern-technologies-in-teaching/

Work Cited

"Flipped Classroom: Modern Technologies in Teaching." ChalkyPapers, 15 Apr. 2023, chalkypapers.com/flipped-classroom-modern-technologies-in-teaching/.


ChalkyPapers. (2023) 'Flipped Classroom: Modern Technologies in Teaching'. 15 April.


ChalkyPapers. 2023. "Flipped Classroom: Modern Technologies in Teaching." April 15, 2023. https://chalkypapers.com/flipped-classroom-modern-technologies-in-teaching/.

1. ChalkyPapers. "Flipped Classroom: Modern Technologies in Teaching." April 15, 2023. https://chalkypapers.com/flipped-classroom-modern-technologies-in-teaching/.


ChalkyPapers. "Flipped Classroom: Modern Technologies in Teaching." April 15, 2023. https://chalkypapers.com/flipped-classroom-modern-technologies-in-teaching/.