Flipped classrooms require students to study the course material in-depth before coming to class and devote class time to activities such as exercises, discussions, experiments, etc. Typically, it allows reducing or canceling lecturing time to the benefit of these activities. Students are usually provided with a variety of resources, including a textbook, lecture slides, and videos, to be studied prior to lecture time.

 

In terms of implementation, some propose a partial implementation; this is called a partially-flipped or blended classroom (Caviglia-Harris, 2016; Ficano (2019); Lombardini et al., 2018; Olitsky and Cosgrove, 2014; Olitsky and Cosgrove, 2016; Roach, 2014; Wozny et al., 2018).

Others propose the whole course to be flipped (i.e., 20% or less “chalk and talk”); this is known as a flipped classroom (Asarta and Schmidt, 2017; Balaban et al., 2016; Calimeris and Sauer, 2015; Caviglia-Harris, 2016; Cosgrove and Olitsky, 2020; Craft and Linask, 2020; Lombardini et al., 2018; Olitsky and Cosgrove, 2016; Singh, 2020; Swoboda and Feiler, 2016; Vazquez and Chiang, 2015; Yamarik, 2019). 

​

Norman and Wills (2021) explain that high implementation costs prevent many instructors from adopting flipped classrooms. They suggest that instructors try flipping one classroom meeting to evaluate whether it works for their students and themselves while reducing the implementation cost.

​

The literature reports various levels of effectiveness for blended and flipped classrooms. The effectiveness of flipped classrooms is a current debate. Some studies, such as Ficano (2019), show that the effectiveness may not be the same for all student demographics, with some experiencing positive impacts, and others negative impacts. 

​

​