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

 

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 the flipped classroom approach. 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) and Setren et al. (2021), indicate that the effectiveness may vary across different student demographics or fields of study, with some experiencing positive impacts, while others may experience null or negative impacts. 

​

​