British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 00 No 00 2017 00–00

doi:10.1111/bjet.12548

A systematic review of research on the flipped learning

method in engineering education

Aliye Karabulut-Ilgu, Nadia Jaramillo Cherrez and Charles T. Jahren

Aliye Karabulut-Ilgu is a lecturer in the Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering at Iowa
State University. Nadia Jaramillo Cherrez is a doctoral student in School of Education at Iowa State University.
Charles T. Jahren is the W. A. Klinger Teaching Professor in the Department of Civil, Construction and
Environmental Engineering at Iowa State University. Address for correspondence: Aliye Karabulut-Ilgu, the
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering at Iowa State University, 394 Town Engineering,
813 Bissell Road, Ames, IA 50011 USA. Email:aliye@iastate.edu

Abstract
The purpose of this article is to describe the current state of knowledge and practice in
the flipped learning approach in engineering education and to provide guidance for
practitioners by critically appraising and summarizing existing research. This article is a
qualitative synthesis of quantitative and qualitative research investigating the flipped
learning approach in engineering education. Systematic review was adopted as the
research methodology and article selection and screening process are described. Articles
published between 2000 and May 2015 were reviewed, and 62 articles were included
for a detailed analysis and synthesis. The results indicated that flipped learning gained
popularity amongst engineering educators after 2012. The review revealed that
research in engineering education focused on documenting the design and development
process and sharing preliminary findings and student feedback. Future research
examining different facets of a flipped learning implementation, framed around sound
theoretical frameworks and evaluation methods, is still needed to establish the
pedagogy of flipped learning in teaching engineering.

Introduction
Flipped learning—also referred to as inverted learning—extends the typical three-hour learning
beyond the confines of classroom time through the use of online platforms. In flipped learning,
part or all of direct instruction is delivered through videos and other media; and the class time is
used for engaging students in collaborative, hands-on activities (Flipped Learning Network,
2014). Many colleges and universities have embraced flipped learning model as it provides oppor-
tunities for increased peer interaction and deeper engagement with the material (Johnson,
Adams Becker, Estrada & Freeman, 2015). This pedagogical approach has gained such popular-
ity in higher education that 2015 NMC Horizon Report listed flipped learning to be adopted in a
large scale in 1 year or less (Johnson et al., 2015). According to a survey conducted by Center for
Digital Education and Sonic Foundry, 29% of the higher education faculty in the US reported to
be currently implementing flipped learning, and 27% reported to be planning to implement it in
near future (Bart, 2013).
Flipped learning appears to be particularly well suited to engineering education because of its
potential to “combine learning theories once thought to be incompatible—active, problem-
based learning activities founded upon a constructivist ideology and instructional lectures
C 2017 The Authors British Journal of Educational Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BERA
V
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and
distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
2 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 00 No 00 2017

Practitioner Notes
What is already known about this topic
• Flipped learning has gained popularity in higher education.
• Flipped learning has been used in a wide range of engineering subdisciplines.
• Flipped learning creates opportunities for complex problem solving in engineering
education.
What this paper adds
• There is a paucity of reporting regarding theoretical or conceptual frameworks
guiding the development and evaluation of the flipped approach.
• Evaluation methods have mostly been limited to quantitative data drawn from
course assessments and surveys, and there is a scarcity in qualitative research.
• Students involved in the flipped approach have learned as much as their counter-
parts in the traditional lecture-style format if not more.
Implications for practice and/or policy
• Flipped learning course design and research need to be based on a theoretical
framework.
• Flipped learning research needs to employ quantitative and qualitative methods
to understand the phenomena in depth.
• Further systematic research addressing validity and reliability concerns is needed
to consolidate the role of flipped learning in enhancing student learning.

derived from direct instruction methods founded upon behaviorist principles” (Bishop & Ver-
leger, 2013, p. 1). Although engineering educators agree that students learn better when they
engage in complex problems and projects (Lombardi & Oblinger, 2007), they are reluctant to
forgo lecturing on theoretical and background information necessary for solving engineering
problems (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). Flipped learning provides the midway between these two
opposite viewpoints and is probably one of the few pedagogical innovations that have received
considerable attention and interest (Mitchell, 2014). Despite this increasing interest, there does
not seem to be an agreement on what flipped learning is and how effective it is in improving
student learning (Sharples et al., 2014). Therefore, it is timely to analyze and synthesize
research findings to describe the current state of knowledge and inform future research and
development efforts.
Few articles reviewing flipped learning have been published to date (Estes, Ingram, & Liu, 2014;
Hamdan, McKnight, McKnight, & Arfstrom, 2013) and only one of them focused specifically on
engineering (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). Bishop and Verleger (2013) reviewed 24 studies related
to the flipped classroom and concluded that studies mostly focused on student perceptions, which
were generally positive and single-group designs. Highlighting the scarcity of studies objectively
measuring the impact of flipped approach on student learning, these authors recommended con-
ducting experimental or quasi-experimental studies to investigate objective learning outcomes.
Although Bishop and Verleger’s (2013) review has provided important considerations for engi-
neering educators, their review is not categorized as a systematic review since their article
selection process was not described, and it included studies that were published through the first
half of 2012. However, our analyses indicated that approximately 90% of the empirical research
on flipped learning was published in 2013 and 2014. Including more recent studies provides a
more accurate and up-to-date picture of the current state of flipped learning in engineering
C 2017 The Authors British Journal of Educational Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BERA
V
 Flipped Learning in Engineering Education 3

Figure 1: Flowchart for article selection process (adapted from Liberati et al., 2009) (Note: numbers do not
add up as one article might be excluded for more than one reason)

education. The following research questions were addressed in this article by following the sys-
tematic review steps recommended by Borrego, Foster, and Froyd (2014).
1. What are the trends in flipped classroom in engineering education research?
2. What kinds of theoretical frameworks and evaluation methods have been adopted in
engineering education investigating flipped learning?
3. Is flipped learning effective in teaching engineering according to existing engineering
education research?
4. What are benefits and challenges of flipped learning as reported in engineering education
research?

Article selection process

To ensure that relevant studies were located, a wide variety of databases were searched. The key-
words searched in all the databases included “flipped” and “engineering” or “flipped” and
“engineering education” or “inverted classroom” and “engineering” or “flipped classroom” and
“engineering.” Figure 1 displays the complete article selection process based on the inclusion
criteria.
As of May 2015, this search yielded 164 results after the duplicates were removed. The articles
were organized and tabulated according to context (ie, engineering subdiscipline), and type (eg,
empirical, practical, and editorial). The following inclusion criteria were applied: (a) empirical
research on the flipped approach in engineering higher education contexts; (b) description of the
flipped course design; (c) engineering students and faculty as participants; (d) publication in peer-
reviewed journals or conference proceedings. As can be seen in Figure 1, final total of 62 studies
C 2017 The Authors British Journal of Educational Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BERA
V
4 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 00 No 00 2017

Figure 2: The number of studies published from 2000 to May 2015 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

were included in the final synthesis. Detailed information about each article is provided as Sup-
porting Information (Table S1).
Findings
Several findings emerged as a result of this systematic review of 62 studies on flipped learning in
engineering education.

Trends in the flipped learning and engineering education literature

Figure 2 displays the publication trend of proceedings, journal articles and the combined total
from 2000 to 2014. Studies published in the first half of 2015—when data collection ended—are
included in this review but not reported in Figure 2 since it does not represent an accurate picture
of the whole year of 2015. The first article on flipped learning (using the term “inverted
learning”) was published in 2003. From then on, research in this area was very limited, with
zero to two or three publications a year until 2013. From 2013, flipped learning started sparking
more interest amongst engineering education researchers, and 53% of the articles included in
this synthesis were published in 2014. In addition, six studies included in this review were pub-
lished in the first half of 2015 and they were all journal articles. Although conference
proceedings outnumber the journal articles, the increasing trend seems to be similar for both of
the publication venues. This trend indicates an increase in the number of engineering courses
being converted into a flipped format after 2012.
The vast majority of the studies, 66%, were published in conference proceedings, and 34% were
published in archival journals (Figure 3). The American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE)
is the most common publication venue.

Theoretical frameworks and evaluation methods

This synthesis revealed a paucity of published studies that included a theoretical framework guid-
ing the research and teaching practices. Out of the 62 studies, only 13 referred to a theoretical or
conceptual framework. One of the most commonly cited rationales behind converting a course
from the traditional to a flipped format was the use of in-class time for active learning exercises
rather than for lecturing (Cavalli, Neubert, Mcnally, & Jacklitch-Kuikan, 2014; Velegol, Zappe, &
Mahoney, 2015). The other frameworks are listed in Table 1. A detailed description of these theo-
retical frameworks can be found as Supporting Information (Supporting Material 2).
Researchers adopted a range of data collection methods to evaluate flipped learning. Quantitative
methods involved comparison of exam scores, surveys, course evaluations, institutional data (eg,
retention rates) and system log data (eg, time spent on certain activities on a course management
C 2017 The Authors British Journal of Educational Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BERA
V
 Flipped Learning in Engineering Education 5

Figure 3: The list of publication venues [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

system). Use of qualitative data, such as interviews, classroom recordings and observations, was
rather limited. A detailed discussion of the evaluation methods adopted in the studies can be
found as Supporting Information (Supporting Material 2).

Effectiveness of flipped learning in teaching engineering

Researchers in 30 studies compared student learning in traditional classrooms to learning in
flipped classrooms (Table 2). Thirteen studies exclusively reported that students in the flipped
classroom outperformed their counterparts in the traditional classrooms. Of these, seven studies
reported the statistical significance of their findings. In others, the authors reported an increase in

Table 1: Theoretical frameworks included in the studies

Theoretical framework Studies

Transactional theory Chen, Wang, Kinshuk, and Chen (2014)

The Thayer system Chetcuti, Hans, and Brent (2014)
Problem-based learning & collaborative learning Chiang and Wang (2015)
Cooperative education Choi (2013)
Combination of traditional and constructivist approaches Davies, Dean, and Ball (2013)
Team-based learning Ghadiri, Qayoumi, Junn, and Hsu (2014)
Technology acceptance model Ivala, Thiart, and Gachago (2013)
Revised community of inquiry Kim, Patrick, Srivastava, and Law (2014)
Socio-constructivist theory Redekopp and Ragusa (2013)
Self-directed learning Rutkowski (2014)
Inquiry-based learning Schmidt (2014)

C 2017 The Authors British Journal of Educational Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BERA
V
6 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 00 No 00 2017

Table 2: Findings of articles comparing flipped approach to traditional approach

Findings Studies

Flipped is more effective Amresh, Carberry, & Femiani (2013); Chao, Chen,
and Chuang (2015); Chiang and Wang (2015)*;
Fowler (2014); Kalavally, Chan, and Khoo
(2014); Lemley et al. (2013); Mason, Shuman,
and Cook (2013b)*; McGivney-Burelle and Xue
(2013); Ossman and Warren (2014)*;
Papadopoulos and Roman (2010)*; Redekopp
and Ragusa (2013); Schmidt (2014)*;
Swithenbank and DeNucci (2014); Thomas and
Philpot (2012); Yelamarthi, Member, and Drake
(2015)*
Flipped is more effective and/or no difference Baepler, Walker, and Driessen (2014); Cavalli et al.
(2014); Chetcuti, Hans, & Brent (2014); Choi
(2013)
No difference Buechler, Sealy, and Goomey (2014); Davies et al.
(2013); Love, Hodge, Grandgenett, and Swift
(2014); Mason, Shuman, and Cook (2013b);
Olson (2014); Swift and Wilkins (2014); Talbert
(2014); Velegol et al. (2015)
Flipped is less effective Hagen and Fratta (2014); McClelland (2013)
Flipped is less effective and/or no difference Lavelle, Stimpson, and Brill (2013)

*Indicates statistical significance.

average scores, but did not report a statistical analysis investigating the significance of the
observed difference.
Four studies concluded mixed results in terms of learning gain. For example, Baepler et al. (2014)
found that students in the flipped section performed significantly higher than the ones in the tra-
ditional section during the first year that the flipped approach was implemented, but this
difference was not statistically significant in the second year. In nine other studies, researchers
did not find any statistically significant difference between flipped and traditional formats in terms
of student learning.
Two articles reported that students in the flipped classroom did not perform as well as their coun-
terparts learning in a traditional environment. Hagen and Fratta (2014) observed that even
intrinsically motivated students underperformed in the flipped environment. Students had nega-
tive perceptions toward the course and felt unprepared for the exams because they had to
manage their own learning. Similarly, McClelland (2013) indicated that the average final score
for students in the traditional format was significantly higher than the students in the flipped sec-
tions. Other researchers, on the other hand, did not find any statistically significant difference
between the two formats in terms of exam scores; however, more students failed the course in the
flipped section when compared to the average of nonpass in previous years’ traditional offerings,
and this difference was statistically significant (Lavelle et al., 2013).
To see if there was any difference between student performance in flipped and traditional formats,
an analysis of variance was performed based on the mean scores reported in 25 studies. The
results indicated that the mean score for flipped was higher than traditional format but this differ-
ence was not statistically significant. However, when we controlled for the author as a clustering
effect, the difference was statistically significant at the p < .05 level F (1,102) 5 4.26, p 5 .042.
C 2017 The Authors British Journal of Educational Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BERA
V
 Flipped Learning in Engineering Education 7

Benefits and challenges of flipped learning

The results of this synthesis indicated that flipped learning provided various benefits and chal-
lenges for students and instructors. The benefits can be listed as flexibility, improvement in
interaction, professional skills, and student engagement. Challenges included increased workload
for faculty, student resistance, lack of opportunities for just-in-time questions, technical issues,
decreased interest and neglected material.
One of the most commonly cited benefits of flipped learning was flexibility (Buechler et al., 2014;
Kiat & Kwot, 2014; Mok, 2014; Simpson, Evans, Eley, & Stiles, 2003; Velegol et al., 2015). An
added value of the flipped approach was being able to rewatch the lecture videos. Students could
pause and rewind the videos, take notes and solve example problems while watching the lecture
videos. Having access to course materials for 24/7 provided flexibility for students with different
learning preferences and personal commitments. This flexible teaching and learning environment
also created time for complex problem solving (Ankeny & Krause, 2014; Mok, 2014) and oppor-
tunities to cover more materials (Mason, Shuman, & Cook, 2013a,b).
The rationale behind flipped learning is to use face-to-face class time for complex exercises where
students can interact with each other and with the instructor. This synthesis concluded that stu-
dents enjoyed working with their peers (Bailey & Smith, 2013; Ghadiri et al., 2014; Love et al.,
2014; Talbert & Valley, 2012) and having the instructor available for help (Clark, Norman, &
Besterfield-Sacre, 2014; Lemley et al., 2013; McGivney-Burelle & Xue, 2013; Mok, 2014; Swi-
thenbank & DeNucci, 2014).
Student-centered instructional approaches, like flipped learning, not only help students learn the
content but also provide opportunities to improve professional skills that “today’s competitive
global market and changing work environment demand engineers to possess” (Kumar & Hsiao,
2007, p. 18). Several authors argued that flipped learning contributed to students’ professional
skills such as life-long learning (Luster-Teasley, Hargrove-Leak, & Waters, 2014), learner
autonomy (Kim, Kim, Khera, & Getman, 2014; Mok, 2014), critical thinking (Chetcuti et al.,
2014) and interpersonal skills (Yelamarthi et al., 2015).
Another benefit that this synthesis revealed was student engagement (Lavelle et al., 2013). Several
researchers found that students came to class better prepared (Chetcuti et al., 2014; Jungic, Kaur,
Mulholland, & Xin, 2015; Mok, 2014; Papadopoulos & Roman, 2010), and they devoted more
time and formed better study habits compared to traditional classroom approaches (Papadopoulos
& Roman, 2010).
Although the findings in terms of class attendance varied, some researchers found that the
flipped format increased attendance (Chen et al., 2014; Rutkowski, 2014) and retention
rate (Kim, Patrick, et al., 2014; Love et al., 2014). For example, Rutkowski (2014) found
that regular lecture attendance increased from 55% to 70% when the course was converted
to the flipped format. Similarly, Chen et al. (2014) found out that students logged into the
course platform more frequently to access course materials compared to the prior versions
of the course.

Challenges of flipped learning

As with any new approach, flipped learning brings some challenges for instructors and students.
The biggest challenge for instructors was the heavy workload prior to and during class. Convert-
ing a course from a traditional teaching approach to a flipped format required a reasonable
amount of front-end investment from faculty members (Ghadiri et al., 2014; Kalavally et al.,
2014). During class, on the other hand, one instructor had to serve many students requesting
assistance (Clark et al., 2014).
C 2017 The Authors British Journal of Educational Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BERA
V
8 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 00 No 00 2017

Challenges for students included uninteresting online material, technical issues and insufficient
knowledge about the new approach. For example, students in Amresh, Carberry, and Femiani’s
(2013) study found the online videos boring. Similarly, the length of the videos contributed to
lack of interest in the material (Olson, 2014). Other researchers found that students could easily
skip some of the materials in the flipped classrooms. For example, Ossman and Warren indicated
that rather than watching the videos, students read the slides (2014). Velegol and her colleagues
made the lecture attendance optional, so students who were able to finish their homework on
their own chose not to attend the class (2015).
Although it is generally accepted that today’s net generation students ubiquitously use various
technological tools and applications in their daily lives, this synthesis implied that technical issues
frustrated students (Clemens et al., 2013; Tague & Baker, 2014). Students complained about the
connectivity speed which is assumed to have been resolved at least on higher education campuses
(Everett, Morgan, Stanzione, & Mallouk, 2014).
Student resistance was another challenge that flipped learning instructors faced. Having gone
through a traditional approach throughout their educational career, students felt overwhelmed
when faced with a new approach that required them to actively participate in the learning pro-
cess (Amresh et al., 2013; Bland, 2006; Gannod, Burge, & Helmick, 2008). Students who lacked
metacognitive and organizational skills struggled in flipped classrooms (Margoniner, 2014) as
they opined that they were not being taught; rather, they taught themselves (Talbert & Valley,
2012)
Discussion
Trends in the flipped learning and engineering education literature
The publication trend indicates that there is a proliferating interest in flipped learning in engineer-
ing education. Benefits such as learning gain, flexibility, opportunities for interaction and student
engagement seem to have encouraged several engineering educators to convert their traditional
classrooms to a flipped format. However, the scarcity of archived journal publications indicates
that research on flipped learning in engineering education is still in its infancy. The conference
proceedings usually adopted a practice-oriented approach; and focused on documenting the
design and development process and sharing some preliminary findings and student feedback.
Further systematic research investigating different components and claims of flipped learning
using various research methods is needed to establish flipped learning as an effective pedagogical
approach in the field.

Theoretical frameworks and evaluation methods

As a critical component of disciplined research, theoretical frameworks help researchers to organ-
ize and create a strong argument to justify the significance of a given research problem and guide
selection of appropriate data collection and analysis methods (Antonenko, 2015). More than
50% of the studies included in this review lacked a theoretical framework for implementing
flipped learning in engineering education. If flipped learning has the potential to combine learn-
ing theories once thought to be incompatible, as Bishop and Verleger (2013) argued, then the
research on flipped learning needs to detail how this combination can be successfully imple-
mented with the aid of varied instructional technology tools. These models need to present
strategies for engineering educators for designing, developing and evaluating instruction.
The most commonly cited motivation behind converting a course from the traditional to a flipped
format was the use of in-class time for active learning exercises rather than for lecturing. However,
active learning itself is an ambiguous term that has been used and interpreted differently by vari-
ous researchers and practitioners (Prince, 2004). A multitude of activities ranging from pausing
the lecture for a few minutes and asking students to compare notes with each other to
C 2017 The Authors British Journal of Educational Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BERA
V
 Flipped Learning in Engineering Education 9

simulations and games would fall under the category of active learning. Some of these activities
do not necessarily require flipping the instruction. Therefore, specific pedagogical models that
may fall under the umbrella of the term “active learning” such as case-based reasoning, problem-
based learning and project-based learning could provide a clearer direction for researchers and
practitioners.
Evaluation methods were limited to grade comparisons to measure learning gain and surveys to
get student feedback. These methods provide valuable information about the role of flipped
approach in student learning; however, they may fall short in analyzing the overall impact.
Bishop and Verleger (2013) called for more experimental studies to investigate the effectiveness
of the flipped approach, but this review indicated that more systematic qualitative and mixed-
method approaches are needed to understand what flipped learning entails and how it supports
student learning in various ways.

Effectiveness of the flipped learning

The results of this systematic review indicated that flipped learning was more effective than tradi-
tional lecture method in many cases. It would have been ideal to conduct a meta-analysis to
make a definitive conclusion about the superiority of flipped approach over traditional approach;
however, majority of the studies included in this study failed to report mean scores, standard devi-
ations and number of observations required for a meta-analysis. The studies also used different
measurements (eg, final course grades, exam scores, quiz scores) which made such a comparison
difficult. However, one-way ANOVA test results based on the studies that reported a mean score
indicated that students in the flipped approach learned the content as much as their counterparts
in the traditional approach if not better.

Benefits and challenges of flipped learning

Flipped learning approach seemed to be promising in regards to the benefits it provides for stu-
dents and instructors. Yet, the research focused on measuring the effectiveness of the new
approach through comparisons to traditional approaches, and the conclusions about benefits
were reported as additional findings. Therefore, further research is needed to investigate the
transferability of these findings to different contexts. Specifically, the claims about the professional
skills and increased interaction need to be investigated thoroughly. For example, only one study
included in this review analyzed how students interacted with each other during face-to-face
problem sessions and learned how their conversations shifted from simply recalling facts to con-
ceptual discussions (Lin et al., 2014). Further research investigating the student engagement and
interaction in the face-to-face sessions would help instructors who have hesitations about individ-
ual contributions in collaborative group assignments. This line of research can also produce a list
of guidelines for successfully flipping an engineering course and help practitioners to identify
areas of problems and develop interventions as needed.
Some of the challenges cited in these studies, such as heavy workload and technical issues, can
be addressed effectively. Instructors might be advised to gradually convert their courses rather
than doing it all at once because material development might be overwhelming. Although it may
not be plausible to foresee every technical issue, making students aware of possible issues might
reduce frustration. Some other challenges, on the other hand, raise some crucial concerns about
the design of a flipped classroom. Studies that found a lack of engagement in the flipped format
seemed not to make full use of the format (eg, Ossman & Warren, 2014; Velegol et al., 2015).
Online materials need to be carefully designed and complex problems, where students are
required to collaborate and interact with each other and the instructor, should be assigned for in-
class sessions. This would increase lecture attendance and engagement as concluded in studies
by Chen et al. (2014) and Rutkowski (2014).
C 2017 The Authors British Journal of Educational Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BERA
V
10 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 00 No 00 2017

Recommendations for future research and practice

The findings of this systematic review serves as the basis for recommendations for engineering
educators who plan to investigate the role of flipped learning in engineering education.

Reforming engineering education through theoretically sound frameworks

Engineering education research needs to focus more on what specific aspects of active learning
might be complemented in a flipped format and how that could help form engineers for today’s
competitive global market and changing work environment. Researchers need to make informed
decisions about which theoretical framework would provide a structure to systematically study
the role and impact of the flipped approach in engineering education.

Using qualitative and longitudinal data to provide deeper understanding

This synthesis reveals that there is a paucity of literature employing qualitative methodologies
that would provide more in-depth understanding of learning in a flipped environment. Addition-
ally, there is a lack of longitudinal studies investigating the student experiences over a long
period of time. Rather, studies were mostly conducted over a semester when the new approach is
implemented for the first time. It is very likely that an innovation will be successful because of its
novelty, or will fail because of insufficient experience. Therefore, this synthesis calls for longitudi-
nal studies investigating student experience over a longer period of time which may even involve
postgraduation.

Investigating systematic adoption of flipped learning in engineering education

A vast majority of the studies included in this review examined flipped learning in specific courses
rather than at the program or discipline level. Although the decision on how to teach is at the dis-
cretion of individual instructors, higher education institutions encourage and sometimes require,
faculty members to adopt innovative pedagogical approaches like flipped and blended learning
(Sheppard, 2013). Studying the phenomena of flipped learning at broader levels (ie, program, dis-
cipline) may help engineering educators understand the overall impact of the pedagogy and how
it might influence student readiness for a new teaching approach. It would also help practitioners
to adopt strategies to address student resistance when they implement a new teaching technique.

Shifting the focus from academic skills to professional skills

This synthesis reveals that researchers generally focus on students’ academic gains when they
adopt a new pedagogical approach. Although it is an important component of learning, report of
academic achievement or failure only provides partial information about the role of innovative
pedagogies in teaching engineering skills. Very few researchers argued that flipped learning
improved students’ professional skills such as life-long learning, self-regulation, inter-personal
communication. Further research is needed to systematically investigate whether or not flipped
learning enhances these skills. Developing measures and alternative assessments, of which the
development process is clearly described, and the reliability and validity analyses reported, will
considerably contribute to the research in the field.

Conclusion
This systematic review of research on flipped learning in engineering education is timely as the
flipped approach has gained popularity amongst engineering educators. It is imperative to under-
stand the current practices in order to shed light on future implementations. The review of 62
articles included in this synthesis was framed around four major research questions. First, the
findings indicated a widespread adoption of flipped learning in various sub-fields of engineering.
Second, there is a paucity of the report of theoretical frameworks guiding the development and
evaluation of the flipped approach. Evaluation methods have mostly been limited to quantitative
C 2017 The Authors British Journal of Educational Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BERA
V
 Flipped Learning in Engineering Education 11

data drawn from course assessments and surveys, and there is a scarcity in qualitative research
to understand phenomena in depth and within specific contexts. Third, many researchers found
that students in the flipped classroom had learned as much as their counterparts in the traditional
lecture-style format if not more. Fourth, flipped learning provides several benefits and brings
some challenges for instructors and students. Synthesizing the existing research on flipped learn-
ing, this study provides recommendations for researchers, practitioners and policy-makers to
develop research-based action plans in how to develop and evaluate flipped classrooms.

Statements on open data, ethics and conflict of interest

We declare that the data will be available by individual application directly to the first author.
We declare that no human participants used in this study. We declare that we do not have any
conflicts of interest regarding the reported study.

References
Amresh, A., Carberry, A. R., & Femiani, J. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of flipped classrooms for
teaching CS1. In Proceedings of Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE (pp. 733–735). Oklahama City, OK:
IEEE Xplore Digital Library.
Ankeny, C. J., & Krause, S. J. (2014). Flipped biomedical engineering classroom using pencasts and muddiest
point web-enabled tools. Paper presented at Proceedings of 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition,
Indianapolis, IN.
Antonenko, P. D. (2015). The instrumental value of conceptual frameworks in educational technology
research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 53–71.
Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency
in active learning classrooms. Computers and Education, 78, 227–236.
Bailey, R., & Smith, M. C. (2013). Implementation and assessment of a blended learning environment as an
approach to better engage students in a large systems design class. Paper presented at Proceedings of 120th
ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, GA.
Bart, M. (2013). Survey confirms the growth of the flipped classroom. Faculty Focus. Retrieved April 21,
2016, from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/edtech-news-and-trends/survey-confirms-growth-of-
the-flipped-classroom/.
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. Paper presented at
Proceedings of 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, GA.
Bland, L. (2006). Applying flip/inverted classroom model in electrical engineering to establish life-long learning.
Paper presented at Proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Chicago, IL.
Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2014). Systematic literature reviews in engineering education
and other developing interdisciplinary fields. Journal of Engineering Education, 103, 45–76.
Buechler, D. N., Sealy, P. J., & Goomey, J. (2014). Three pilot studies with a focus on asynchronous dis-
tance education. Paper presented at Proceedings of 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition,
Indianapolis, IN.
Cavalli, M., Neubert, J. J., Mcnally, D., & Jacklitch-Kuikan, D. (2014). Comparison of student performance
and perceptions across multiple course delivery modes. Paper presented at Proceedings of 121st ASEE
Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN.
Chao, C.-Y., Chen, Y.-T., & Chuang, K.-Y. (2015). Exploring students learning attitude and achievement
in flipped learning supported computer aided design curriculum: A study in high school engineering
education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 23(4), 514–526.
Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Kinshuk, & Chen, N. S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model
instead? Computers and Education, 79, 16–27.
Chetcuti, S. C., Hans, J. T., & Brent, J. P. (2014). Flipping the engineering classroom: Results and observations
with non- engineering students. Paper presented at Proceedings of 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Expo-
sition, Indianapolis, IN.
Chiang, Y., & Wang, H. (2015). Effects of the in-flipped classroom on the learning environment of data-
base engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31, 454–460.
C 2017 The Authors British Journal of Educational Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BERA
V
12 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 00 No 00 2017

Choi, E. (2013). Applying inverted classroom to software engineering education. International Journal of E-
Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-Learning, 3, 121–125.
Clark, R. M., Norman, B. A., & Besterfield-Sacre, M. (2014). Preliminary experiences with “flipping” a
facility layout/material handling course. In Y. Guan & H. Liao (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 Industrial
and Systems Engineering Research Conference. Montreal, Canada.
Clemens, B. M., Nivargi, C., Jan, A., Lu, Y., Schneider, E., & Manning, J. (2013). Adventures with a flipped
classroom and a materials science and engineering MOOC: “fools go where angels fear to tread.” In Pro-
ceedings of Materials Research Society Symposium Vol. 1583. Boston, MA.
Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integra-
tion in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Devel-
opment, 61, 563–580.
Estes, M., Ingram, R., & Liu, J. C. (2014). A review of flipped classroom research, practice, and technolo-
gies. International HETL Review, 4, Article 7.
Everett, J. W., Morgan, J. K., Stanzione, J. F., & Mallouk, K. E. (2014). A hybrid flipped first-year engineer-
ing course. Paper presented at Proceedings of 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapo-
lis, IN.
Flipped Learning Network (2014). What is flipped learning? The four pillars of F-L-I-P. Retrieved January 10,
2016, from http://www.flippedlearning.org/definition.
Fowler, M. L. (2014). Flipping signals and systems—course structure & results. Paper presented at Proceed-
ings of 2014 IEEE International Conference on Acoustic, Speech and Signal Processing, Florence, Italy.
Gannod, G. C., Burge, J. E., & Helmick, M. T. (2008). Using the inverted classroom to teach software
engineering. In Proceedings of 2008 ACM/IEEE 30th International Conference on Software Engineering
(pp. 777–786). Leipzig, Germany: ACM Digital Library.
Ghadiri, K., Qayoumi, M. H., Junn, E., & Hsu, P. (2014). Developing and implementing effective instructional
stratgems in STEM. Paper presented at Proceedings of 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indi-
anapolis, IN.
Hagen, E. J., & Fratta, D. (2014). Hybrid learning in geological engineering: Why, how, and to what end?
In M. Abu-Farsakh, X. Yu, & L. R. Hoyos (Eds.), Proceedings of Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers: Geo-
characterization and modeling for sustainability (pp. 3920–3929). Atlanta, GA: ASCE.
Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K. M. (2013). A review of flipped learning. Retrieved
August 3, 2015, from http://fln.schoolwires.net//site/Default.aspx?PageID563.
Ivala, E., Thiart, A., & Gachago, D. (2013). A lecturer’s perception of the adoption of the inverted class-
room or flipped method of curriculum delivery in a hydrology course, in a resource poor university of
technology. In Proceedings of the 8Th International Conference on E-Learning (pp. 207–214). Cape Town,
South Africa: ACPI.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 library edi-
tion. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from http://privacytools.
seas.harvard.edu/files/privacytools/files/2014-nmc-horizon-report-library-en.pdf.
Jungic, V., Kaur, H., Mulholland, J., & Xin, C. (2015). On flipping the classroom in large first year calculus
courses. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 46, 1–8.
Kalavally, V., Chan, C. L., & Khoo, B. H. (2014). Technology in learning and teaching: Getting the right
blend for first year engineering. In Proceedings of 2014 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative
Learning (pp. 565–570). Dubai, UAE: IEEE Xplore Digital Library.
Kiat, P. N., & Kwot, Y. T. (2014). The flipped classroom experience. In Proceedings of IEEE CSEE&T (pp.
39–43). Klagenfurt, Austria: IEEE Xplore Digital Library.
Kim, G. J., Patrick, E. E., Srivastava, R., & Law, M. E. (2014). Perspective on flipping Circuits I. IEEE Trans-
actions on Education, 57, 188–192.
Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an
urban university: An exploration of design principles. Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37–50.
Kumar, S., & Hsiao, K. (2007). Engineers learn “soft skills the hard way”: Planting a seed of leadership in
engineering classes. Leadership Management in Engineering, 7, 18–23.
Lavelle, J. P., Stimpson, M. T., & Brill, E. D. (2013). Flipped out engineering economy: Converting a tradi-
tional class to an inverted model. In A. Krishnamurthy & W. K. V Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2013
Industrial Systems Engineering Research Conference (pp. 397–407). Puerto Rico: HighBeam Research.
C 2017 The Authors British Journal of Educational Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BERA
V
 Flipped Learning in Engineering Education 13

Lemley, E. C., Jassemnejad, B., Judd, E., Ring, B. P., Henderson, A. W., & Armstrong, G. M. (2013). Imple-
menting a flipped classroom in thermodynamics. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 120th ASEE
Annual Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA.
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., . . . Moher, D.
(2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that
evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 339: b2700. doi: 10.1136/
bmj.b2700.
Lin, J., Imbertson, P., & Moore, T. (2014). Introducing an instructional model for “flipped engineering
classrooms”- Part (II): How do group discussions foster meaningful learning? In Proceedings of the
121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Indianapolis, IN.
Lombardi, B. M. M., & Oblinger, D. G. (2007). Authentic Learning for the 21st Century: An Overview.
Learning, 1, 1–7.
Love, B., Hodge, A., Grandgenett, N., & Swift, A. W. (2014). Student learning and perceptions in a flipped
linear algebra course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45,
317–324.
Luster-Teasley, S., Hargrove-Leak, S. C., & Waters, C. (2014). Transforming undergraduate environmental
engineering laboratories for sustainable engineering using the case studies in the sciences instructional method.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis,
IN.
Margoniner, V. (2014). Learning gains in introductory astronomy: Online can be as good as face-to-face.
The Physics Teacher, 52, 298–301.
Mason, G., Shuman, T. R., & Cook, K. E. (2013a). Inverting (flipping) classrooms—Advantages and challenges.
Paper presented at Proceedings of the 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, GA.
Mason, G. S., Shuman, T. R., & Cook, K. E. (2013b). Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom
to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56,
430–435.
Mcclelland, C. J. (2013). Flipping a large-enrollment fluid mechanics course—Is it effective? Paper pre-
sented at Proceedings of the 120th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA.
McGivney-Burelle, J., & Xue, F. (2013). Flipping Calculus. Primus, 23, 477–486.
Mitchell, J.C. (2014). MOOCS on and off the farm: MOOCs and technology to advance learning and learn-
ing research (ubiquity symposium). Magazine Ubiquity, 2014, June.
Mok, H. N. (2014). Teaching tip: The flipped classroom. Journal of Information Systems Education, 25, 7–11.
Olson, R. (2014). Flipping engineering probability and statistics—Lessons learned for faculty considering
the switch. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition,
Indianapolis, IN.
Ossman, K. A., & Warren, G. (2014). Effect of flipping the classroom on student performance in first year engi-
neering courses. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition,
Indianapolis, IN.
Papadopoulos, C., & Roman, A. S. (2010). Implementing an inverted classroom model in engineering statics:
Initial results. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 117th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition,
Louisville, KY.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education,
93, 223–231.
Redekopp, M. W., & Ragusa, G. (2013). Evaluating flipped classroom strategies and tools for computer engineer-
ing. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, GA.
Rutkowski, J. (2014). Flipped classroom—from experiment to practice. In Proceedings of the 1st Interna-
tional KES Conference on Smart Technology Based Education and Training (pp. 565–574). Chania, Greece:
Springer.
Schmidt, B. (2014). Improving motivation and learning outcome in a flipped classroom environment.
In Proceedings of 2014 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (pp. 689–690).
Dubai, UAE: IEEE Xplore Digital Library.
Sharples, M., Adams, A., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., . . . Whitelock, D. (2014).
Innovating Pedagogy 2014: Open University Innovation Report 3. Milton Keynes: The Open University.

C 2017 The Authors British Journal of Educational Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BERA
V
14 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 00 No 00 2017

Sheppard, D. (2013, March). Blended learning-traditional lecture learning to be replaced with online lectures and
group work sessions, how will you adjust? Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Simpson, W., Evans, D., Eley, R., & Stiles, M. (2003). Findings from the HEI “Flip” project: Application
issues. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 13, 471.
Swift, T. M., & Wilkins, B. J. (2014). A partial flip, a whole transformation: Redesigning sophomore circuits.
Paper presented at Proceedings of 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN.
Swithenbank, S., & DeNucci, T. W. (2014). Using a “flipped classroom” model in undergraduate Newtonian
Dynamics. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 121st ASEE Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN.
Tague, J., & Baker, R. G. (2014). Flipping the classroom to address cognitive obstacles. Paper presented at
Proceedings of the 121st ASEE Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN.
Talbert, R. (2014). Inverting the Linear Algebra classroom. PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in
Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 24, 361–374.
Talbert, R., & Valley, G. (2012). Learning MATLAB in the inverted classroom. Paper presented at Proceedings
of 1119th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX.
Thomas, J. S., & Philpot, T. A. (2012). An inverted teaching model for a mechanics of materials course. Paper
presented at Proceedings of the 119th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX.
Velegol, S. B., Zappe, S. E., & Mahoney, E. (2015). The Evolution of a flipped classroom: Evidence-based
recommendations. Advances in Engineering Education, 4, 1–37.
Yelamarthi, K., Member, S., & Drake, E. (2015). A flipped first-year digital circuits course for engineering
and technology students. IEEE Transactions on Education, 58, 179–186.

Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found online in the supporting information tab
for this article.
Table S1: Summary of studies included in the synthesis

C 2017 The Authors British Journal of Educational Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BERA
V