The Flipped-Classroom Approach: The Answer to Future Learning?

Gila Kurtz, Alexandr Tsimerman 1 ,  and Orna Steiner-Lavi 1
  • 1 The College for Academic Studies, 46 Ben Gurion St., Ramat Hasharon, Israel


The study examines students’ assessments of the use of the flipped classroom approach in an undergraduate course in the Business Department at the College for Academic Studies in Israel. In its essence, learners prepare for classes by watching videos away from class, allowing the classroom encounter to focus on discussion, exercises, and discourse. Data were collected by a questionnaire distributed toward the end of the course. The students reported that watching videos between lessons enhanced interest, alleviated boredom, and enriched the learning. To a lesser extent, they reported it increased their involvement in learning, understanding of the learning material, and confidence in their ability to understand it. While acknowledging the convenience of watching course videos between classes, however, the participants clearly preferred to watch them in class. Multivariate analysis revealed that working students were less positive about using the flipped-classroom approach than non-working students, female students were more positive than male ones, and older students were more positive than younger ones. Furthermore, the stronger the senses of having classmates nearby, the more positive the participants were about the contribution of watching the videos.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A comparative study. In Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), (pp. 202-232).

  • 2. Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. In International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Available online at

  • 3. Anderson, T. (2010). Theories for learning with emerging technologies. In G. Veletsianos (ed.), Immerging technologies in education, (pp. 23-36). Edmonton: AU Press.

  • 4. Ang, R.P. (2005). Development and validation of the Teacher-Student Relationship Inventory using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(1), (pp. 55-73).

  • 5. Baker, J.W. (2000). The “classroom flip”: Using web course management tools to become the guide by the side. In Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on College Teaching and Learning, (pp. 9-17).. Available online at

  • 6. Bonk, C.J. and Khoo, E. (2014). Adding some TEC-VARIETY: 100+ Activities for motivating and retaining learners. Indiana: Open World Books.

  • 7. Brookfield, S.D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

  • 8. Chen, C.M. and Wu, C.H. (2015). Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance. In Computers and Education, 80, (pp. 108-121).

  • 9. Fletcher, J.D. and Tobias, S. (2005). The multimedia principle. In R.E. Mayer (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, (pp. 117-133).

  • 10. Griffin, D.K.; Mitchell, D. and Thompson, S.J. (2009). Podcasting by synchronising PowerPoint and voice: what are the pedagogical benefits? In Computers and Education, 53(2), (pp. 532-539).

  • 11. Harmon-Jones, E.; Simon, L.; Greenberg, J.; Pyszczynski, T.; Solomon, S.; McGregor, H. (1997). Terror management and self-esteem: Evidence that self-esteem reduces mortality salience effects. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, (pp. 24-26).

  • 12. Hirumi, A. (2006). Analyzing and designing e-learning interactions. In C. Juwah (ed.), Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice, (pp. 46-71). New York: Routledge.

  • 13. Jukes, I.; McCain, T.; Crockett, L. (2010). Understanding the digital generation. Kelowna, B.C.: 21st Century Fluency Project & Corwin.

  • 14. Kurtz, G. ( ). Facebook Group as a space for interactive and collaborative learning. In The International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, 1(4), (pp. 406-418).

  • 15. Kurtz, G. ( ). Integrating Facebook Group and a Course Website: The Effect on Participation and Perceptions on Learning. In American Journal of Distance Education, 28( ), (pp. 253-263).

  • 16. Heatherton, T.F. and Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, (pp. 895-910).

  • 17. Lee, M.J.W. and Chan, A. (2007). Reducing the effects of isolation and promoting inclusivity for distance learners through podcasting. In Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), (pp. 85-105).

  • 18. Levi-Atzmon, G. (2014). Image-Supported Learning: Visual Language and Pedagogy. In N. Notzer (ed.), To Excel in Academic Teaching Lecturer Handbook of Updated Strategies and Competencies, (pp. 79-98). Or-Yehuda: The College for Academic Studies press (Hebrew)

  • 19. Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. In Learning and Instruction, 13(2), (pp. 177-189).

  • 20. Li, F.; Qi, J.; Wang, G. and Wang, X. (2014). Traditional classroom vs. e-learning in higher education: Difference between students’ behavioural engagement. In International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9(2), (pp. 48-51).

  • 21. Lim, D.H. (2002). Perceived differences between classroom and distance education: seeking instructional strategies for learning application. In International Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1), (pp. 21-35).

  • 22. Lomicka, L. and Lord, C. (2007). Social presence in virtual communities of foreign language (FL) teachers. In System, 35(2), (pp. 208-228).

  • 23. Mayer, R.E. (2005). Principles of Multimedia Learning Based on Social Cues: Personalization, Voice and Image Principles. In R.E. Mayer (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, (pp. 201-212).

  • 24. Meishar-Tal, H.; Kurtz, G. and Pitterse, E. (2012). Facebook groups as LMS: A case study. In The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 13(4), (pp. 33-48). Available online at

  • 25. Means, B.; Toyama, Y.; Murphy, R.; Bakia, M.; Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. Available online at finalreport.pdf.

  • 26. Moore, M.G. and Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: a systems view. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

  • 27. Morse, M. (2013). A quality of interrelating: describing a form of meaningful experience on a wilderness river journey. In Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 14(1), (pp. 42-55).

  • 28. Müller, T. (2008). Persistence of women in online degree completion programs. In International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2). Available online at

  • 29. Noonoo, S. (2012). Flipped learning founders set the record straight. In THE Journal, Available online at a.aspx

  • 30. Palloff, R.M. and Pratt, K. (2011). The excellent online instructor: Strategies for professional development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • 31. Piersol, L. (2014). Listening Place. In Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 17(2), (pp. 43-53).

  • 32. Selwyn, N. (2014). The Internet and Education. In Chairman’s Advisory, BBVA (eds.), 19 Key Essays on How Internet Changing our Lives, (pp. 191-217). OpenMind, BBVA. Available online at

  • 33. Subrahmanyam, K. and Šmahel, D. (2011). Digital Youth: The Role of Media in Development. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC., New York, NY.

  • 34. Zhan, Z. and Mei. H. (2013). Academic self-concept and social presence in face-to-face and online learning: Perceptions and effects on students’ learning achievement and satisfaction across environments. In Computers & Education, 6, (pp. 131-138).


Journal + Issues