Flipping the Classroom for Small Group Settings
Updated May 28, 2026
Small-group tutorials should be where students practise, question and build confidence. In quantitative subjects, they often become something less useful: the tutor works through answers while students watch. Becker and Proud's flipped tutorial model tries to move that time back towards active problem solving.
The setting is familiar in mathematics, economics and statistics. Students receive exercises before the tutorial, but many arrive without having used them. The tutorial then becomes a replacement for preparation rather than a chance to go deeper.
What the paper shows
The proposed model gives students practice problems and an online clip with worked solutions a week before the tutorial. The video should ideally be recorded by the lecturer so that explanations and notation are consistent.
At the start of the tutorial, the tutor spends a few minutes answering questions about the published problems. Students then receive a fresh set of related problems. They work on these in groups of three to five, in an open-book environment, for around an hour.
This design changes the point of the tutorial. Students are no longer using contact time mainly to copy solutions. They are applying methods, explaining reasoning and testing whether they can transfer ideas to new problems.
The tutor's role also changes. The tutor circulates, asks guiding questions, notices common misconceptions and briefly pauses the room when many students are stuck on the same issue. The paper suggests questions such as: which lecture content does this problem use, and is there a published problem that relates to it?
The authors are clear about practical constraints. The number of students per tutor should not exceed about 20. Progress may be slower than in a standard tutorial, so the amount of content needs to be realistic. Less experienced tutors may need a short briefing with the lecturer before the session so expectations are shared.
One important recommendation is not to publish worked solutions for the new tutorial problems. Students can be directed back to the worked solutions for the preparation set, but the live problems should keep the focus on practice and reasoning.
What universities can do with this
Preparation must be specific. Students need worked examples that show method and standards, not a vague instruction to revise the lecture. Short clips and linked problems make the expected preparation concrete.
Tutorial tasks should extend the preparation rather than duplicate it. If students can simply copy the earlier method without thinking, the session will not build higher-level skills. If the task is too far removed, they may disengage. The design needs a close but meaningful step up.
Tutor development matters. Facilitating a room of groups is different from demonstrating solutions. Tutors need question prompts, guidance on when to intervene and a shared view of what success looks like.
Student comments can show whether the model is working. Look for evidence that students feel more confident attempting problems, understand why preparation matters and receive enough support during the session.
Limits of the evidence
The model is strongest for small-group quantitative tutorials. It may need adaptation for larger classes or more discursive subjects. The transferable lesson is that preparation and contact time should do different jobs: worked examples before class, guided practice during class.
FAQ
Q: Why not publish all worked solutions afterwards?
A: If every live problem is followed by a worked solution, students may wait for the answer rather than practise reasoning. The preparation set can provide models; the tutorial set should build independence.
Q: How large should groups be?
A: Three to five students is a workable size. It is small enough for everyone to contribute and large enough to support discussion.
Q: What should the tutor do during the session?
A: Circulate, ask guiding questions, watch for common misconceptions and give brief whole-room explanations only when many students need the same support.
References
[1] R. Becker, S. Proud (2018). Flipping quantitative tutorials. International Review of Economics Education, 29, pp. 59-73.
DOI: 10.1016/j.iree.2018.01.004
[2] L. Springer, M.S. Stanne, S.S. Donovan (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res., 69, pp. 21-51.
DOI: 10.3102/2F00346543069001021
[3] J.B. Waldrop, M.A. Bowdon (Eds.) (2016). Best Practices for Flipping the College Classroom. Routledge.
ISBN: 9781138021730
[4] L. Calimeris, K.M. Sauer (2015). Flipping out about the flip: all hype or is there hope? Int. Rev. Econ. Educ., 20, pp. 13-28.
DOI: 10.1016/j.iree.2015.08.001
[5] L. DesLauriers, E. Schelew, C. Wieman (2011) Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332, pp. 862-864.
DOI: 10.1126/science.1201783
[6] N.H. Olitsky, S.B. Cosgrove (2016). The better blend? Flipping the principles of microeconomics class. Int. Rev. Econ. Educ., 21, pp. 1-11
DOI: 10.1016/j.iree.2015.10.004
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround