Student Feedback on Flipped Teaching

Updated Mar 05, 2026

Flipped teaching can lift exam results, but it can also change what students say about their learning. Lucas Gren’s study at Chalmers University of Technology compared a traditional cohort with a flipped-classroom approach, tracking both exam performance and student feedback 1.

Gren cites an earlier review that defines the flipped classroom as “an educational technique that consists of two parts:

1. interactive group learning activities inside the classroom, and
2. direct computer-based individual instruction outside the classroom”.

In other words, students learn core content outside class, then use classroom time for interactive, group-based work. The main takeaway from Gren’s study is that exam gains took time to appear, and staff support and consistent evaluation mattered as much as the model itself.

Gren’s interest in this approach was piqued when, as a new PhD student in 2013, he took on teaching responsibilities at Chalmers University of Technology. After a significant drop in student evaluation scores for one class, Gren concluded that the issue was inadequate teaching techniques (rather than simply being new to the role). Given the shortage of studies on the effectiveness of the “flipped classroom” approach, Gren committed to adding to the existing understanding of the concept.

Before implementing “the flip”, Gren’s class used traditional lecturing (for up to 50 learners). For clarity, when referring to “traditional lecturing”, we mean the lecturer narrated PowerPoint-based presentations and occasionally answered questions via the blackboard (with learners responsible for taking notes). This group under these conditions (the 2014 class cohort) is what the publication uses as a control group. Note that a “blended learning” model was used in both cases. Students had access to the source textbooks, lecture PowerPoints, and related research articles via an online learning environment.

Post-flip, in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years of the experiment, the mode of delivery was drastically different. Once students had familiarised themselves with the materials provided beforehand, lectures consisted of teachers leading an active examination of the material. For consistency, these new lectures took place in the same time slots as the previous unflipped case. In this self-directed stage, the teacher provided a 10 to 20-minute video lecture (either created for this class or sourced online); students then completed a multiple-choice quiz based on its content. In class, the typical format included (paraphrased from Gren’s publication):

• An introduction in which students have a few minutes to discuss (in pairs) the online resources for that lesson.
• A class-wide discussion of the online resources, often incorporating a short, open-ended question relating to what could be included, excluded, or clarified.
• Miscellaneous admin relating to lab work and reports.
• Group discussions on video lecture content in which students were offered alternative perspectives by the in-class teacher(s).
• The teacher(s) would share a statement or problem that challenged a particular point of understanding in the subject; students would engage in a process coined “think-pair-share”.
• One or more worked examples, with students asked to engage digitally (for example, “voting” for the correct answer or approach).
• Students were asked to design appropriate methods of investigating a given phenomenon in groups.

If you are considering a flip, it helps to know this work is not alone in the conclusions it draws. Since 2013, an increasing number of experiments (with varying approaches) have reached similar supporting observations. The main variation is the degree to which the approach improves student satisfaction and performance.

Gren evaluated the results of his experiment using two measures: exam performance and student feedback. Exams contained a wide variety of question formats (as had also been the case in previous years), from multiple-choice to open-ended essay-style questions. While the experiment saw no measurable improvement in exam results after the 1st year of the flipped approach, the improvement in further years was significant. That matters if you are evaluating a flipped design after a single cohort.

On student satisfaction, Gren reports notable praise for the flipped approach in 2016 (the same year exam results improved). Responses from 2015 to 2017 suggest a preference for the flipped approach, but this is a less reliable measure due to low and inconsistent response rates to the feedback questionnaires (see non-response bias in student evaluations): 50% in 2014; 45% in 2015; 26% in 2016; and 36% in 2017. Gren, justifiably, sees the results of this survey as positive, but he also draws attention to the need for consistent and rigorous training for teaching staff adapting to this new model. He also notes that teaching staff were not constant across the years considered. For these reasons, and other statistical concerns, Gren determines that there was no “clear effect on students’ perception” of the class. If you want to use student feedback to steer the change, improving response rates is part of the work.

While there are some inconsistencies in this methodology (changing teaching staff and students, small control group, etc.), the improvement in attainment is a clear motive for more attention being dedicated to this model of teaching. As Gren highlights, the drive for progress via such endeavours cannot rely solely on existing teaching staff; they have to be supported. But this support has to go beyond resources; it has to include rigorous training in the delivery of such promising approaches. Paired with a reliable approach to capturing and interpreting student feedback, the impact of lessons could extend far beyond the classroom.

FAQ

Q: How does the flipped classroom model specifically impact different types of learners?

A: Because direct instruction moves outside class and classroom time is used for interactive work, the model can land differently for different learners. Self-motivated students often thrive, while students who struggle with self-direction or lack a conducive study environment at home can need more scaffolding, otherwise they may arrive unprepared and participate less. Clear guidance on prep work, lightweight checks for understanding, and in-class support can help you hear from everyone, not just the confident few.

Q: What specific challenges did teachers face when adapting to the flipped classroom model, and how were these addressed?

A: Teachers adapting to the flipped classroom model often encounter several challenges, including redesigning course materials, mastering new technologies, and changing their instructional approach. In practice, that means creating or curating effective pre-class materials (often short videos), then shifting from “delivering content” to facilitating discussion and problem-solving in class.

Addressing these challenges typically involves comprehensive training and support for educators. Professional development can cover creating digital content, facilitating active learning, and using technology to sustain engagement. It also helps to build a shared playbook between instructors, so students get a consistent experience across the module.

Q: What were the long-term effects on students who participated in the flipped classroom model in terms of knowledge retention and application beyond the classroom?

A: The long-term effects of the flipped classroom model on knowledge retention and application beyond the classroom are promising, but they can vary. The approach encourages active engagement with the material through discussion and problem-solving, which tends to support understanding and longer-term retention.

However, results depend on the quality of the pre-class materials, the effectiveness of in-class activities, and the level of support provided to students throughout the process. Regularly reviewing outcomes and student feedback helps you adjust the balance between prep work and class time, and improve the experience over time.

References

[Source Paper] L. Gren, "A Flipped Classroom Approach to Teaching Empirical Software Engineering," in IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 155-163, Aug. 2020.
DOI: 10.1109/TE.2019.2960264

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.

Book a free demo Prefer email? info@studentvoice.ai

UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround

Related Entries

• Quectures - Flipped Classrooms and Polling
• Inverted learning: turning traditional teaching methods upside-down
• Flipping the Classroom for Small Group Settings
• The use of blended learning from the perspective of students
• Can a ‘flipped classroom’ approach help students succeed?