Student Feedback on Flipped Teaching
Updated May 28, 2026
Flipped teaching is often sold as a simple swap: content before class, active learning during class. Lucas Gren's study at Chalmers University of Technology shows why the reality is more complicated. The approach can improve outcomes, but the effects on student feedback and performance may take time to appear.
The study compared a traditional version of an empirical software engineering course with later flipped versions. It looked at both exam performance and student evaluations, which makes it useful for institutions trying to judge whether a teaching redesign is actually working.
What the study shows
In the traditional model, students attended PowerPoint-led lectures and used online materials such as slides, textbooks and research articles. In the flipped model, students reviewed short video lectures and other resources before class, completed quizzes, and then used class time for discussion, problem solving, worked examples and group design tasks.
That design changed the role of contact time. Instead of hearing the main explanation for the first time, students used class to test understanding and apply ideas. This is the main educational promise of the flipped classroom.
The performance results were not immediate. In the first year after the flip, exam results did not show a clear improvement. In later years, the improvement became significant. That delay matters. A new teaching model may need time for staff to learn the format, students to understand expectations and materials to be refined.
Student feedback was also positive but not clean-cut. The 2016 responses were notably favourable, and responses from 2015 to 2017 suggested a preference for the flipped approach. However, response rates were low and inconsistent: 50% in 2014, 45% in 2015, 26% in 2016 and 36% in 2017. Teaching staff also changed across the years. Gren therefore avoids claiming a clear effect on student perception.
That caution is the most useful part of the paper. The flipped model may improve attainment, but satisfaction data needs careful interpretation.
What universities can do with this
Do not judge a flipped redesign after one run. Review it across several cohorts, especially if staff are still learning how to facilitate active sessions. Early implementation may be uneven even when the underlying model is sound.
Staff support is essential. Flipped teaching asks lecturers to curate or create pre-class materials, design quizzes, facilitate discussion and respond flexibly in class. That is a different skill set from delivering a conventional lecture.
Preparation expectations need to be explicit. Students should know what to do before class, how long it should take and how the preparation will be used. If they arrive unprepared, the live session can collapse into reteaching.
Student voice data should be read alongside response rates and cohort context. Low response rates can make feedback look clearer than it is. Open-text comments are still valuable, but they should be interpreted with participation data and assessment outcomes.
Limits of the evidence
This is one course in one institution, with changing staff and small cohorts. The study does not prove that flipping will improve every course. It does show that flipped teaching needs sustained implementation, staff training and careful evaluation before strong claims are made.
FAQ
Q: Why might exam gains take time to appear?
A: Staff need time to refine materials and facilitation, while students need time to understand how preparation connects to class activity.
Q: Should student satisfaction rise immediately?
A: Not necessarily. Some students may initially find flipped teaching more demanding. Feedback should be reviewed over time and alongside response rates.
Q: What is the main risk in flipped teaching?
A: Poor connection between pre-class work and live sessions. If preparation is not used in class, students will stop doing it.
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.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround