Table 8 Major findings of the reviewed K-12 flipped classroom studies

Bhagat et al. (2016)

Students’ achievements in FC were significantly higher than TC. Low achievers in FC preformed significantly better than that in TC.

Students’ motivations in FC were significantly higher than TC.

Chao et al. (2015)

Students’ achievements in FC were significantly higher than TC.

FC students’ learning attitudes, motivation, and self-evaluation were enhanced.

Chen (2016)

No significant difference between FC and TC in test scores.

Students in FC had more discussion and interaction during the class time.

Clark (2015)

No significant difference between FC and TC in academic performance.

Students responded favorably to FC and experienced an increase in their engagement and communication when compared to TC.

DeSantis et al. (2015)

No significant difference in learning outcomes between FC and TC.

TC students reported significantly higher satisfaction with their learning than FC.

Grypp and Luebeck (2015)

Student learning and achievement in FC were at least equivalent to TC.

The depth and equity in group interactions were increased in FC.

No overwhelming consensus about which mode of instruction preferred.

Huang and Hong (2016)

FC students’ ICT and English reading comprehension improved significantly.

Kettle (2013)

Findings about student achievement were mixed.

FC students considered taking notes and working through problems in class as effective and enjoyable, whereas watching videos was the least effective and least enjoyable.

Kirvan et al. (2015)

Learning gains were statistically significant and similar in both FC and TC.

Lai and Hwang (2016)

Students’ post-test score in SRFC was significantly higher than FC.

Students’ self-efficacy in SRFC was significantly higher than FC.

Mazur et al. (2015)

By emphasizing collaborative learning, group work and accessibility, FC could engage students in inquiry-based learning

Schultz et al. (2014)

A statistically significant difference was found on all assessments with FC performing higher on average than TC.

Most students had a favorable perception about FC.

Snyder et al. (2014)

FC increased student engagement, instruction in career and college technological skills, and facilitation of special education students’ needs.

Tsai et al. (2015)

The effect of FPBL on improving students’ learning performance was significantly higher than TC and PBL.

Wang (2016)

Students in both FC and MAFC significantly improved their Chinese performance.

Student motivation in MAFC was better than FC in terms of self-directed preview learning.