The review also found that positive learning experiences did not always translate into a preference for flipped teaching, and that benefits varied considerably across assessments, courses and measures. The review synthesised studies published between 2017 and 2024 that examined flipped or inverted teaching as a primary approach in higher education psychology courses. Most involved foundational subjects, including educational psychology, introductory psychology, general psychology and research methods.

Fifteen studies used quantitative designs, five used mixed methods and one was qualitative; 12 of the quantitative studies employed quasi-experimental comparisons. The research took place across 12 countries in Asia, Europe, North America and Oceania. Because designs, courses, samples and outcome measures varied substantially, the researchers used narrative synthesis rather than a statistical meta-analysis.

Frequencies in the findings therefore show how many studies reported a theme, not the size of an effect or the statistical strength of a finding. Flipped instruction moves initial exposure to course material before scheduled classes, commonly through videos, readings, guided preparation tasks and quizzes. Class time is then used for case analysis, discussion, collaborative problem-solving, instructor clarification and application of psychological concepts.

Post-class work can include reflection, online questions, review of feedback and optional revision. This design has a particular rationale in psychology, where students must learn theories and empirical findings while also developing scientific inquiry, critical thinking, communication, ethical awareness and the ability to apply psychological knowledge. A psychology student who merely recalls a concept has not necessarily demonstrated the disciplinary competence the course is intended to cultivate.

The reviewed designs generally aimed to move foundational preparation outside class and reserve live sessions for analysis, evaluation and application. Video-based learning was the dominant pre-class feature, appearing in 19 studies. Text materials were used in 14, quizzes in seven, online forums in four and structured self-reflection in two.

Only six studies reported post-class review or follow-up activities, compared with 15 that reported structured in-class activities and group discussion. Instructor-led instruction appeared in 11 studies, student presentations in eight, formative assessment in seven and technology-mediated interaction in six. Instructor teaching was therefore not eliminated; in many courses it was shortened into mini-lectures, question-and-answer sessions or guided clarification.

The reviewed evidence does not establish that connecting all three phases is more effective than other arrangements, but it does show that reporting was concentrated in the pre-class and in-class stages, with post-class consolidation described in a minority of studies. Students in the reviewed courses reported several advantages. Fourteen studies described positive affective responses, such as enjoyment, interest, satisfaction or motivation, while 11 reported benefits for engagement and interaction.

Six studies reported benefits for higher-order thinking, seven for learning flexibility and three each for self-efficacy and self-regulated learning. Students valued being able to pause, replay, slow down and revisit videos or readings. Classroom discussions also created opportunities to compare explanations with peers before receiving clarification from an instructor.

Question design was an especially revealing outcome in one mixed-methods study: as the course progressed, students increasingly created questions requiring application, analysis and evaluation rather than simple recall. Another study found stronger written applications in a flipped condition, although these differences did not amount to a general advantage across all assessments. Academic performance produced a more complicated picture.

Nine studies reported at least one favourable achievement result, but several found no overall course-grade or examination difference. One introductory psychology study detected group differences only by the third test, while another reported higher immediate quiz scores under flipped teaching but no long-term examination advantage. Research methods students showed a slight quiz advantage and spent more time studying outside class, yet their course evaluations were similar.

A large research methods cohort reported improved engagement and achievement, while an educational psychology study found that initial quiz differences disappeared later. Student experience also did not translate automatically into a preference for flipped teaching. In one study of 200 undergraduates, students preferred the traditional format overall, even though certain personality and mastery characteristics were associated with preference for flipped instruction.

Another study of 257 students found that traditional lectures were slightly preferred, while the flipped approach was perceived as more interesting but not more effective. These distinctions matter because satisfaction, perceived learning, examination performance and teaching preference are separate outcomes. A classroom can generate enjoyable discussion and stronger performance on a particular task without becoming students’ preferred learning environment.

The review also identified only three studies reporting self-efficacy gains and three addressing self-regulated learning, with evidence limited to particular activities such as critical judgment, reflection or organization of study materials rather than the full range of self-regulatory processes. Implementation barriers were widespread. Insufficient student preparation appeared in 11 studies, increased student workload in eight and student resistance in eight.

Some students skimmed readings, multitasked during videos or skipped preparatory tasks, limiting their ability to contribute to cases and discussions. The model also transferred responsibility for time management to learners, and some described the volume of preparatory work as tiring or excessive. Collaboration was not automatically effective: four studies reported uneven contributions, coordination difficulties or reliance on better-prepared classmates.

Technology constraints, including difficulties watching pre-class videos in shared accommodation, appeared in three studies. Teachers also had to redesign syllabuses, produce or select videos, plan active exercises, integrate digital systems and provide additional feedback. These demands can be substantial during initial implementation, even when students perceive the resulting course positively.

The review points to three priorities for stronger research. First, future studies should examine instructors’ pedagogical decisions, workload, beliefs and strategies for sustaining flipped courses, because the evidence base remains overwhelmingly centred on students and only one study included limited supplementary instructor perspectives. Second, researchers should test specific support mechanisms such as readiness quizzes, guided reflection, accountability practices and post-class consolidation rather than treating flipped learning as a single intervention.

Third, outcome measures should align more closely with psychology-specific goals, including psychological literacy, evidence evaluation, critical thinking and applied knowledge. The review’s limitations include publication and English-language bias, a small and heterogeneous evidence base, restricted database coverage and little attention to how teaching was enacted. Its practical conclusion is conditional: moving psychology content into videos is not enough.

Subject of Research: Effects, instructional practices and implementation challenges of flipped classroom instruction in higher education psychology courses

Article Title: Flipped learning in psychology education: a systematic review of instructional practices, benefits, implementation challenges, and future research directions

Article References: Tao, J., Mohamad Nizar, N. N., Kamaruddin, A. Y., Yang, P., Zhang, C., & Wang, W. (2026). Flipped learning in psychology education: a systematic review of instructional practices, benefits, implementation challenges, and future research directions. Frontiers in Education, 11, Article 1920474. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1920474

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1920474

Keywords: flipped learning, psychology education, higher education, systematic review, student engagement, higher-order thinking, pre-class preparation, academic achievement, instructional design, learning workload, Flipped, learning