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

1 Introduction

Psychology education in higher education covers a broad body of knowledge, including theories, empirical findings, research methods, and applied areas across subfields such as cognitive, developmental, social, educational, and clinical psychology. This breadth is reflected in undergraduate psychology curricula, which commonly include major psychological subfields alongside research methods and statistics Norcross et al. (2016). As students progress through psychology programmes, they are required to acquire theoretical and empirical knowledge, research methods, and evidence-based reasoning as well. Accordingly, psychology courses need learning environments that support both content coverage and opportunities for discussion, application, reflection, and knowledge internalisation. Bernstein and Frantz (2026) argue that psychology teaching should move beyond superficial content coverage and help students engage with psychological science in ways that are meaningful and applicable to their lives Roehling et al. (2017) similarly described psychology as a “content-heavy social science,” noting that organisation of class time particularly important for supporting application and deeper engagement.

This instructional challenge is closely connected to the aims of undergraduate psychology education. The American Psychological Association's Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major identify five broad educational goals: content knowledge and applications, scientific inquiry and critical thinking, values in psychological science, communication, psychological literacy and technology skills, and personal and professional development American Psychological Association [APA] (2023). These goals show that psychology education is concerned not only with students’ understanding of psychological concepts, but also with their ability to interpret behaviour and mental processes, evaluate empirical evidence, and apply psychological principles to practical problems. McGovern et al. (2010) similarly described psychological literacy as involving psychological knowledge, scientific thinking, ethical awareness, communication, respect for diversity, reflection, and the application of psychology to personal, social, organisational, and community issues. Cranney et al. (2022) further viewed psychological literacy as an important educational goal of undergraduate psychology education, emphasising students’ intentional application of psychological knowledge to personal, professional, and community contexts rather than the passive acquisition of disciplinary content. These perspectives indicate that psychology education requires students could use psychological knowledge to interpret behaviour, evaluate evidence, communicate explanations, and address practical problems. Therefore, psychology courses need instructional designs that support both foundational understanding and active use of psychological knowledge.

Flipped classroom instruction offers a relevant pedagogical structure for addressing this balance. By moving initial exposure to foundational content to the pre-class phase through videos, readings, or guided preparation tasks, flipped learning instruction reserves class time for more interactive and applied learning activities (Bergmann and Sams, 2012; Bishop and Verleger, 2013). This structure fits psychology courses because many psychological concepts are not fully learned through definition and memorisation alone, students are required to connect concepts with examples, experiences, empirical evidence, and practical problems. In this sense, flipped classroom instruction reorganises learning time. Foundational knowledge is introduced before class, while classroom time is reserved for the internalisation, discussion, application, and critical examination of psychological knowledge. This structure aligns with Bloom's revised taxonomy, in which lower-order cognitive processes such as remembering and understanding are addressed before class, while class time is used for higher-order engagement such as applying, analysing, and evaluating Anderson and Krathwohl (2001). Active learning emphasises students’ construction of knowledge through interaction, inquiry, and practice, which is regarded as a key pathway for promoting higher-order thinking and deep learning Doolittle et al. (2023). This provides a theoretical foundation for the flipped classroom designs. By shifting initial psychology course content exposure to the pre-class phase, flipped learning allows classroom time to be used for higher-order thinking and deep learning, such as case analysis, discussion of psychological phenomena, interpretation of research evidence, and application of theoretical concepts to practical contexts. In this way, flipped classroom instruction supports a shift from knowledge transmission to the internalisation and active use of psychological knowledge (Cranney et al., 2022; McGovern et al., 2010). However, the effectiveness of flipped classroom instruction depends on how the learning activities are designed. Pre-class videos or readings can support foundational preparation, but students also need guidance, and timely feedback to engage effectively in pre-class learning (Bancroft et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2025). Similarly, in-class activities contribute to deeper learning when they are organised with meaningful application rather than simply replacing lectures with generic activities. Reviews in other disciplines have shown that the outcomes of flipped learning vary according to instructional design, pre-class accountability structures, facilitation strategies, and disciplinary learning demands (Bancroft et al., 2021; Karabulut-Ilgu et al., 2018; Zou et al., 2022).

Discipline-specific synthesis is useful because instructional practices, learning outcomes, and implementation challenges differ across fields. Research has identified subject area as a potential moderating variable in flipped learning, with outcomes varying across disciplinary contexts (Bredow et al., 2021; Chien, 2023). Existing systematic reviews have examined flipped learning in several subject areas, including physical education Østerlie et al. (2023), business and entrepreneurship education Senali et al. (2022), chemistry education Bancroft et al. (2021), mathematics Fernández-Martín et al. (2020), engineering education Karabulut-Ilgu et al. (2018), and English language education (Zou et al. 2022; Bredow et al. 2021) found that contextual factors, including discipline and location, contributed to variability in the effects of flipped classrooms. Existing psychology education literature has examined related issues, such as case-based learning in psychology teaching Wu et al. (2023) and psychological literacy as a broader framework for undergraduate psychology education Cranney et al. (2022). Meanwhile, discipline-specific flipped learning reviews in other fields have shown the importance of examining instructional design and contextual moderators (Bredow et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2025; Chien, 2023). Nevertheless, the literature still lacks a focused synthesis of how flipped classroom instruction has been designed, implemented, and evaluated in psychology education courses. To address this gap, the present review synthesises empirical studies on instructional activities, reported benefits, and implementation challenges in psychology education.

The present review addresses this gap by synthesising empirical research on flipped classroom instruction in higher education psychology courses. It contributes to the existing literature in three ways. First, it provides the first dedicated synthesis of flipped classroom research specifically within psychology higher education, a disciplinary context that has received limited attention in existing reviews. Second, it examines instructional activity design across the pre-class, in-class, and post-class phases, offering insight into how the model is implemented in psychology courses specifically. Third, it synthesises evidence on learning benefits and implementation challenges within psychology education, and identifies directions for future research that are specific to the disciplinary goals of this field. Guided by these aims, this review addresses the following research questions:

• RQ1. What are the characteristics of flipped classroom research in psychology education?
• RQ2. What instructional activities are used across the pre-class, in-class, and post-class phases in flipped psychology courses?
• RQ3. What benefits of flipped classroom instruction in psychology education have been reported in the reviewed studies?
• RQ4. What challenges of implementing flipped classroom instruction in psychology education have been reported in the reviewed studies?

2 Methods

2.1 Search strategy

A systematic literature search was conducted in Web of Science and Scopus. These databases were selected because of their broad multidisciplinary coverage and established journal indexing standards, consistent with the review's focus on peer-reviewed journal literature. The search was conducted in December 2025 and covered publications from January 2015 to December 2025. The starting year of 2015 was selected because flipped learning research in higher education gained substantial momentum during the mid-2010s, and this timeframe captures the period of widespread investigation of the approach.

The following Boolean search strategy was used across both databases: (“flipped classroom” OR “flipped learning” OR “flipped class” OR “flipped teaching” OR “inverted classroom” OR “inverted learning”) AND (psychology OR “psychology course”). The search string was developed collaboratively by two researchers through identifying relevant keywords, synonyms, and terminology used in previous field-specific reviews and relevant studies. The final terms were agreed upon through discussion with the aim of balancing search sensitivity and specificity. The broad disciplinary term “psychology” was used as the primary search term, supplemented by the phrase “psychology course”, rather than a predetermined list of individual psychology course descriptors. When searched in the Topic field of Web of Science and the TITLE-ABS-KEY field of Scopus, the terms allow records containing expressions such as educational psychology, introductory psychology, general psychology, social psychology, psychology education, and psychology teaching to be retrieved without requiring each expression to be specified separately.

The initial search yielded 404 records (Web of Science: n = 90; Scopus: n = 314). The search was then refined using the following limits: English language, article type, journal publications, resulting in 312 records. All retrieved references were then imported into EndNote reference manager, where initial duplicate entries were identified and removed, resulting in 298 records for screening (Figure 1).

In addition to the database search, backward citation searching was conducted by screening the reference lists of the reports selected for full-text assessment. Five additional records were identified through this process and were subsequently assessed against the same eligibility criteria.

2.2 Eligibility criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (a) published in peer-reviewed English-language journals between 2015 and 2025; (b) employed empirical research methods, including quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods designs; (c) examined flipped learning or flipped classroom as the primary instructional approach in higher education psychology courses; and (d) full-text of articles should be available in English. For the purpose of this review, psychology education encompassed the teaching of psychology in higher education, including its integration into other disciplinary contexts.

Studies were excluded if they: (a) were not focused on psychology or psychology education contexts; (b) did not examine flipped classroom instruction as the primary instructional approach; (c) focused on non-higher education settings, such as K-12 or professional training; (d) were non-empirical studies (e.g., opinion pieces, theoretical frameworks, or purely descriptive course reports without evaluation); (e) were duplicate publications; or (f) had full-text unavailable in English. Table 1 summarizes the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

2.3 Study selection

The study selection followed the PRISMA guidelines for transparent reporting of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion of studies Page et al. (2021). Figure 1 presents the PRISMA flow diagram summarizing the process. In brief, the selection proceeded through the following phases.

First, the initial database search yielded 404 records (Web of Science: n = 90; Scopus: n = 314). After applying database-specific filters for publication type and language, 312 records remained. Duplicates were identified and removed using EndNote reference management software, resulting in 298 records for title and abstract screening.

Second, during the title and abstract screening phase, 271 records were excluded for the following reasons: not related to psychology (n = 205), duplicate articles identified during screening (n = 33), not focused on psychology education specifically (n = 24), not conducted in higher education settings (n = 1), and not empirical research (n = 8). This resulted in 27 records that were deemed potentially eligible for full-text review.

Third, full-text reports were sought for the 27 records retained after title and abstract screening. One report could not be retrieved, leaving 26 reports available for full-text assessment. A further five records identified through backward citation searching were also retrieved and included in the full-text eligibility assessment. Consequently, a total of 31 full-text reports were assessed against the predefined eligibility criteria (Figure 1). At the full-text screening stage, 10 reports were excluded because they did not use flipped classroom instruction as the primary instructional approach (n = 3), were not focused on psychology education (n = 3), or were not available in English (n = 4). This resulted in 21 studies that met all inclusion criteria and were included in the final review.

Title-and-abstract screening was conducted by one reviewer against the eligibility criteria presented in Table 1. These criteria were specified in advance to support consistent screening decisions at this stage. At the full-text eligibility stage, two reviewers independently assessed potentially eligible studies against the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inter-rater agreement for the full-text eligibility assessment was calculated using Cohen's kappa (κ = .92), and disagreements were resolved through discussion. Finally, a total of 21 studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in the final systematic review.

2.4 Quality appraisal

The 21 included studies were evaluated independently by two reviewers (Table 2). Methodological quality was appraised using a five-item checklist adapted from selected QualSyst criteria Kmet et al., (2004) and tailored to the focus of this review. Four items addressed general methodological quality, while one review-specific item assessed whether the flipped classroom practice was clearly described. A three-point scale was used to score each item, with “Yes” (2 points), “Partially” (1 point), or “No” (0 points), yielding a maximum score of 10. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) based on a two-way mixed-effects model, absolute agreement, and single measures. The result showed an ICC of .90, 95% CI [.78, .96], indicating a high level of agreement between the two reviewers. Disagreements were subsequently resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. The quality appraisal results were used to inform the interpretation of the evidence, and no study was excluded solely on the basis of its appraisal score.

Table 2. Quality assessment checklist.

Each item was scored as yes = 2, partially = 1, or no = 0.

2.5 Data extraction and analysis

A data extraction form was constructed by the authors based on the four research questions. The categories included study identification, study context, sample characteristics, research design, instructional activities, and key findings. The first author extracted data from all included studies using the form. To check the accuracy of the extracted data, two co-authors reviewed the completed extraction form, and discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. Where information was unclear, the full text was re-examined.

Given the heterogeneity in study designs, outcome measures, and reporting formats across the 21 included studies, narrative synthesis was used as it is suitable for reviews aiming to describe and interpret findings across diverse studies Popay et al., (2006). The synthesis was structured according to the four research questions. First, descriptive statistics characterized the included studies in terms of publication years, geographic distribution, course types, sample sizes, and research designs. Second, instructional activities were categorized into pre-class, in-class, and post-class components, following the phase-based structure of the flipped classroom model. Third, favorable empirical findings were identified and inductively grouped into benefit categories. Each study was counted once within each category, and frequencies indicated the number of studies contributing favorable findings rather than the magnitude of an effect. Fourth, reported implementation challenges were coded inductively and grouped into thematic categories. Initial coding and categorization were conducted by the first author. The resulting categories and interpretations were subsequently reviewed by the two co-authors, and ambiguous findings or differences in category assignment were resolved through re-examination of the original studies and discussion until agreement was reached.

3 Results

3.1 Study characteristics of flipped classroom in psychology education

A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria and were retained for synthesis. Table 3 presents a summary of the key characteristics of the included studies, such as Authors, publication year, research design, study population, sample size, and outcomes. The following subsections provide a detailed narrative synthesis of these characteristics.

Table 3. Characteristics of included studies.

AI, artificial intelligence; LMS, learning management system; C-QRAC, collaborative questioning, reading, answering, and checking; EG, experimental group; CG, control group.

It can be seen from the Table 3 that Educational Psychology was the most frequently examined course type, followed by Introductory or General Psychology. The foundational courses accounted for over half of the included studies, with relatively limited attention to more specialized domains.

Although the search covered publications from 2015 to 2025, the 21 studies were published between 2017 and 2024 (Figure 2). The figure showed temporal clustering, with the majority of studies (n = 13, 61.9%) appearing during the 2018–2020 period. Six studies were published in 2018, five in 2020, three in each of 2017 and 2024, and two in each of 2019 and 2021. No eligible studies were found for 2015–2016 or 2022–2023, Most of the studies on flipped classrooms have been published after 2018.

Research was conducted across 12 countries spanning four continents. Asia and North America contributed the largest share of studies, with the United States accounting for the highest number individually. Full geographic distribution is presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Geographic distribution.

Table 5 shows most of the reviewed studies adopted quantitative designs (n = 15), while fewer used mixed-methods designs (n = 5). Only one study was qualitative, reported as a case study. Quasi-experimental designs were the most common, suggesting that existing research has mainly evaluated flipped classroom instruction through student outcome comparisons. Overall, the evidence base relied primarily on student data, such as achievement, perceptions, engagement, and learning-related measures. Only one study included limited instructor perspectives as supplementary evidence, and none centered instructors as the primary unit of analysis.

Table 5. Research design.

3.2 Instructional activities of flipped classroom used in psychology education

Table 6 summarizes the instructional activities identified across the 21 included studies, organized by three phases of the flipped classroom model: pre-class, in-class, and post-class. A total of 12 activity categories were identified. The following sections discuss each activity in detail, with particular attention to how they function within the flipped learning cycle in psychology education.

Table 6. Instructional activities of flipped classroom.

3.2.1 Pre-class activities

Five types of pre-class activities were identified across the reviewed studies, supporting initial content learning and preparation for classroom participation.

Video-based learning was the most prevalent pre-class activity, appearing in 19 of the 21 reviewed studies. Videos were delivered in multiple formats, including vodcasts, LMS-hosted lecture clips, voice-over slide recordings, and AI platform-delivered teaching videos (Burgoyne and Eaton, 2018; Heo and Chun, 2018; Roehling et al., 2017; Shan and Liu, 2021). Some studies incorporated interactive features such as embedded comprehension quizzes Chou, (2020) or learning analytics-driven email nudges to prompt video completion Sauchelli et al., (2024).

Reading and text-based materials appeared in 14 studies, ranging from textbook chapters to instructor-prepared slides, worksheets, and online case assignments, typically assigned alongside videos rather than as standalone activities (Borchardt and Bozer, 2017; Ibrahim and Agbenin, 2018; Roehling et al., 2017; Sorokova, 2020).

Pre-class quizzes were reported in seven studies and were mainly used to verify preparation and check students’ basic understanding before class (Borchardt and Bozer, 2017; Shan and Liu, 2021). This activity plays an essential role that motivate students to engage with pre-class materials and generate data that instructors can use to calibrate in-class discussion toward the concepts students found most challenging.

Less frequently, studies incorporated asynchronous online discussion forums and self-reflection tasks as part of pre-class preparation. Forums hosted on VLE or LMS platforms were used to support problem-posing, case-based responses, or initial idea sharing before class, thereby creating continuity between pre-class preparation and subsequent classroom discussion (Heo and Chun, 2018; Limniou et al., 2018; Lyons et al., 2017). Self-reflection was reported in only two studies, typically in the form of structured journals or guided self-study prompts (Bintz et al., 2024; Heo and Chun, 2018). Although less frequently adopted, these activities are pedagogically relevant because they encourage planning and metacognitive readiness prior to classroom participation Zimmerman (2002).

3.2.2 In-class activities

Six categories of in-class activity were identified. Across the reviewed studies, the in-class phase commonly emphasised active learning, peer interaction, and the application of pre-class knowledge, which aligns with the core pedagogical rationale of flipped learning.

Structured class activities and group discussion were the two most prevalent in-class practices, each reported in 15 studies. Structured activities included worksheets, case analysis, role-play, application exercises, project work, and collaborative problem-solving tasks designed to help students apply psychological concepts in context (Dewi et al., 2024; Ibrahim and Agbenin, 2018). In some studies, these tasks were explicitly designed around frameworks such as Bloom's Taxonomy, suggesting that the in-class phase was intentionally used to support higher-order thinking. Group discussion likewise appeared central to flipped classroom practice, taking the form of small-group dialogue, whole-class discussion, case-based peer exchange, and collaborative reading or annotation tasks (Heo and Chun, 2018; Lee, 2018). In several cases, the discussion activities were directly connected to students’ pre-class preparation, indicating deliberate continuity across phases.

Although flipped classroom models are often associated with reduced lecturing, instructor-led instruction remained an important in-class component in 11 studies. These instructor-led elements typically took the form of mini-lectures, review sessions, Q&A, or facilitator-guided clarification rather than full-length content delivery (Borchardt and Bozer, 2017; Limniou et al., 2018). This indicates that the instructor's role in flipped psychology courses was not eliminated, but repositioned toward explanation, synthesis, and support.

Other in-class activities were reported less frequently but still played meaningful roles. Student presentations appeared in eight studies and were used to support knowledge synthesis, theory application, and peer learning (Bernauer, 2020; Borchardt and Bozer, 2017; Ibrahim and Agbenin, 2018). Formative in-class assessment was reported in seven studies and often took the form of live polling, pop quizzes, or platform-based tests that enabled immediate feedback and instructional adjustment (Guo, 2019; Limniou et al., 2018; Lyons et al., 2017). In addition, six studies described technology-mediated interaction through tools such as audience response systems, collaborative platforms, or shared digital workspaces (e.g., Xuexitong, Google Docs, Ping-pong, and Microsoft Teams), which were mainly used for classroom participation, discussion, and real-time collaboration (Heo and Chun, 2018; Lee, 2018; Lyons et al., 2017; Orme et al., 2020).

3.2.3 Post-class activities

Six studies reported online review and follow-up activities intended to support learning beyond classroom sessions. These activities included reflection journals, Q&A boards, continued online interaction, and review of learning materials or assessment feedback. Heo and Chun, (2018) incorporated post-class reflection journals and LMS discussion boards, allowing students to reflect on their learning and raise further questions. In Limniou et al., (2018), classroom discussions continued online, where students shared links to relevant materials and received further guidance from instructors. Follow-up activities also involved revisiting earlier work. Bintz et al., (2024) provided feedback on students’ written applications of learning and teaching methods and invited them to review and revise their work, although revision was optional. These activities extended classroom learning through reflection, further exchange, and opportunities to revise previous work. Examinations and tests used solely to assess learning were not classified as post-class learning activities.

3.3 Benefits of flipped classroom in psychology education

The reviewed studies reported a range of benefits associated with flipped classroom instruction in psychology education. Seven themes were identified: academic achievement, engagement and interaction, affective responses, self-efficacy, self-regulated learning, higher-order thinking, and learning flexibility (Table 7). These benefits were reflected in assessment results, students’ evaluations of their learning, and instructors’ observations.

Table 7. Benefits of flipped classroom in psychology education.

3.3.1 Academic achievement

Academic achievement was assessed through a range of course examinations and assessments. Several studies reported favourable performance under flipped conditions, with advantages reflected in final-examination scores and overall module marks (Guo, 2019; Orme et al., 2020). In some cases, these advantages emerged on focused assessments rather than overall grades. For example, Borchardt and Bozer, (2017) found that significant group differences appeared only by the third test, with no corresponding difference in overall course grades. Andreychik and Martinez, (2019) similarly reported higher psychology quiz scores, though these did not extend to examination scores. Together, these findings suggest that flipped instruction may support academic achievement, with the reported advantages taking different forms across courses and assessments.

3.3.2 Engagement and interaction

Engagement and interaction benefits were reflected in students’ opportunities to participate in discussion, exchange ideas, and seek clarification during learning. Heo and Chun, (2018) reported students’ interest in posing and solving problems, with students recognising the value of sharing questions generated by their peers. Guo, (2019) provided evidence of significantly higher self-reported peer-interaction scores in the flipped condition. Students in Şahin et al., (2020) similarly emphasised the value of exchanging ideas and learning from classmates. Orme et al., (2020) reported higher tutor-rated engagement following the redesign of a large-cohort module.

Instructor interaction and support were also valued aspects of students’ learning experiences. Chou, (2020) reported that interviewees found in-class discussion helpful for clarifying course concepts, describing how they compared answers with peers before receiving clarification from the instructor. Students in Şahin et al., (2020) similarly valued the feedback they received on their preparatory work.

3.3.3 Affective responses

Students reported enjoyment, satisfaction, and interest in flipped learning, and some expressed a willingness to take other courses in a similar format. Burgoyne and Eaton, (2018) found greater enjoyment of the out-of-class component among students in the flipped condition, while Sorokova, (2020) identified respondents who evaluated the e-course positively and wished to study other subjects in the same way. Students also described feeling more interested in and motivated to learn. For example, one student in Lyons et al., (2017) found classroom discussions stimulating because they encouraged students to think about the topic. Similarly, Aburayash, (2021) found that positive attitudes towards flipped learning were associated with higher academic motivation.

3.3.4 Self-efficacy

Reported self-efficacy benefits concerned students’ confidence in learning and completing course tasks. These were reflected in both questionnaire findings and students’ accounts of their learning experiences. Dewi et al., (2024) found significantly higher post-intervention self-efficacy scores within a project-based flipped design supported by concept-mapping tools. Similarly, Sauchelli et al., (2024) reported increased self-efficacy for learning and performance following technology-mediated feedback on tutorial preparation in a flipped psychology course. Qualitative findings offered a complementary perspective Heo and Chun, (2018) reported that students’ reflective journals and interviews indicated confidence in their learning during the flipped course.

3.3.5 Self-regulated learning

Benefits relating to self-regulated learning were evident in metacognitive monitoring, reflection on understanding, and the use of study strategies. Bintz et al., (2024) found that students in the flipped condition judged their answers more critically, showing greater sensitivity to uncertain knowledge. Students’ reflections also illustrated awareness of their own learning. Heo and Chun, (2018) reported that one student described recognising what they understood after revisiting a lecture video. Changes in study practices were evident in Şahin et al., (2020), where one student described taking notes and organising a course file for the first time. These findings concern specific components of self-regulated learning rather than demonstrating improvement across the entire self-regulatory process.

3.3.6 Higher-order thinking

Benefits for higher-order thinking were evident in students’ question design and reflection on the practical application of educational concepts (Heo and Chun, 2018; Bintz et al., 2024). Heo and Chun, (2018) illustrated this development through students’ question-writing: as the course progressed, students increasingly constructed questions requiring application, analysis, and evaluation rather than simply recalling or explaining information. Bintz et al. (2024) likewise found that students in the flipped condition produced stronger written reflections on practical problems involved in applying teaching and learning methods. Ibrahim and Agbenin (2018) examined how students performed on questions at different levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. Within the flipped cohort, higher-order performance was maintained on the more demanding second examination, while performance on lower-order items declined.

3.3.7 Learning flexibility

In the flipped classroom, students valued the flexibility to pause, replay, and revisit learning materials at their own pace (Chou, 2020; Tuna et al., 2018). This flexibility gave them time to work through explanations that they could not immediately understand. In Chou (2020) English-medium course, interviewees appreciated being able to review difficult content rather than having to move on before they were ready. Students’ comments in Tuna et al. (2018) highlighted the value of pausing videos, adjusting playback speed, and rewatching explanations, giving them time to absorb the material and return to it when needed. Flexible access also helped students prepare for examinations and catch up on missed topics (Chou, 2020; Sorokova, 2020), allowing them to fit review around their own learning needs beyond scheduled classes.

3.4 Challenges of implementing flipped classrooms in psychology education

Despite the benefits associated with flipped classroom instruction, the reviewed studies also reported several implementation challenges in psychology education. As summarised in Table 8, six categories of challenges were identified across the 21 included studies: student preparation difficulties, increased student workload, student resistance to flipped learning, collaborative learning challenges, technology constraints, and instructor workload.

Table 8. Challenges of flipped classroom in psychology education.

3.4.1 Student preparation difficulties

The most frequently reported challenge was insufficient student preparation for pre-class learning activities, appearing in 11 studies. Because flipped classroom designs depend on students engaging meaningfully with pre-class materials, inadequate preparation can weaken the effectiveness of in-class activities intended for application and higher-order learning. Several studies suggested that some students engaged only superficially with preparatory tasks, for example by skimming readings, multitasking during video viewing, or failing to complete preview activities at all (Chou, 2020; Roehling et al., 2017). Heo and Chun (2018) further reported that the pressure associated with pre-class tasks sometimes led to procrastination and avoidance, which in turn reduced readiness for in-class participation. Overall, these findings indicate that flipped classroom implementation places substantial self-regulatory demands on learners, and that inadequate preparation remains a central barrier to instructional effectiveness.

3.4.2 Increased workload and time demand on students

Increased workload and time demands were reported in eight studies. Compared with traditional lecture-based instruction, flipped classroom designs require students to spend additional time outside class engaging with videos, readings, and preparatory tasks. Roehling et al. (2017) found that students perceived the flipped format as more demanding and time intensive, while Şahin et al. (2020) reported that students experienced the volume of homework and pre-class tasks as tiring and excessive. Sorokova (2020) similarly noted that students in a digitally mediated flipped context struggled with time management and assignment completion. These findings suggest that the workload demands of flipped learning may create frustration when task expectations are not carefully calibrated.

3.4.3 Student resistance to the flipped classroom

Student resistance to the flipped model was also reported in eight studies. In several cases, students appeared reluctant to shift from familiar lecture-based learning to a more participatory format requiring greater preparation and in-class involvement. Chou (2020) found that lower-motivated students often skipped preparation and relied on peers during class, while Şahin et al. (2020) reported that some students expressed boredom, reluctance, and scepticism towards flipped learning. Burgoyne and Eaton (2018) likewise suggested that some students preferred the perceived security of passive lecture reception and were less comfortable with the cognitive demands of active learning. Together, these findings indicate that resistance to flipped learning may stem not only from workload concerns, but also from students’ expectations about what teaching and learning should look like.

3.4.4 Collaborative learning challenges

Difficulties related to group work and peer interaction were reported in four studies. Although collaborative learning is central to many flipped classroom designs, the quality of peer interaction was not always stable or equitable. For example, Orme et al. (2020) found that some students perceived unequal contribution among group members and reported difficulty coordinating group work, particularly when staff support for conflict resolution was limited. Chou (2020) similarly noted that underprepared students sometimes relied excessively on better-prepared peers during class discussions, which was experienced as free-riding. Lee (2018) further showed that more structured collaboration produced more stable outcomes than less guided group interaction. These findings suggest that effective collaboration in flipped classrooms cannot be assumed and instead requires active instructional structuring and monitoring.

3.4.5 Technology and digital-environment constraints

Technology and digital-environment constraints were reported less frequently, but they remain relevant to the feasibility of flipped classroom implementation. As flipped learning depends on students’ access to digital materials outside class, limitations in internet access, devices, or learning environments can directly affect pre-class participation. Şahin et al. (2020) reported that some students experienced difficulties watching pre-class videos in dormitory settings due to technological and environmental constraints. This finding highlight that the successful implementation of flipped classroom instruction depends partly on the broader digital conditions that shape both teachers’ delivery and students’ access to learning.

3.4.6 Teacher preparation and design workload

Finally, several studies highlighted the substantial preparation and design workload placed on instructors. Flipped classroom implementation requires teachers not only to redesign course structure, but also to prepare pre-class materials and plan interactive in-class activities. Guo (2019) noted that effective flipped teaching required extensive effort in syllabus redesign, video preparation, and activity planning. Andreychik and Martinez (2019) similarly emphasised the time and effort involved in integrating new technologies and designing additional classroom tasks, while Limniou et al. (2018) described the selection of appropriate materials and activities as particularly time-consuming. These findings suggest that flipped classroom implementation may impose significant pedagogical and logistical demands on instructors, especially during the initial stages of course redesign.

4 Discussion

This systematic review synthesized 21 empirical studies on flipped classroom instruction in higher education psychology courses, with a focus on study characteristics, instructional activities, reported benefits, and implementation challenges. The findings together show an important pattern in psychology education. From an instructional design perspective, the reviewed flipped classroom approaches generally positioned pre-class preparation as the basis for subsequent classroom activities. Video-based learning was the most common pre-class activity (k = 19), while classroom discussion and collaborative activities were the most frequent in-class designs (k = 15). This suggests that the whole instructional sequence assumes that students enter the classroom with a basic level of prior understanding. However, insufficient pre-class preparation was also the most frequently reported implementation challenge (k = 11), appearing in more than half of the included studies. This contrast suggests a tension between the preparation expected by the instructional design and students’ participation in preparatory work. Incomplete preparation may make it more difficult for students to engage with classroom discussion and application, although its contribution to differences in learning outcomes remains unclear. Taken together, these findings draw attention to the connection between pre-class preparation and in-class learning, particularly in relation to accountability mechanisms and pre-class learning support.

4.1 Study characteristics

The reviewed studies were published between 2017 and 2024, with a noticeable increase between 2018 and 2020. This pattern is consistent with the expansion of flipped classroom research across disciplines during the same period (Bredow et al., 2021; Chien, 2023). The studies were conducted across 12 countries, suggesting that interest in flipped classroom instruction in psychology education has emerged across diverse higher education contexts. However, the overall number of studies remains limited. In terms of course type, educational psychology, general psychology, and introductory psychology were the most common contexts, with foundational and general psychology courses accounting for more than half of the included studies.

Most studies used quantitative, quasi-experimental designs, while mixed methods and qualitative approaches were less common. The distribution suggests that existing research has focused more on measuring learning outcomes than on understanding teaching processes in depth. The studies also focused mainly on student outcomes and experiences, drawing on both performance measures and students’ perceptions. Instructor perspectives remain underrepresented. Examining instructors’ decisions would help explain how content is redesigned, activities are facilitated, and feedback is provided within the different implementations represented in this review. Future research need consider instructor perspectives to develop a more complete understanding of how flipped classroom approaches are designed and sustained in psychology education.

4.2 Instructional activities across the three phases

The review identified 12 types of activities across the pre-class, in-class, and post-class phases. Flipped classroom implementation is organized as a phase-based learning cycle involving pre-class preparation, in-class learning activities, and post-class consolidation (Estes et al., 2014; Shih and Tsai, 2015). The pattern identified in this review is broadly consistent with subject-specific reviews in other disciplines, which show that flipped learning commonly moves initial content exposure before class in order to free classroom time for application and interaction (Bancroft et al., 2021; Fernández-Martin et al., 2020; Zou et al., 2022). However, the reviewed studies did not consistently explain how activities across the three phases were pedagogically connected. Previous review similarly emphasized the importance of linking pre-class activities with classroom learning and providing formative feedback O’Flaherty and Phillips (2015). Pre-class videos and readings were widely used, whereas accountability mechanisms, such as comprehension quizzes, structured reflection tasks, and asynchronous discussion forums, were reported less frequently. This suggests that most flipped psychology courses provided pre-class materials, the studies offered less detail on how students were guided, monitored, or supported to prepare meaningfully for class. This is important because in-class discussion and application build on students’ prior understanding. When students enter class without sufficient preparation, they may find it more difficult to contribute to group discussions, analyze cases, and solve problems collaboratively. Similar concerns have been raised in flipped chemistry instruction, where accountability was identified as an important but often underemphasized design feature (Bancroft et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2024) also found mixed effects of self-regulated learning supports in flipped classrooms, suggesting that effective support requires not only awareness of self-regulated learning strategies, but also opportunities for practice, appropriate guidance, and timely feedback. A second issue concerns the limited reporting of post-class consolidation in the reviewed studies. Although some studies included reflection, continued online interaction, and review supported by feedback, these activities were less consistently described than pre-class and in-class components. Psychology students need repeated opportunities to understand, evaluate, and apply psychological knowledge across learning phases. Therefore, flipped classroom design should be considered as a connected three-phase process that integrates pre-class preparation, in-class application, and post-class consolidation.

4.3 Benefits and psychology-specific learning goals

The reviewed studies identified seven categories of benefits, with affective responses, engagement and interaction, and academic achievement most frequently reported. These findings suggest that flipped classroom instruction can support students’ learning and classroom experiences in psychology education. The achievement benefits reported in some studies are broadly consistent with cross-disciplinary meta-analytic findings on flipped learning (Bredow et al., 2021; Chien, 2023). Kim et al. (2021) also found that students’ satisfaction with flipped learning was associated with their perceptions of the course design and their self-regulated learning skills. However, the benefits did not always extend to overall achievement or students’ preference for flipped teaching. Some studies found higher scores on individual tests or quizzes, but no significant difference in overall course grades or examination scores (Andreychik and Martinez, 2019; Borchardt and Bozer, 2017). Students also valued aspects of flipped learning while preferring traditional lectures overall (Lyons et al., 2017; Roehling et al., 2017). These findings suggest that academic achievement, positive learning experiences, and teaching preferences should be considered separately when evaluating the benefits of flipped instruction.

According to the higher-order thinking and self-regulated learning, results from specific tasks or learning strategies do not fully explain how students develop and use these skills. Silverajah et al. (2022) found that self-regulated learning in flipped classroom research was most measured through self-report questionnaires, while methods examining learning processes, such as learning analytics, reflective documents, and observation, were less frequently used. Combining these sources of evidence could provide a clearer understanding of students’ learning.

In psychology education, these benefits also need to be considered in relation to the goals of the discipline. Undergraduate psychology education emphasizes psychological literacy, evaluation of research evidence, critical thinking, and the application of psychological knowledge to real-world contexts (APA, 2023; Cranney et al., 2022; McGovern et al., 2010). Some included studies addressed aspects of these goals through tasks involving scientific reading, reflection, and application. However, the current evidence does not establish whether benefits on these tasks extend to broader psychological literacy or the application of knowledge beyond the course context. Future research should therefore pay greater attention to how flipped classroom designs support the discipline-specific goals of psychology education.

4.4 Implementation challenges

The most frequently reported implementation challenges were insufficient student preparation (k = 11) and increased instructor design workload (k = 10). This finding is consistent with reviews of flipped classroom research in other disciplines (Karabulut-Ilgu et al., 2018; Senali et al., 2022), suggesting that student preparation and instructor workload are common implementation challenges in flipped learning. Although these challenges are not unique to psychology education, insufficient pre-class preparation has particular relevance in this disciplinary context. Many psychology courses address learning processes such as self-regulation, metacognition, motivation, attention, and cognitive load. From this perspective, students’ difficulties with pre-class preparation may not only reflect a general implementation problem in flipped classrooms but also highlight the self-regulatory demands of pre-class learning. This is important because self-regulation and metacognition are key concepts in foundational psychology courses. Whether students’ difficulties with pre-class preparation are related to their understanding and application of concepts such as self-regulation and metacognition remains an open question for future empirical research.

4.5 Future research agenda

Based on the discussion above, three directions could be considered in the future. First, future studies need pay more attention to instructors’ perspectives, such as pedagogical decision-making, perceived workload, instructional beliefs, and strategies for sustaining flipped classroom practices in authentic teaching contexts. Second, more systematic evidence is needed on how specific learning supports across the flipped classroom phases, such as readiness quizzes, guided reflection, post-class practice contribute to students’ preparation, participation, and learning outcomes. Third, future studies need to strengthen the alignment between outcome measurement and the disciplinary goals of psychology education, such as psychological literacy, evidence evaluation, critical thinking, and the application of psychological knowledge. Together, these directions suggest a need to shift from evaluating flipped classrooms as a general instructional approach toward examining how particular design features support psychology-specific learning.

5 Conclusion and limitations

This review synthesised 21 empirical studies on flipped classroom instruction in higher education psychology courses. The reviewed studies identified benefits across several aspects of students’ learning and experiences. Academic achievement benefits were evident in some studies but were not consistently observed across assessments. Some studies addressed learning tasks relevant to psychology-specific goals, while evidence of broader disciplinary capabilities remains limited. A key pattern across studies is that pre-class preparation plays an important role in flipped classroom design, yet insufficient preparation was the most frequently reported implementation challenge. Future research should examine how instructional support and course design address these challenges and support the disciplinary goals of psychology education.

Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, this review included only peer-reviewed English-language publications, which may have introduced publication and language bias. Second, the review included 21 studies with varied research designs and outcome measures. The number and diversity of these studies should be considered when interpreting the findings. Research focused mainly on student outcomes and experiences, with limited attention to instructors’ perspectives. This limited the extent to which the review could examine instructional design processes, classroom implementation, and instructor experiences in depth. Finally, the database search was limited to Web of Science and Scopus. Although supplementary backward citation searching was conducted, the use of only these two databases may have limited the breadth of the literature identified. Future reviews may consider including discipline-specific databases such as PsycINFO and ERIC to broaden database coverage and further strengthen the comprehensiveness of the evidence base.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Lorenz S. Neuwirth, State University of New York at Old Westbury, United States

Reviewed by: Patrícia Albergaria Almeida, Universidade Aberta, Portugal

Ezekiel Akotuko Ayimbila, C. K. Tedam University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Ghana