Flipped Classroom Design as a Driver of Digital Transformation and Sustainable Education in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of Reviews

Abstract

Since 2000, the flipped classroom model has been widely adopted in higher education within the context of digital transformation; however, a comprehensive historical synthesis of review evidence remains limited. This study addresses this gap by conducting a review of reviews to clarify developmental trends, theoretical foundations, instructional designs, research methods, outcome variables, reported effects and implementation challenges, with the aim of informing sustainable education practices. Following the PRISMA framework, we systematically searched Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and Google Scholar for studies published between 2000 and 2024. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and 25 systematic reviews met the eligibility requirements. Risk of bias and reporting quality were assessed descriptively at the review level. The results indicate generally positive perceptions among students and teachers, particularly regarding learning performance, collaboration and motivation, with the strongest evidence observed at the teaching and learning levels rather than at pedagogical or institutional levels. Substantial variation in flipped classroom designs and inconsistent reporting limited cross-study effect size synthesis. Further analysis reveals a fragmented theoretical basis and uneven attention to post-class learning processes. In response, two integrative frameworks—the Instructional Design Analysis Model for Flipped Classrooms (IDAMFC) and the Transformative Activation Theory for Flipped Classrooms (TAT-FC) are proposed to align pre-, in-, and post-class phases with learning strategies, cognitive engagement, and assessment in digitally supported environments. This study highlights the need for longitudinal designs and more comprehensive outcome measures to support sustainable educational development.

1. Introduction

Research on flipped classrooms (FCs) emerged with [1], representing an early model of digital transformation in education. The first applications appeared in microeconomics in 1996 [2] and the model was popularized by [3]. Since then, FC adoption and research have expanded rapidly, particularly in higher education (52–79%), contributing to more sustainable educational practices than in primary (6–7%) and secondary education (6–8%) [4].

Despite extensive reviews, key gaps remain. Many focus narrowly on specific learner groups or disciplines [5], rarely considering geography, cross-disciplinary impacts, or systematic instructional design [6]. Theoretical models developed in particular fields also raise questions about transferability. Furthermore, reviews have not clearly identified core research variables or synthesized effect sizes across disciplines. Existing meta-analyses report FC benefits in health, pharmacy, and language education, they also highlight methodological issues and heterogeneity [7,8,9,10,11]. However, a multi-disciplinary, longitudinal review that accounts for technological, contextual, and educational changes related to ongoing digital transformation is still missing.

The flipped classroom literature has expanded rapidly, producing numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses across disciplines and educational contexts. However, these reviews vary in scope, outcome measures, and methodological quality, resulting in fragmented evidence. To date, only limited umbrella-level syntheses exist (see recent study [12]). Therefore, a review of reviews is warranted to integrate the findings, assess methodological consistency, and provide a higher-level overview of the evidence base.

From the perspective of sustainability in higher education, these gaps are significant. Sustainability in higher education extends beyond environmental concerns to the long-term viability, systemic transformation, and institutional integration of pedagogical innovation [13,14]. Achieving this requires approaches that are transferable across disciplines, methodologically robust, and embedded within coherent institutional strategies rather than isolated initiatives. International frameworks, including UNESCO’s [15] Education for Sustainable Development and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4, emphasize resilient, inclusive, and quality-oriented educational systems. In line with these global agendas, continuous research on holistic models for implementing and integrating education sustainable development into higher education is strongly recommended [16]. Fragmented evidence and inconsistent research designs limit cumulative knowledge and the scalability of FC implementations. By conducting a longitudinal, multi-disciplinary review and proposing integrative frameworks (IDAMFC and TAT-FC), this study contributes to building a more sustainable, evidence-informed foundation for pedagogical innovation in higher education.

2. Conceptual and Theoretical Base

From online learning to blended learning to flipped classroom designs.

Online learning has evolved into structured approaches in higher education as part of broader digital transformation processes, including fully online, blended, and hybrid formats [17]. Blended learning (BL) combines online and face-to-face (F2F) instruction to leverage the strengths of both [18], offering flexibility in time and place for the students and faculty [19]. The FC is a distinct form of BL in which students engage with learning resources before class—through texts, videos, or online exercises—so that in-class time can focus on deeper interaction [20]. The three digital transformation approaches contribute to more sustainable education models.

More recent research emphasizes the effects of specific instructional design elements rather than faculty perceptions [21]. These developments and gaps in the literature frame seven guiding research questions (RQs) that structure this review.

RQ 1. What are the descriptive characteristics of the FC review studies (year of publication, disciplines, and from what country/region)?

Since FC research has expanded across multiple disciplines and regions, identifying the descriptive characteristics of existing review studies helps clarify publication trends and the overall research landscape.

Instructional design theories and the variables targeted in empirical FC studies.

Since the 1930s, instructional design (ID) theories have evolved alongside multimedia approaches. Behaviorism stressed clear objectives, practice, and immediate feedback [22]. Cognitivism (1950s–1970s) emphasized higher-order skills [23]. During the 1970s–1980s, constructivism promoted active knowledge building, problem-based learning, and collaboration [24]; information processing theory highlighted strategies such as chunking and advanced organizers, supported by media [25]; social learning theory focused on observation and interaction [26]; and adult learning theory emphasized self-directed, problem-centered approaches [27].

The ADDIE model (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation) influenced key ID models in the 1990s. Driven by technological developments and the accelerating digital transformation of educational environments, this model influenced the ID approach of FC [28]. The ‘Flipped Classroom Design Approach’ (FCDA model) further developed FC approaches and pursued effective FC implementations. This brings us to RQ 2:

RQ 2. What are the instructional design characteristics being studied in available FC review studies?

Given the lack of a systematic overview of which instructional design characteristics are examined in FC review studies, it is important to identify the key design components and variables that have been emphasized. Such an overview helps clarify how FC instructional features have been conceptualized and studied across the existing literature.

Meanwhile, FC research have examined in more detail the relationship between independent variables (FC design) and dependent variables (learning outcomes) and how these relationships relate to FC instructional characteristics [28]. Researchers have also increasingly considered moderating and mediating variables influenced by specific FC design elements, such as quizzes, small group assignments, face-to-face classroom time and lecture activities [29], or pre-classroom activities [11]. Existing reviews rarely track the evolution of FC instructional design characteristics, and empirical evidence on effective FC design remains limited [29]. In this review of reviews, we investigate changes in variables associated with FC designs by aligning them with instructional components, including learning objectives, content, strategies, media, evaluation, and organizational decisions.

Early reviews emphasized student satisfaction (see [30]), while later ones focused on performance (see [31]), reflecting differing theoretical foundations and ID approaches. Initial studies often lacked explanatory theory and treated FC as a “black box” [32]. Later research applied stronger frameworks, incorporating mediating and moderating variables [33]. Commonly used theories include [34]’s transactional theory, Abrahamson and colleagues [35]’s problem-based learning, [36]’s student-centered learning, and [37]’s self-determination theory, linking FC to competence, autonomy, and relatedness [30,31]. Engagement theory suggested FC enhances student engagement and performance [32,33]. This leads to RQ 3.

RQ 3. What theoretical framework(s) are being discussed in FC review studies to describe, explain and predict the expected impact of flipped classrooms?

Given that FC studies draw on a variety of instructional and learning theories, a systematic overview of the theoretical frameworks discussed in FC review studies is needed. Identifying these frameworks helps clarify the conceptual foundations used to explain and predict the effects of FC implementations.

The changes in instructional design of FC and related underlying theoretical frameworks affect the research design of FC studies [29,38]. An analysis of this evolution is hardly available. This introduces RQ 4.

RQ 4. How do the FC research designs evolve over time as reflected in the FC review studies (research objectives and questions, samples, procedure, methodology and instruments)?

Since systematic tracking of methodological evolution in FC studies is limited, examining research designs helps reveal trends and changes in the field.

Research designs address objectives, questions, sampling, instruments, procedures, and analysis techniques. Changes in design influence key variables and research questions. For instance, peer teaching in collaborative classrooms impacts learning processes and outcomes, while self-efficacy often mediates behavior change [39]. FC reviews explore diverse variables like feedback, performance, satisfaction, motivation, and flexibility, distinguishing dependent variables, mediators, moderators, and co-variables. This leads to RQ 5:

RQ 5. What are the key outcomes being studied in the FC review studies?

Given the diversity of learning outcomes reported, identifying key outcomes helps summarize what aspects of learning FC studies have emphasized.

In examining FC outcomes, review studies can also summarize statistical data on the overall impact of FC. The effect size of meta-analyses is a key indicator of intervention effectiveness. Therefore, a review of meta-analysis reviews can provide a meta-level perspective by calculating average effect sizes across FC studies.

RQ 6. What is the average effect size of FC interventions, building on available statistical information reported in FC review studies?

Since meta-analytic evidence of FC effectiveness is scattered, investigating average effect sizes across review studies provides a clearer estimate of its impact.

FC studies often present research and implementation challenges in their discussion section. Identifying these challenges can guide the development of future FC implementations and research [40]. This brings us to RQ 7:

RQ 7. What are the challenges reported in FC review studies?

Because understanding reported challenges can inform future research and practice, summarizing these issues helps identify gaps and directions for FC studies.

In the context of accelerating digital transformation and increasing calls for sustainable education systems, understanding the evolution, design, and impact of flipped classroom research becomes particularly relevant.

3. Methodology

Review of reviews

Review studies are ‘telescopes’ to identify trends in topics and to understand the nature and impact of learning designs [41]. Next to a range of review approaches, a next level can be pursued in review approaches. To compare, contrast, check consistency and especially to study trends over time in a field of study, a systematic review of available reviews can be applied [42]. A review of reviews synthesizes evidence from multiple reviews conducted with varied standards and methods [43]. It summarizes evidence across different interventions, outcomes, conditions, problems, or populations, focusing on the effects of an intervention [44].

The current review of reviews follows the PRISMA guidelines [45] to identify and analyze relevant studies, while adopting [46] a five-stage framework.

• Identifying the initial research questions.
• Identifying relevant studies.
• Study selection.
• Charting the data.
• Collating, summarizing and reporting the results.

3.1. Identifying the Initial Research Questions

Seven research questions were introduced to guide this study. Although addressed individually, these questions are strongly interconnected.

3.2. Identifying Relevant Studies

Key search terms were developed to guide the literature search. To ensure inclusion of as many review studies as possible, key search terms were kept general:

(review OR “systematic review” OR “literature review”) AND (“flipped classroom” OR “inverted classroom” OR “flipped learning” OR “flipped teaching”) AND (“higher education” OR university OR universities)

The search terms were used to screen publications from the Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus and Google Scholar. Given the first publication date of an FC research study was 2000, we adopted the time window: 2000–2024. The final database search was conducted on 15 February 2025. The inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined in

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for review studies.

Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Higher education (undergraduates)	Other educational levels
Published year 2000–2024	Out of this time window
Systematic or scoping review Review studies with meta-analysis or without	Narrative analysis or synthesis of FC
General focus on internet-based technologies to support online learning	Studies about specific technological tools to support online learning
Reviews indexed in WoS/Scopus/Google Scholar	Reviews not indexed in these databases
Containing concrete information about the nature of online/offline activities	Theoretical reflection and/or general FC discussion without concrete discussion of online/offline activities
Future research directions are clear	Future research directions unavailable
Published in English	Published in other languages

were applied to guide the selection of relevant research articles.

3.3. Study Selection

Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Full texts were subsequently assessed independently by both reviewers. Disagreements were resolved through discussion, and when necessary, a third reviewer acted as arbitrator. In the first step, 2416 papers were extracted from the Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar. In the second step, 2042 remained after removing 374 duplicates. Thirdly, title and abstract screening reduced this number to 2008 papers. Further analysis based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria narrowed down the set to 27 review studies matching all criteria. In the final step, full-text screening excluded two additional papers due to insufficient methodological transparency and lack of clear differentiation between narrative and systematic review approaches. Finally, 25 reviews are identified including 771 flipped classroom studies covering 18 disciplines. The selection process followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines [45], as illustrated in Figure 1.

3.4. Data Charting, Collation and Documentation

The [46] five-stage framework was used to direct the data charting and synthesis of the review studies. Summary tables have been developed to guide the analysis/synthesis. Most of these have been included in Appendix A.

Reviews were grouped for synthesis based on disciplinary field, outcome domains (e.g., learning performance, engagement), and methodological characteristics. This grouping enabled comparison of trends across contexts and outcome categories.

Data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers using a standardized data extraction form. Extracted variables included publication year, disciplinary focus, country of first author, instructional design characteristics, theoretical frameworks, research methodology, outcome variables, reported effect sizes, and identified challenges. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus.

The primary outcomes of interest included learning performance, student satisfaction, engagement, collaboration, motivation, professional skills, and reported effect sizes. Additional variables included instructional design characteristics, theoretical frameworks, research objectives, methodologies, and contextual factors such as discipline and geographic region. Where reported, standardized mean differences (Cohen’s d or Hedges’ g) were extracted as measures of effect size.

Where effect sizes were not directly reported, no statistical conversions were performed; such studies were summarized narratively. In cases of incomplete reporting, available descriptive information was extracted without imputation.

As this study synthesized published review studies, a formal risk-of-bias assessment tool was not applied. However, methodological characteristics and reporting transparency of included reviews were descriptively examined.

A narrative synthesis approach was adopted due to heterogeneity in disciplines, outcome variables, and methodological designs. Descriptive statistics and tabulation were used to summarize trends and key characters. Sources of heterogeneity were explored descriptively by comparing findings across disciplines, geographic regions, and outcome categories. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to inconsistent reporting and high heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses were not conducted due to the narrative nature of the synthesis and absence of quantitative meta-analytic pooling.

Reporting bias at the meta-review level could not be formally assessed due to inconsistent reporting in included reviews. The certainty of evidence was not formally graded due to methodological heterogeneity and incomplete reporting in primary reviews.

4. Results

Finally, 25 review studies [5,8,20,30,31,32,33,38,40,41,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61] were included in the systematic review. The descriptive characteristics of the 25 review studies (see

Table A1. The review studies which characterized the studies of FC approach during 2000 and 2024.

Author/Year/ Country	Journal	Fields/Number of Review Samples	Participants/Range	Research Questions	Research Objectives	Methodology–Data Analysis	Method	Answers of the Questions	Future Research
1. Bishop & Verleger/2013/USA [51]	ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition	Multidiscipline/ 24 (2000–2012)/ 2000: 2; 2002: 1; 2005: 1; 2006: 2; 2007: 1; 2008: 3; 2009: 4; 2010: 5; 2012: 5.	Higher education (Grade level: undergraduate)/7–1074	1. What are the types of in-class and out-of-class activities? 2. What are the measures used to evaluate the study, and methodological characteristics for each study?	Provide a comprehensive survey of prior and ongoing research of the FC.	Qualitative–Descriptive	Survey	1. In-class: SGA, Q, HW, L, Out-of-class: HW, Q, VL, CM, RA. Post-Test; Matched Pretest–Posttest; Unmatched Pre- and Post-Measures; Mid- and Post-Semester Measures. 2. Subjective Opinion Survey or Informal Assessment; Objective Performance Test.	1. To employ controlled studies objectively examine student performance throughout a semester. 2. To employ FC to leverage the existing research and theoretical frameworks to guide their use and design of in-class activities. 3. To clearly describe the activities used for both in- and out-class activities.
2. O’Flaherty & Phillips/2015/ Australia [41]	The Internet and higher education	Multidiscipline/ 28 (1994–2014)/ 2000: 1; 2007: 1 2012: 2: 2013: 12; 2014: 12.	Higher education (Undergraduate)/ 20–150	1. What technologies are being used to engage students? 2. What considerations are pertaining to the economic and time constraints for implementing a FC? 3. What is the pedagogical acceptance by staff and students? 4. What are the educational outcomes? 5. What is the conceptual framework used to design a FC?	Provide overview regarding the emergence of FC and the links to pedagogy and educational outcomes, identifying any gaps in the literature which could inform future design and evaluation.	Qualitative–Descriptive	Scoping review-Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) [46]	1. Podcasts/vodcasts, screencasts, annotated notes and captured videos, prereading, automated tutoring systems and study guides interactive videos from an online repository, Smartphone apps, tablets, think pair-and-share activities, clicker. 2. Lead in time for faculty was intense. FC requires funding to cover the cost of pre-class resources and ongoing IT support. 3. The lecture method. 4. Increases student satisfaction, academic performance, attendance, communication skills, preferences for working, teacher encouragement, and student’s empowerment. 5. Under-utilization of conceptual frameworks.	1. To consider the relationship of other indicators of student engagement in FC (not just examination scores). 2. Need stronger evidence in evaluation of student learning outcomes that particularly improved student learning and development. 3. To stimulate higher-order thinking through the use of creative technologies and applied learning. 4. Need a guideline of current approaches to assessment and feedback, e.g., writing quality learning checkpoints (in pre- and/or F2F sessions).
3. Presti/2016/USA [30]	Journal of Nursing Education	Nursing education/13 (2010–2015)/ 2010: 1; 2013: 2; 2014: 4; 2015: 5; 2016: 1.	Higher education (Undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate)/46–589	What is known about the use of the FC approach in undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate nursing education?	To examine the application of the pedagogical methodology—the FC in nursing education.	Qualitative– Syntheses–descriptive	Literature review	1. Positive: FC approach can yield positive outcomes on students’ satisfaction... 2. Negative: Lack of quantifiable, significant changes in nursing students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes.	1. Further development of the theoretical underpinnings of the FC approach in nursing education is merited. 2. The examination of the methods used successfully by other disciplines should be considered.
4. Betihavas et al./2016/Australia [49]	Nurse Education Today	Nursing education/5 (2013–2015)/ 2013: 2; 2015: 3.	Higher education (Undergraduate and graduate)/20–589	How has the FC been applied in nursing education and outcomes associated with this style of teaching?	To examine how the FC has been applied in nursing education and outcomes associated with this style of teaching.	Qualitative Systematic review	Systematic review	1. FC yields neutral or positive academic outcomes and mixed results for satisfaction. 2. The lack of evidence about FC in nursing vs other health disciplines. 3. Offers transformative potential to reform nursing education. 4. Provides flexibility to increase opportunities for students to develop and apply critical thinking skills, pre-requisite for contemporary nursing practice. 5. Variations result between student satisfaction and academic performance.	1. To examine the implementation process, value of pre- and within-class active learning strategies and the outcomes of the FC using alternative measures. 2. To study the variations in the relationship between student satisfaction and academic performance with the FC model.
5. Zainuddin & Halili/2016/Indonesia [52]	International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning	Multidiscipline/20 (2013–2015)/ 2013: 7; 2014: 9; 2015: 4.	Higher education (Undergraduate)	1. What methodologies have been frequently employed in FC research? 2. What areas of FC studies have been researched? 3. What technology tools or online platforms have been used for implementing the FC? 4. What are the most commonly used key words in FC research? 5. What are the most frequently work cited references in FC research? 6. What are the impacts of applying the FC on students’ learning? 7. What are the challenges?	To analyze the trends and contents of FC research.	Qualitative—Content analysis (using descriptive analysis, percentages, and frequencies)	Content analysis-Descriptive analysis	1. The mixed-method approach. 2. In various areas. 3. Diverse technology tools or online platforms, e.g., Wikis and Blogs; screencasts; the LaTeX beamer package, YouTube. 4. 7 key words, active learning, blended learning, flipped learning, technology integration, pedagogical issues and e-learning. 5. Bergmann and Sams (2012) [3]; Lage, Platt and Treglia (2000) [1], both 8 times. 6. Positive impacts in students’ achievement, students’ motivation, engagement, and interaction. 7. No evidence proved flipped learning had improved students’ grades; more time would be spent on designing good content; poor quality of video.	1. Need literature on the suitability of the FC for poor quality video lectures and untrained instructors. 2. To focus on both outside class activities and in-class activities. 3. May use a variety of research designs, e.g., experimental research, case study, ethnography, indeed design and developmental research (DDR) or design-based research (DBR).
6. Ramnanan & Pound/2017/ Canada [33]	Advances in medical education and practice	Medical education/26 (2012–2016)/ 2012: 2; 2013: 2; 2014: 3; 2015: 7; 2016: 12.	Higher education (Undergraduate)	1. What subject matter has been delivered using the FC approach? 2. Which tools and teaching methods have been used for pre-class and during-class phases in medical school? 3. How do medical students perceive (both strengths and caveats) the FC approach? 4. What is the impact of the FC on medical student learning?	1. To identify trends on both pre-class and in-class phases of FC. 2. Focus on and define medical student perceptions (strengths and caveats) and the impact of FC on student learning.	Qualitative–Data synthesized	Scoping review-Arksey and O’Malley (2005) [46]	1. Medical: Biochemistry, the anatomical sciences, medical anatomy, humanities, epidemiology, rheumatology, hematology, and point-of-care ultrasound. Clinical: medical education, geriatric medicine, disaster medicine, advanced cardiac life support, medicine as a business. 2. Pre-class: Online content videos, slide presentations, audio-based resources, e-learning tools, text-based resources. During class: small group activities, problem-based learning, team-based learning, student-driven workshops, discussion-based activities. 3. Strengthened student performance. But it did not improve lower cognitive skills. Caveats: Time-intensiveness; ability to access and ask questions and interact with classmates; pre-class learning tools need to be appropriately aligned; some subject matter was overly complex. 4. The incorporation of self-directed learning, active learning, and exercises that facilitate peer interaction; accountability; activities; attitudes.	1. Need to determine the effectiveness of FC approaches for this level of medical learner. 2. To confirm whether long-term lifelong learning competencies are actually enhanced by FC innovations in medical school.
7. Tan et al. /2017/ China [32]	Chinese Nursing Research	Nursing education/29 (2014–2016)/ 2015: 5; 2016: 24.	Higher education (Associated degree students and Undergraduate)/ 36–320	1. What effects of the FC have been reported in nursing education? 2. To what extent do the effects of FC relate to knowledge, skills and attitudes compared with traditional lectures in nursing education? 3. What is the rating of self-report questionnaires as to the effectiveness of the FC?	To identify the robust available evidence about the effectiveness of FC in nursing education.	Mixed— Descriptive statistical analyses	Systematic review- PRISMA standards of quality	1. FC improved students’ academic performance in knowledge, in skills: self-learning, study enthusiasm, accelerated communication between faculty and students, satisfaction, interest, and critical thinking. 2. Knowledge: standardized mean difference of 1.13; Skill: standardized mean difference (SMD) of 1.68; Attitude: a relatively higher rating. 3. At least 90.4%.	1. To strengthen the instructional framework of flipped classroom pedagogy and formulating unified evaluation criteria. 2. Need rigorous randomized controlled trial (RCT) designs for future studies to reduce the heterogeneity of the included articles. 3. Researchers perform a meta-regression analysis to explore the sources of heterogeneity in included studies.
8. Chen et al. /2017/USA [50]	Medical education	Medical education/9 (2012–2016)/ 2013: 1; 2015: 2; 2016: 6.	Higher education (Undergraduate)	1. What is the scope of the studies that have been published on FCs in medical education? 2. What is the research quality of the studies examined? 3. What are the effects of the FC, as reported by controlled studies?	1. To examine the scope and quality of studies on the FC teaching approach and to assess the effects of FCs on medical learning.	Qualitative–Descriptive (Using Kirkpatrick’s Framework)	Systematic review–Kirkpatrick’s classification measures (survey, exams)	1. Obstetrics and gynecology, general medicine, radiology and surgery, anesthesiology, anatomy, neuroanatomy and palliative medicine. 2. A gradual but steady increase in quality studies on FC in medical education. 3. The effects of the FC are inconsistent, with some purported benefits and some reports of negligible improvement over traditional teaching methods	1. Need solid evidence on the effect on changes in knowledge and skills in learner’s motivation and engagement. 2. To exam long-term effects of FC on knowledge retention and transfer to professional practice and patient care. 3. To evaluate the higher levels of Kirkpatrick’s framework. 4. To focus on change in knowledge and potential differential effects of FC on knowledge requiring different levels of cognitive processes.
9. Karabulut-Ilgu et al. /2018/USA [54]	British Journal of Educational Technology	Engineering Education/62 (2000–2015)/ 2003: 1; 2006: 1; 2008: 2; 2009: 2; 2010: 1; 2011: 1; 2012: 3; 2013: 12; 2014: 33; 2015: 6.	Higher education	1. What are the trends in FC in engineering education research? 2. What kinds of theoretical frameworks and evaluation methods have been adopted in EER investigating flipped learning? 3. Is flipped learning effective in teaching engineering according to prior research? 4. What are benefits and challenges of flipped learning as reported in EER?	To describe the current state of knowledge and practice in the FC approach in engineering education and to provide guidance for practitioners by critically appraising and summarizing existing research.	Qualitative—A qualitative synthesis	Systematic review–Borrego, Foster, and Froyd (2014)’s systematic review steps [101]	1. Conference proceedings are mainstream (66%). 2. Transactional theory, The Thayer system, Problem-based learning and collaborative learning, Cooperative education. Evaluation method: Most quantitative. 3. Flipped is more effective with 50% agreement. 4. Benefit: flexibility, improvement in interaction, professional skills and student engagement. Challenge: For Instructor: the heavy workload prior to and during class. For student: uninteresting online material, technical issues, insufficient knowledge of the new approach.	1. To focus more on what specific aspects of active learning might be complemented in a FC and how that could help engineering students. 2. Need longitudinal studies investigating student experience over a longer period of time. 3. To study the phenomena of flipped learning at broader levels (i.e., program, discipline) instead of specific course. 4. To investigate whether or not flipped learning enhances professional skills, e.g., life-long learning, self-regulation, inter-personal.
10. Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. /2018/Turkey [5]	Computers and Education	Multidiscipline/ 71 (1980–2016)/ 2000: 1; 2012: 1; 2013: 6; 2014: 7; 2015: 24; 2016: 32.	Higher education	1. What advantages of the FC are indicated in the studies in the SSCI-indexed journals? 2. What challenges imposed by the FC are indicated in the studies? 3. Which activities (in-class and out-of-class) were used in FC in the studies?	1. Examining the advantages and challenges for both students and instructors. 2. And to note potentially useful areas of future research on the flipped model’s in in- and out-of-class activities.	Mixed—Content analysis method and the software program ATLAS.ti 7.	Systematic review- the manuscript selection process; the data coding and analysis processes	1. a. Learning outcomes: FC improves student learning performance, satisfaction, engagement, motivation, knowledge. b. Pedagogical Contributions: Flexible learning, enables individualized learning, enhances enjoyment, and better preparation before class. Fosters autonomy. c. More efficiency in class time and practice. d. Dispositions: Positive feedback perceptions and attitude from students. e. Interaction: Students-Instructor, interaction (General), students-Students. f. Less anxiety, cost effective. 2.Challenges: Pedagogical: Limited student preparation before class. Time consuming for students and teachers. Technical and technological quality of videos and parental bias for teachers. 3. a. In-class activity: discussion, small group activities, feedback, problem-solving and collaborative group work. b. Out-of-class activities: Information transmission, readings and quizzes.	1. To focus on more course to see whether FC is suitable for large-scale and longer-term applications. 2. To explore why some studies, conclude that these aspects for students are advantages (encourage better preparation; positive perceptions) and others label them as challenges (limited preparation; low preference)? 3. To explore strategies and technologies to produce high quality videos when one has less technical ability and time. 4. It suggests instructors provide more interaction tools to help students to obtain feedback/help when doing homework out-of-class; to examine students’ technology availability and competency before implementing FC.
11. Hew & Lo /2018/China [8]	BMC medical education	Medical education/28 (2012–2017)/ 2012: 1; 2013: 2; 2014: 4; 2015: 5; 2016: 14; 2017: 2.	Higher education	1. Does using the flipped classroom approach in health professions education really improves student learning?	Examine the findings of comparative articles through a meta-analysis in order to summarize the overall effects of teaching with the FC approach.	Mixed—Descriptive and A meta-analysis	Systematic review-PRISMA guidelines; Comprehensive meta-analysis Version 3	1. An overall significant effect in favor of FC over traditional classrooms. 2. FC was more effective when instructors used quizzes at the start of each in-class session. 3. FC yields a significant improvement in student learning compared with traditional teaching methods.	1. To examine the possible effect of specific types of teaching method or presentation on student learning. 2. To examine the impact of vide styles. 3. To investigate how different video styles may impact student learning. 4. To conduct longitudinal studies to examine whether FC approach can foster learning retention over a long period of time.
12. Ward et al. /2018/USA [53]	Nurse education in practice	Nursing education/14 (2013–2016)/ 2013: 2; 2014: 1; 2015: 6; 2016: 5.	Higher education/589	1. Does incorporating the FC into nursing curricula enhance students learning outcomes and critical thinking skills of nursing students? 2. What is the impact of incorporating the FC into nursing curriculum?	To discuss outcome measures reported on the effectiveness of using FC	Qualitative–Descriptive	Systematic literature review	1. FC had a positive impact on student grades and critical thinking skills. But future research needs to quantify the FC’s effect on nursing students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. 2. a. Positive: 59% of students preferred FC. e.g., FC increases comprehension of the subject; FC enhances interaction, engagement in in-class activities; Videos enhances learning. b. Passive: FC occupied more time than TC in preparation.	Future studies need to quantify the FC’s effect on nursing students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills with vigorous design methodologies, adequate samples sizes, quantifiable outcome measures.
13. Giannakos et al./ 2018/Norway [31]	Digital technologies: Sustainable innovations for improving teaching and learning	Multidiscipline/37 (2000–2015)/ 2000: 2; 2002: 1; 2006: 1; 2007: 1; 2008: 1; 2010: 1; 2012: 6; 2013: 15; 2014: 9.	Higher education/Most <100, few >200	1. What are the most common technologies used in the flipped classroom? 2. Which are the most common subject areas to implement a flipped class? 3. What are the main measures used to evaluate flipped classroom experiences? 4. What are the main benefits and challenges known about frameworks used to design and implement flipped classroom?	To provide a review of the FC approach in order to summarize the findings and guide future studies.	Qualitative—A systematic analysis	Systematic literature review-quality assessment	1. Video lectures, animated readings, simulations. 2. Computer Science (CS) and Information Technology (IT) subjects are dominant in flipped-learning research. 3. Attitudinal, learning performance, students’ attendance, skills, fail rate. 4. Benefits: a. FC increases learning performance. b. Positive students attitudes and high engagement. c Increases students discussions. d. Increases cooperative learning. e. Improves students’ learning habits. Challenges: high initial cost and time consuming for instructor; encounter students’ initial unreceptive behavior; decrease students’ attendance.	1. To describe FC approach in detail, performing controlled experiments, and triangulating data from diverse sources. 2. To better indicate which aspects and ingredients of a FC work better and under which circumstances and student groups. 3. To focus more on the in-class part. 4. To expand the sample to primary and secondary education. 5. To investigate how instructors can motivate and engage students, and how technology can assist in active participation and critical discussions. 6. To focus on the pedagogical strategies in current FC studies.
14. Lundin et al./2018/ Sweden [20]	International Journal of Educational Technology in higher education	Multidiscipline/ 31 (2000-Mid June, 2016)/ 2000: 1; 2008: 1; 2012: 6; 2013: 16; 2014: 5; 2015: 2.	Higher education/20–40	How can the field of interest around the FC approach be described and problematized based on the most cited publications?	To investigate what constitutes the research on FCs and examine the knowledge contributions and relate them to the wider research topic of educational technology in higher education.	Mixed—Descriptive and quantitative mapping and aggregated analyze.	Systematic literature review- Following the nine tasks for systematic reviews suggested by Gough (2007) [102]	It can be described as growing fast, with a slight conference preference and a focus on higher education and STEM area contributions, with the US as the predominant geographical context.	1. More systematic, cumulative and empirically grounded knowledge is needed to build a stronger evidence base. 2. A better anchoring in learning theory or instructional design or in established research methodologies from educational technology research traditions could improve the quality and usefulness of the FC approach.
15. Zainuddin et al. /2019/ China [48]	On the Horizon	Multidiscipline/48 (2017–2018)/ 2017: 31; 2018: 17.	Higher education	1. What are the positive impacts of FC implementation? 2. What are the challenges encountered in FC implementation?	To review and analyze the trends and contents of FC research, to respond to a lack of empirical evidence about the different impacts revealed by the implementation of FC.	Qualitative–Descriptive analysis (Content analysis)	A systematic literature review. Content analyses were used	1. Positive impacts: students’ learning activities, e.g., academic performance, learning motivation and/or engagement, social interaction and self-directed learning skills. 2. The most significant challenges encountered by the instructors are a lack of students’ motivation to watch the pre-recorded video lectures or to study the contents outside of class time.	1. To explore more variables and/or cases to enrich the literature in FC research than autonomy, intrinsic motivation, engagement. 2. To extensively integrate a gamified learning strategy into the FC. 3. There is still a lack of literature or research that has really addressed the employment of the two issues of FC and gamification in one unified study.
16. Chung et al. /2019/China [38]	Interactive Learning Environments	Nursing education/33 (2010–2017)/ 2013: 4; 2014: 3; 2015: 9; 2016: 4 2017: 13.	Higher education	1. What are the major forms of learning materials, approaches to evaluating learning status, learning platforms and online discussion in the before-class activities? 2. What are the major learning strategies and technologies adopted in the in-class activities? 3. What are the major learning strategies adopted in the after-class activities? 4. What are the application domains, measurement issues, research methods and participants of flipped nursing education? 5. What are the nationalities of the flipped nursing education researchers?	Analyzed the learning performances in flipped nursing education, including the cognitive aspect, the affective aspect, the psychomotor aspect, and learning behaviors.	Qualitative—Coding schemes	Literature review-the review model of technology- based learning modified by Lin and Hwang (2018) [79] based on the framework proposed by Hsu et al. (2012) [103]	1. a. Digital materials: instructional videos, animation or e-books, and printed materials before the class. b. The approaches: testing; learning sheets, and mixed. 2. a. Strategy: issue discussion; problem-based learning, practicing or doing exercises, group projects. b. Technology: 7 studies use mobile phones and/or tablet computers; 22 studies using “traditional” in-class learning approaches. 3. Strategy: majority of nursing education papers did not have after-class activities. 4. a. Domain: Professional knowledge training; clinical nursing skills and techniques courses. b. Analyzed the learning performances from the cognitive, the affective, the psychomotor, and learning behaviors aspect. c. Method: data collection and analysis. d. Participants: Most are students, 1 studied working adults. 5. Scholars in the USA	1. To design after-class activities for nursing courses and to investigate the impact of the activities on students’ learning performances and perceptions. 2. To investigate learning behavior.
17. Xu et al. /2019/ China [60]	Nurse education today	Nursing education/22 (2015–2018)/ 2015: 1; 2016: 6; 2017: 13; 2018: 2.	Higher education/82–538	What is the effect of a flipped classroom versus a traditional classroom on their skill competence?	To examine the effect of a FC versus a traditional classroom on their skill competence.	Mixed—Descriptive and meta-analysis	Systematic literature review–quality assessment and meta-analysis method	The FC increased students’ skills score, the cooperative spirit and sense of teamwork, practical ability, enjoyment of the course, communication, the curriculum’s effects, interest in participation, ability to think and analyze problems, and resolution and resilience.	1. To adopt strict inclusion criteria and rigorous methods of quality assessment. 2. A large sample and high-quality studies are needed.
18. Vanka et al. /2020/Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [57]	Eur J Dent Educ	Medical education/17 (2012–2019)/ 2012: 1; 2015: 1; 2016: 2; 2017: 5; 2018: 7; 2019: 1.	Higher education/24–1259	1. What are the perceptions of undergraduate dental students on the FC approach? 2. What are the pre-class and in-class activities (promoting active learning) performed in FC implemented in dental schools? 3. What are the educational outcomes arising from a flipped classroom?	To explore the characteristics of the FC model implemented in undergraduate dental education.	Qualitative Descriptive	Scoping review–Reported under the PRISMA extension for scoping review guidelines	1. FC improves student satisfaction in majority of studies. 2. Pre-class activity: online resources (Specific videos), instructor guidance. Negative: student’s preparation score is very low. In-class activity: Assessing knowledge and providing feedback on questions from pre-class material followed by instruction by faculty. Group-based activities, e.g., discussions, projects, presentations, assignments and small group tasks. 3. Modest improvement.	Flipped classroom effect on academic scores, particularly for skill development, needs more research.
19. Zou et al. /2020/China [55]	Computer Assisted Language Learning	Languages/34 (2015–2020)/ 2015: 1; 2016: 3; 2017: 8; 2018: 13; 2019: 7 2020: 2.	Higher education/25–64 or >64	1. What theoretical frameworks, concepts, models, or instructional approaches were involved in the research on flipped language classrooms? 2. Who were the main participants? 3. What were the main learning activities? 4. What were the main learning tools? 5. What were the outcomes and how were they evaluated? 6. What topics were investigated?	To conduct an in-depth analysis of the theoretical foundations, educational activities, and tools of flipped language classrooms, as well as to provide directions for educators in their implementation of flipped teaching.	Qualitative Content analysis	Systematic review- Bottom-up coding method	1. Self-regulated learning, student-centered learning, technology acceptance model (TAM), gamification, game-based learning, mastery-based leaning, active learning, socio-cultural theory, just-in-time teaching and peer instruction, cognitive elaboration theory, cognitive load theory, depth of processing. 2 Mainly university students or post-graduates. 3. The comprehensive practice of language knowledge and skills. 4. Pre-class and in-class: Video; After-class: Online platform. 5. FC increases students’ motivation, engagement, satisfaction, academic performance, perceptions, and cultivates learning autonomy and self-regulation, more confident, improves higher-order thinking skills. They were evaluated by test, questionnaire, and interview. 6. Students’ academic performance, motivation, satisfaction, perceptions and engagement, the effects of external factors on FC.	1. To conduct longitudinal studies to explore teachers’ and students’ experience. 2. To focus on the cognitive and affective domains. 3. To further explore the sustainability of flipped classrooms in the long term. 4. To study personalized and collaborative learning in flipped language classrooms.
20. Gómez-García et al. /2020/ Spain [59]	Sustainability	Informational Teaching/11 (2013–2020)/ 2014: 1; 2015: 1; 2016: 3; 2018: 5; 2019: 1.	Higher education	1. What are the main experiences from the international context in which the FC method is being implemented to achieve information literacy development? 2. In what areas or disciplines of knowledge do these types of studies redound? 3. Which journals have published scientific papers on this subject? 4. What was the objective of implementing the FC methodology? 5. How was the implementation of the methodology carried out? 6. What effects have I observed on the students analyzed and on their information competence?	To locate quality educational experiences that applied the flipped classroom method to promote information literacy in higher education classrooms.	Mixed—Descriptive and quantify the data.	Systematic literature review	1. Positive results of the application of FC in the different teaching rooms. 2. Information Science and Library Science. 3. The journal of information literacy; Journal of the Medical Library Association; Journal of the Medical Library Association; The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 4. To observe the possible multifunctionality of the methodology. 5. It was carried out in different ways, e.g., the use of video tutorials, animated videos, training modules, interactive presentations, or the elaboration of video guides, 6. Students’ information skills improved, motivation indexes, autonomy, self-regulation, interactivity among peers, interest towards the content or subject taught.	Need to continue deepening this thematic line through empirical studies that verify the effectiveness of the FC method in the development of informational skills and the subsequent meta-analytical studies.
21. Al-Samarraie/2020/ UK [40]	Educational Technology Research and Development	Multidiscipline/85 (2009–2018)/ 2009: 2; 2012: 2; 2013: 8; 2014: 13; 2015: 25; 2016: 20; 2017: 8; 2018: 7.	Higher education/113–1320	1. What is the effect of using FC on students’ learning across university disciplines?’ 2. What are the opportunities and challenges from using the FC model in these disciplines? 3. What are the major extensions to the traditional FC model?	To gain a comprehensive understanding of the FC implementation in a university context.	Mixed—Unit analysis	Systematic review	1. FC positively promotes students’ engagement, attitudes, perceptions, metacognition skills (critical thinking and retention), performance, understanding and achievements. 2. Opportunities: FC can foster students’ engagement; master topics; save time; transfer their knowledge; ask question and get answer form others; offer a meaningful solution; underpin the practical procedures. For teachers: FC can provide multiple visual inputs; enable student to invest their time; decrease the preparation time and deliver class content to large classroom. Challenge: The length of the video; time required for students to master the learning material; the lack of immediate feedback; course structure. 3. FC models are remarkably effective in teaching engineering and medical subjects by fostering learning strategies that enhance post-phase knowledge, engagement, and understanding.	1. The use of FC for the promotion of students’ problem-solving, motivation, involvement, time commitment, interaction, and self-directed were the least studies topics across all disciplines. 2. Future studies can and must change in these directions in order to provide a wider range of perspectives that facilitate students’ development in these areas.
22. Jiang et al. /2020/ China [47]	Computer Assisted Language Learning	Language education/33 (2015–2018)/ 2015: 2; 2016: 7; 2017: 11; 2018: 13.	Higher education	1. What are the overall features of research in flipped language education (FLE) in terms of time span, setting, methodology, unit of analysis, and sample? 2. What are the research foci in flipped language education? 3. What is the role of technology in flipped language education? 4. How do studies integrate theories, models, or strategies of language teaching and learning into flipped language education?	The study aims to: 1. address the need to analyze and appraise the literature pertaining to language education that adopts FCA. 2. propose a framework for designing flipped language courses.	Qualitative—Synthesizes (coding and network analysis)	Scoping review–Arksey and O’Malley (2005) [46]	1. a. The times pan of the articles published in FLE is relatively narrow. b. English (EFL/L2) courses constitute the body of FLE (93.9%). c. More empirical studies than non-empirical. d. Most is quantitative with small sample size. 2. Personal characters, learner preference, learner perception, learning attitude, learner satisfaction, online community based. 3. Technology was mainly integrated in pre-class activities, while the in-class activities primarily involved technology-free face-to-face interactions. 4. Domain-specific FL/L2 teaching theories, models, or strategies were rarely included in course design, largely ignoring the uniqueness of FL/L2 classrooms.	1. To focus on the out-of-class self-regulated learning process in flipped FL/L2 classrooms. 2. Future studies may use for reference some specified theoretical frameworks.
23. Hendrik & Hamzah/2021/ Indonesia [58]	iJET	Computer science/32 (2015–2019)/ 2015: 8; 2016: 8; 2017: 4; 2018: 6; 2019: 6.	Higher education	1. In which educational level, the FC most adopted in programming courses? 2. How is the FC approach implemented in programming courses? 3. What are the in-class activities and out-of-class activities used in FC for programming classes?	To explore the strategy of FC implementation in the programming class.	Qualitative Synthesis	Systematic Literature Review–adopting guidelines of Kitchenham (2004) [104]	1. Higher education. 2. Pilot, Solitary, mixed and fused implementation. 3. In-class activities: Hands-on experiments; small briefings; quizzes; assignments with teacher assistance; questions and answers; Discussion; out-of-class: Videos; quizzes; online modules; self-exercise; readings.	1. To investigate how those four flipped modes can assist in the strategy of FC implementation. 2. Can examine the distinction among those modes in the matter of effectiveness and efficiency of FC utilization.
24. Youhasan et al./2021/ New Zealand [61]	BMC nursing	Nursing education/27 (2013–2019)/ 2020: 2013: 1; 2015: 3; 2016: 3; 2017: 8; 2018: 6; 2019: 6.	Higher education	1. The pedagogical structure of the flipped classroom? 2. The influence of flipped classroom on nursing students’ learning?	To investigate the literature pertaining to the development, implementation and effectiveness of FC pedagogy in undergraduate nursing education.	A qualitative synthesis	Systematic review-A PRISMA systematic review protocol was implemented	1. Pre-classroom activities, in-classroom activities and post-classroom activities. 2. On the students’ knowledge and skill, skill development, performance evaluation score, core competencies, confidence. problem-solving skills and the outcome of therapeutic communication.	Should consider developing and implementing FCs for the limited-resourced undergraduate nursing educational environment by using a compatible instructional system designing model.
25. Silverajah et al. /2022/Malaysia [56]	IEEE Access	Multidiscipline/ 32 (2015–2021)/ 2015: 1 2016: 2 2017: 5 2018: 6 2019: 5 2020: 7 2021: 6.	Higher education	1. The characteristics of included studies? 2. The effects of SRL measures in FC? 3. The effects of SRL in FC on academic outcomes? 4. The SRL measurement methods used in FC? 5. The direction of future studies to explore SRL in FC?	To explore students’ self-regulation strategies and the SRL skills developed through FC.	Mixed—Quantitative and Qualitative	Systematic review	1. Most of the studies originated from the U.S.; the most frequently studied field is STEM related. The most frequently used research methodology is the quantitative approach. Pre-class activity: video. In-class activity: collaborative group work/discussion. 2. FC group shows a significantly positive effect on self-control and self-observation skills, higher self-efficacy, and self-reflection skills than TL. 3. A more positive effect of SRL processes on learning performance. 4. SRL promotes personal growth through self-evaluation of interpersonal skills, learners’ engagement patterns and learning strategies in FC. 5.To capture real-time learning processes using SRL microanalysis measures.	1. A larger sample size. 2. To increase the duration of study. 3. To find ways to improve the nature of task design. 4. Most of the studies suggested future research to explore integrating multiple data collection methods. 5. To capture real-time learning processes using SRL microanalysis measures.

) covering 25 years were mapped and organized, helping to characterize the studies in several ways.

4.1. RQ 1. What Are the Descriptive Characteristics of the FC Review Studies (Year of Publication, Disciplines, and from What Country/Region)?

4.1.1. Year of Publication

Figure S1 shows FC reviews emerged in 2013, 13 years after the first FC study in 2000. Its number gradually increased, peaking around 2018, and gradually decreasing afterwards. One-third of reviews were multi-disciplinary, dominating the early publication years, while two-thirds were single-discipline, starting later and contributing to growth. Both types steadily increased, peaking together and highlighting strong cross-disciplinary interest.

Table 2. The time window adopted for the studies covered by the FC reviews spans (1980–2024).

Reviews	1980	1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988	1989	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
Review 1																				2		1			1	2	1	3	4	5		5
Review 2																				1							1					2	12	12
Review 3																														1			2	4	5	1
Review 4																																	2		3
Review 5																																	7	9	4
Review 6																																2	2	3	7	12
Review 7																																			5	24
Review 8																																	1		2	6
Review 9																							1			1		2	2	1	1	3	12	33	6
Review 10																				1												1	6	7	24	32
Review 11																																1	2	4	5	14	2
Review 12																																	2	1	6	5
Review 13																				2		1				1	1	1		1		6	15	9
Review 14																				1								1				6	16	5	2
Review 15																																					31	17
Review 16																																	4	3	9	4	13
Review 17																																			1	6	13	2
Review 18																																1			1	2	5	7	1
Review 19																																			1	3	8	13	7	2
Review 20																																		1	1	3		5	1
Review 21																													2			2	8	13	25	20	8	7
Review 22																																			2	7	11	13
Review 23																																			8	8	4	6	6
Review 24																																	1		3	3	8	6	6
Review 25																																			1	2	5	6	5	7	6
The total amount of the reviewed studies																				7		2	1		1	4	3	7	8	8	1	29	92	104	121	152	108	82	26	2	6

Note: Yellow represents the scoping duration of the review on multi-discipline studies; Blue represents the scoping duration of the review on Single discipline studies; Orange represents the studies selected by the 25 reviews.

presents the time window adopted for the studies covered by the review’s spans (1980–2024). While two review studies started in 1980 and 1994, the FC study appeared in 2000, peaking in 2016. Most reviews overlap in their time windows, with many opting for 2010 as the starting year and reaching peak overlap in 2015. The number of reviewed studies increased steadily, from 6 reviews covering 7 FC studies in 2000 to 13 reviews covering 29 FC studies in 2012, followed by a sharp increase to 17 reviews, covering 92 individual FC studies. This sharp increasing tendency continues until 2016 with a peak of 16 reviews covering 152 FC studies. This high publication rate remains steady until 2019, suggesting significant growth in FC research during that period. All reviews span a time frame of 44 years. Single-disciplinary reviews show a more limited time window as compared to multi-disciplinary reviews.

4.1.2. Disciplinary Focus of the FC Review Studies

Figure S2 presents a further analysis of disciplinary focus of the 25 FC reviews. Single-disciplinary reviews are dominant, with nursing (44%) and medical (25%) fields leading the FC applications being studied. Both disciplines belong to the health sciences, which reflects the highest significant growth in higher education research publications, as noted by [50].

4.1.3. The First Author’s Affiliation Region and Country of the Review Studies

Table S1 and Figure S3 show that Asia leads with 10 reviews, driven mainly by China (N = 7 from Hongkong, Taiwan, Mainland of China), Indonesia (N = 2) and Malaysia (N = 1), reflecting China scholar’s growing academic influence and Indonesia’s emerging role. The Americans follow with six reviews, largely dominated by the USA, highlighting its established research infrastructure and leadership in global research. Europe contributes with five reviews, originating from various countries (Norway, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and UK). Oceania has three reviews from Australia and New Zealand. While Saudi Arabia represent the Middle East with 1 FC review.

4.2. RQ 2. What Are the Instructional Design Characteristics Being Studied in Available FC Review Studies?

FC is a mix of pre-, in-, and post-class activities to enhance learning [51], which allows instructors to focus on higher-order cognitive skills next to lower-order skills during and outside class [52,62]) and highlights the role of reflective practice in deepening understanding and fostering critical thinking in post-class activities. However, many studies focus on pre-class and in-class phases instead of post-class phase according to the statistics of the present research. Drawing on the revised Bloom’s taxonomy of learning objectives [63], we developed a three-phase Instructional Design Analysis Model of Flipped Classrooms (IDAMFCs) to study the FC design as being looked at in the FC reviews (Figure 2). This model is based on previous instructional design models with considering the key influencing elements in flipped classrooms design. We look at learning objectives, content, strategies, media, assessment, and organization across pre-, in-, and post-class phases. The model helps in analyzing how teachers/researchers design FC when creating courses to foster a range of outcome variables. Table S2 summarizes the meta-analysis of the ID approaches as discussed in the review studies.

Reflection tools and media that helps to extend the learning activity, such as a discussion forum were applied during post-class activities, but not extensively.

Evaluation

Evaluation aims at determining the extent to which students master the learning objectives. In the reviewed studies, evaluation is categorized into formative assessment in the pre-class phase, formative and summative assessment during in-class activities, and reflective and summative assessment in the post-class phase. In total, 18 reviews highlight the importance of evaluation in determining whether learning objectives are met. However, most provide limited discussion of standardized evaluation criteria. Only Review 7 calls for a stronger evaluation framework that builds on clear preset criteria. Formative assessments like quizzes and presentations are prominent in the pre- and in-class phases; Meanwhile, reflective and summative assessments in the post-class phase are rarely identified.

Organization

Organization as part of instructional design involves managing infrastructure, time, space, rules and grouping to enhance FC design [64]. In educational research, the focus on organization was prevalent during the 1980s, then decreased [65]. The results show there are limited reviews that studied organization. Table S2 shows that Review 22 [47] explores how language teachers select content for out-of-class study versus in-class higher-order tasks. Ref. [66] highlights the lack of post-class activities for knowledge consolidation and calls for better preparation of content and activities. The lack of organization research aligns with gaps in learning objectives and content.

The evolution in ID decisions related to in-class and out-of-class activities as tackled in review studies.

Table S6 and Figure S4 document the evolution of in-class FC activities. The instructional design decisions seem to emphasize video lectures, assessments, discussions, and quizzes. In-class activities in FC review studies expanded during 2016–2020 with a peak in 2020, because of the attention paid to collaborative discussions and quizzes. During more recent years, a narrower focus is adopted, but video lectures and quizzes remain as popular strategies [53].

Table S6 and Figure S5 summarize the nature of ID decisions that support out-of-class learning activities. The number of approaches grew over time, peaking between 2018 and 2020. Video lectures, quizzes and reading assignments were the most frequently adopted out-of-class activities, followed by the use of interactive tools (interactive tutorials, online models, PowerPoints). Quizzes, readings, interactive tutorials, and comprehension-related activities were more strongly focused by the review studies in 2020. However, this number decreased in 2021 and 2022.

4.3. RQ 3. What Theoretical Framework(s) Are Being Discussed in FC Review Studies to Describe, Explain and Predict the Expected Impact of Flipped Classrooms?

Table S3 illustrates that only four reviews explicitly addressed theoretical frameworks [38,51,54,55]. Review 1 emphasized student-centered learning theories. Review 16 recognizes the importance of theoretical frameworks but does not present further operationalization of such theories. In contrast, reviews 9 and 19 delve deeper into the application of theories that are grounded in self-regulated learning and gamification, focusing on the role of FC activities. This uneven and limited engagement with theory highlights a critical gap in the current flipped classroom literature.

In response to this observed theoretical gap, a small scale, adaptable theory—Transformative Activation Theory for Flipped Classrooms (TAT-FC)—is proposed, aligned with IDAMFC. Based on a synthesis of the 25 systematic reviews we conducted, we integrated the discussion of the conceptual model [67] that evolved from theories related to ‘transformational teaching and learning’ in a FC environment and the application of ‘activity theory’ in computer-supported collaborative learning [68]. TAT-FC offers a consolidated perspective that bridges fragmented theoretical efforts by integrating pedagogical structures, mediating factors, and outcome dimensions relevant across disciplines. TAT-FC presents a novel synthesis of existing theoretical frameworks by integrating elements of self-regulated learning (SRL), socio-constructivism, and active learning into a comprehensive three-phase instructional model tailored for the flipped classroom. Unlike traditional instructional design models, which focus on generic instructional format, TAT-FC explicitly maps how pedagogical mechanisms, such as pre-class preparation, in-class active learning, and post-class reflection, interact across the flipped learning cycle. Furthermore, TAT-FC incorporates key mediating variables, such as technology readiness and student motivation, and links them to multidimensional outcomes, thus bridging fragmented theoretical approaches and offering a more holistic—albeit eclectic—framework for flipped classroom research.

Core constructs:

Pre-class: Focuses on lower-order cognitive objectives (e.g., remembering, understanding). Students interact with basic content using digital media (e.g., video lectures, e-books) at their own pace. In-class: Centers on higher-order thinking (e.g., analyzing, evaluating, creating) using advanced content and collaborative strategies (e.g., group work, debates, presentations) supported by interactive media. Post-class: Emphasizes reflective and consolidative objectives (e.g., applying, synthesizing). Learning involves reflection prompts, extended projects, and self-assessments using feedback mechanisms.

Pedagogical mechanisms:

• Active Learning Facilitation: In-class time leverages active learning methods through discussions, feedback, and collaborative work.
• Self-Regulated Learning (SRL): Pre-class preparation enhances autonomy, metacognition skills and responsibility for pacing.
• Student-Centered Learning: FC promotes flexibility and individualized learning pathways via differentiated media and strategy integration.
• Reflective Consolidation: Post-class activities reinforce concept learning and understanding through metacognitive reflection and structured feedback (e.g., journaling, feedback, and extension tasks).

Mediating variables:

• Technology Readiness: The availability and quality of digital resources affect FC implementation success.
• Instructor Preparation: Effective FC requires substantial upfront planning with digital tools familiarity, assessments and in-class facilitation.
• Student Motivation and Preparation: Learner motivation and pre-class preparation critically impact outcomes. Sustained engagement hinges on learners’ readiness to reflect, plan, and act.

Students learning outcomes:

• Cognitive: Enhanced academic performance, critical thinking, and problem-solving.
• Affective: Higher levels of motivation, engagement and satisfaction.
• Behavioral: Improved participation, attendance, and self-discipline.
• Professional skills: Strengthened collaboration, communication, and independent learning.

Theoretical underpinnings: The approach is grounded in socio-constructivist theory, cognitive load theory, active learning principles, self-regulated learning theory and reflective practice models. TAT-FC also draws on instructional design frameworks as set out in the IDAMFC.

4.4. RQ 4. How Do the FC Research Designs Evolve over Time as Reflected in the FC Review Studies (Research Objectives and Questions, Samples, Procedure, Methodology and Instruments)?

Evolution of research objectives in the 25 review studies

The research objectives identified in the 25 FC review studies can be organized into five clusters: (1) foundations of FC approaches, (2) the nature of FC implementation, (3) impact on student learning, (4) impact on student perspectives, and (5) methodological features of FC research.

The findings indicate that most objectives focus on the nature of FC implementation and its impact on student learning (see Table S4). Objectives related to the foundations of FC approaches are also well represented (eight objectives), suggesting that reviews aim to establish a conceptual understanding of FC design and implementation.

Objectives examining the nature of FC implementation are the most prevalent (N = 15), reflecting strong interest in how FC is enacted in practice. The cluster “impact on student learning” also receives sustained attention. In contrast, the clusters addressing impact on student perspectives and methodological features receive comparatively less emphasis.

Evolution of research questions in the 25 review studies

Examining the evolution of research questions is critical because scientific progress depends on well-formulated meaningful questions [69,70]. Well-designed questions advance a field, whereas poorly formulated ones hinder readers’ ability to assess the significance of findings. Literature reviews are particularly powerful in addressing research questions because they synthesize evidence across multiple empirical studies [71].

Across the 25 reviews, 25 FC-related research questions were identified, with primary emphasis on FC effectiveness. Questions concerning disciplinary contexts and research methodologies were the second most common, highlighting their importance in guiding both primary and review research.

As shown in Table S5, research questions evolved over time. In 2013, they focused mainly on educational outcomes. By 2015, the scope expanded to include technology integration and implementation constraints. In 2016, attention broadened further to encompass effectiveness, methodological issues, subject-specific applications, and adoption challenges.

From 2017 onward, research focused on students’ perspectives and content-specific applications, then on advantages, challenges, and pre-class activities (2018–2019). Since 2020, questions have expanded to educational levels and students’ self-regulated learning strategies (2021–2022).

Samples and Participants

The 25 FC reviews constitute the sample for this review of reviews. They collectively examined 723 FC studies, involving a large number of participants. Sample sizes ranged from 7 to 1320 participants who are primarily undergraduate students. This aligns with previous findings [65], indicating that FC models are predominantly implemented in undergraduate education.

Most samples were drawn from nursing and medical education contexts. This concentration suggests that findings from these disciplines may be more robust within health-related fields, although generalizability to other disciplines may be more limited.

Research Methodology

Figure S6 summarizes five review types used to examine FC studies: survey reviews, scoping reviews, literature reviews, systematic reviews, and content analyses. Systematic and scoping reviews predominate (17 in total), with systematic reviews being the most common.

Regarding analytical approaches, qualitative methods account for 64% of the reviews, which is identified by [56]. Quantitative methods for 24%, and mixed-methods approaches for 12%. Qualitative analyses primarily rely on descriptive synthesis, systematic coding, and content analysis, whereas quantitative approaches involve statistical analysis or meta-analysis. Mixed-methods reviews combine descriptive and statistical techniques. However, limited methodological rigor in evaluating FC effects restricts the feasibility of conducting robust quantitative meta-analyses.

Instruments

The review studies used a variety of instruments and evaluation methods. The primary tools were pre-tests and post-tests used to assess academic performance (review [30,32,38,41,49,51,54,57]), followed by surveys and questionnaires (review [30,31,41,49,50,51,59]), mostly using Likert scales or open-ended questions. Additionally, some studies employed observation and qualitative methods to assess student engagement or performance (review [31,33,56]).

4.5. RQ 5. What Are the Key Outcomes Being Studied in the FC Review Studies?

Key FC outcomes (Table S7) were analyzed according to the classification suggested by [5]: student level, instructional process and efficiency.

Figure S7 showed most review studies focus on student-level outcomes, particularly learning performance and satisfaction. At the instructional process level, attention centers on collaboration and interaction. Interest in both student-level and instructional process outcomes peaked in 2018, reflecting increased attention to how instructional strategies shape broader learning experiences and classroom practices.

Over time, outcomes like flexible learning, better preparation, and creativity have emerged, while efficiency-related outcomes have remained less studied (2013–2024). And the fact is student’s preparation score is very low [57].

4.6. RQ 6. What Is the Average Effect Size of FC Interventions, Building on Available Statistical Information Reported in FC Review Studies?

Effect sizes are defined as the extent to which a phenomenon occurs in a population, the magnitude of an intervention’s impact on an outcome [72], or an index describing an intervention’s relative effect [73]. Recognized across disciplines, it provides a simple and clear way to quantify intervention effects relative to a benchmark [74]. Thus, assessing the effect of FCs using effect size is essential.

Table S8 summarizes data from the seven reviews that reported effect sizes. Although some reviews consistently reported standardized mean differences or d indices, many elements were missing, and only plausible effect sizes were provided. Review 1 provides the most detaied overview based on effect size reporting. However, it lacks detailed information on test heterogeneity, I2, tests for overall effect % p, and tests for subgroup difference. The pooled effect size reported in Review 7 shows a significant overall improvement in academic performance in knowledge with FC. In Review 8, only 9 of the 46 FC studies adopted controlled research designs, and sample sizes were not specified. The effects of FCs on changes in knowledge and skills were less conclusive (d = 0.27). The varying direction and magnitude of the effect sizes, together with their 95% confidence interval, which contained zero, suggested a lack of strong evidence for the effectiveness of FCs in promoting knowledge acquisition above and beyond the traditional learning methods. Review 11 builds on studies involving large sample sizes, and the overall effect sizes favor the outcomes of students in FC conditions. Review 17 showed FCs significantly improved the outcomes in students’ skill scores compared with the traditional teaching method (d = 1.79), cooperative spirit and sense of teamwork (d = 1.60), practical ability (d = 1.47), enjoyment of the course (d = 1.39), expression and communication (d = 1.41), the curriculum’s effects (d = 1.32), interest in participation (d = 1.58), ability to think and analyze problems (d = 1.62), and resolution and resilience (d = 1.62). Review 21 shows the identified learning outcomes had positively affected students’ learning across disciplines (d = 0.9). However, larger and higher-quality studies are needed because of small sample sizes. For instance, in Review 22, around one-third of the studies were built on small samples, resulting in very large effect sizes that could have overestimated the intervention effects.

The varying sample sizes, dependent variables, disciplines in FC studies, insufficient data in FC review studies and heterogeneity hindered straightforward comparisons of the studies.

4.7. RQ 7. What Are the Challenges Reported in FC Review Studies?

Challenges reported in the review studies can be clustered as pedagogical in nature or linked to student or teacher stress, or mirroring school policy perspectives (see Table A1). The findings show especially a large emphasis on challenges related to student and teacher stress. “Time consumption”, “workload increase”, and “adoption problems” are highlighted as major concerns invoking student stress, especially in reviews published around 2018. “Time consuming”, “difficult to design course” and “high workload” were major concerns invoking teacher stress, again, mainly reported around the year 2018. Next are the challenges that look to FC from a pedagogical perspective. This seems especially important when dealing with students in the out-of-class and online context. Few review studies addressed policy-related challenges (Figure S8). In this cluster, “inequality of technology accessibility”, “requirements of specific infrastructure” and “need training for technology competency (students)” were paid most attention to.

5. Discussion

This study provides a longitudinal synthesis of 771 FC studies, offering insights into the evolution of research designs, methodologies, and instructional practices. These developments support sustainability in higher education, understood as the long-term integration, transferability, and systemic embedding of pedagogical innovation [13,14]. Analysis of research objectives, samples, procedures, methodologies, and instruments (RQ4) reveals increasing methodological consolidation and cross-disciplinary engagement, which strengthen cumulative knowledge and enhance the scalability of FC implementations. By consolidating fragmented evidence, this study provides an evidence-informed foundation for embedding flipped classrooms into coherent, sustainable teaching strategies across higher education institutions. From a sustainability perspective, this consolidation marks an important transition from exploratory adoption toward the conditions necessary for durable institutionalization of flipped classroom pedagogies.

RQ 1. What are the descriptive characteristics of the FC review studies (year of publication, disciplines, and from what country/region)?

The growth in FC review studies reflected an increasing interest in FC in higher education, particularly within the broader context of digital transformation in education. More single-disciplinary FC reviews are available than multi-disciplinary ones. Nevertheless, FC seems to be adopted in many disciplines [75]. This surge has advanced both the theory and practice of FCs in teaching and learning [5]. Few reviews analyzed the country (first author) and none examined regional variations, suggesting limited attention to the development of FC research across countries and regions. Ref. [76] addresses this by examining academic disciplines and differences in FC adoption worldwide.

RQ 2. What are the instructional design characteristics being studied in available FC review studies?

Overall, FC reviews show a lack of systematic focus on instructional design characteristics. Ref. [29] notes that there is still little empirical evidence providing insight into the instructional design characteristics of an effective FC approach. As a result, the FC literature remains difficult to compare and is often treated as a container concept without a clear definition or characterization. Changes in the definition of FC are reflected in “Learning environment,” and “Technology” (see [77]), mirroring shifts associated with ongoing digital transformation processes.

Learning objectives

There was a general absence of studies exploring the nature of the learning objectives being pursued through FC-based interventions. The large variation in learning objectives being mentioned in the FC reviews suggest that FC has the potential to pursue a broad variation in learning objectives; meanwhile, a related analysis of the implications regarding a fitting instructional design is missing [78].

Learning content

The success of FCs depends on well-designed content that supports student understanding, engagement and knowledge-building across different stages, fostering more sustainable learning processes. Instructional design literature [63] stresses how learning objectives guide the selection of content and the actions students perform with it. The degree of attention seems lacking in FC designs addressed in reviews. Challenges in FC learning content design include misaligned pre- and in-class activities, overemphasis on basic knowledge and insufficient focus on higher-order thinking skills [3]. Student dissatisfaction often arises from imbalanced content and its complexity. Ref. [79] highlights the need to align FC content with diverse learning goals and expected student outcomes (see also [80]).

Learning strategies

Learning strategies and the design are key to invoke fitting student actions. Our findings highlight an evolving pattern in the use of collaborative learning strategies in in-class activities. Research consistently shows that active learning and collaborative learning foster deeper understanding, critical thinking, and improved problem-solving skills, contributing to improved learning outcomes [58,68,69].

Compared with in-class activities, these individual instructional strategies in pre-class activity are less focused and reflective and consolidative strategies in post-class activity are the least. However, FC success depends on students completing substantial out-of-class work independently [81], which significantly influences in-class performance [82]. Post-class activities, such as reviewing lectures, receiving feedback, quizzes and assessments, help close the learning loop [83]. Therefore, instructors must design tasks (structured activities to encourage genuine collaboration) to guide students effectively through learning processes [84,85] and post-class activity should receive more focus in the future.

Media

Media usage is a repeated entry in FC reviews. Studies often examine the type of media (tools, modality of learning content presentation) and how it should be used across different phases of FC adoption. However, a review of reviews goes beyond this pragmatic perspective, considering teacher creativity, school policies, funding, and teachers’ skills. Creemers and Kyriakides [86] address school- and system-levels factors that influence student achievement both directly and indirectly by shaping teaching and learning environments. In our research, these indirect effects were reflected in challenges related to improving technological teaching facilities and providing training for teachers and students—both essential for effective digital transformation.

Evaluation

In our review of reviews, Bloom’s taxonomy facilitated a structured approach to organize evaluation and assessment practices by aligning them with educational objectives. Assessment emerged as a critical element of FC. Assignments with teacher assistance emphasized guided problem-solving and instructor guidance during class. Random group assignments and peer evaluations highlighted the collaborative nature of FC, fostering teamwork and mutual feedback.

Quizzes, as one type of formative assessment, are frequently used in in-class or out-of-class activities, highlighting their effectiveness in evaluating individual comprehension within collaborative settings. Implementing quizzes before and during teaching helps students connect prior knowledge to new content [87].

Organization

Our findings identified that a focus on instructional organization is lacking in FC reviews. However, effective FC learning depends on a fitting and flexible organization as a key decision of teachers [88,89]. Considering the organizational implications of technology, such as the distribution of activities during the pre-, in-, and post-class phases, planning resources to deliver instruction, and addressing differences in students’ prior knowledge and needs [90], educators face several challenges in aligning FC implementation with institutional structures and long-term sustainable education strategies.

RQ 3. What theoretical framework(s) are being discussed in FC review studies to describe, explain and predict the expected impact of flipped classrooms?

Few FC review studies discuss theoretical frameworks, reflecting the broader observation that FC research often lacks incorporating theory to guide research and teaching practices [54]. Research rarely addresses explicit design elements tied to educational frameworks [41]. However, some studies emphasize using existing theoretical frameworks to design effective in-class activities [51].

The TAT-FC framework integrates recent empirical insights and conceptualizes FCs as student-centered learning environments aligned with digital transformation, enhancing engagement and outcomes. The three-phase structure, pre-class, in-class, and post-class, has shown consistent effectiveness in enhancing student engagement, academic performance, and motivation [8,40]. Pre-class stages prepare students through foundational knowledge acquisition using digital content and self-paced structure. In-class learning emphasizes interactive, collaborative tasks to build higher-order thinking. Crucially, post-class reflection has emerged as a previously underappreciated but vital phase: it consolidates knowledge, applies learning in novel contexts, and deepens engagement, enhancing metacognitive development and long-term retention [91].

Across disciplines, FC proves beneficial in cultivating both domain-specific knowledge and transferable professional skills [80,92,93], supporting long-term competence development aligned with goals of sustainable education. However, consistent with the findings of [47,48,54], challenges persist, particularly related to instructor workload, uneven student preparation; uneven technology access, variable instructor training, and unstructured post-class designs, all of which influence the equity and sustainability of digital transformation initiatives.

The mediating role of technology and student motivation further complicates FC outcomes. As identified by [47,48], the lack of motivation to engage with pre-class materials or limited access to reliable technology can undermine the FC’s effectiveness. Furthermore, although positive perceptions dominate most studies, variability across contexts and implementations suggests a need for deeper understanding of individual and cultural differences in FC adoption.

To address these gaps, TAT-FC offers a comprehensive approach based on research and instructional design principles, particularly those defined by IDAMFC. It captures the multidimensional dynamics of flipped learning. This theoretical framework facilitates both research coherence and practical implementation, helping educators and researchers co-design meaningful learning environments.

RQ 4. How do the FC research designs evolve over time as reflected in the FC review studies (research objectives and questions, samples, procedure, methodology and instruments)?

Research questions about the effects of FC (reviews [8,32,33,40,48,50,52,53,54,59,60,61]) are prominently attributed to the longstanding debate over the effectiveness of teaching methods, particularly those based on traditional lectures [94] and evolving technology driving multi-disciplinary research on FC across educational levels [52]. This explains why research questions relating to disciplines and methodologies ranked second. Peer reviewer feedback is crucial for formulating significant research questions [95]. Examining the evolution of review-based questions can guide future research.

Our review of reviews including large participant samples overcomes the limitations of small sample sizes and insignificant effect sizes.

The study applied diverse review methodologies, emphasizing systematic review techniques for their rigor and relevance to a larger research project on the FC movement [20]. Systematic and scoping reviews were conducted to gather, appraise, and synthesize international evidence, explaining the frequent use of qualitative methodology [96]. By examining research instruments in FC reviews, we found that pre- and post-test are the main assessment instruments for students learning performance [61]. Because they effectively demonstrate how specific instructional strategies impact learning outcomes [97].

RQ 5. What are the key outcomes being studied in the FC review studies?

Many multi-disciplinary reviews focus on learning performance, satisfaction, and collaboration, reflecting shifts in FC research over time. Student satisfaction and learning performance were predominantly examined, but discrepancies emerged due to increased workload [98]. This led researchers to examine how student-level variables and instructional design features impact outcomes, focusing on specific strategies and technologies directly linked to these outcomes. Our findings indicate that FC effectiveness is most evident at the teaching and learning situation levels rather than at school or system levels, according to the Dynamic Model of Educational Effectiveness (DMEE) developed by Creemers and Kyriakides [86]. Future studies should examine FC’s impact at the school level to inform policy changes and systemic support, fostering sustainable and digitally transformed educational systems.

RQ 6. What is the average effect size of FC interventions, building on available statistical information reported in FC review studies?

Reporting effect sizes is crucial for understanding the relationship between interventions and their outcomes [99]. However, when examining FC reviews, several challenges prevent the development of a clear estimate of the average effect size for FC interventions. These include weaknesses in the reporting practices of original FC studies, limited attention to effect sizes in review studies, and the often undefined instructional design of FC interventions, resulting in a heterogeneous mix of approaches that are difficult to compare. Differences in research designs across original studies and reviews further complicate efforts to synthesize findings. Additionally, we have to stress that (1) many included studies did not report standardized mean differences (SMDs) or equivalent statistics; (2) lack information about confidence intervals, standard deviations, or sample-level variance estimates were absent, preventing calculation of effect size precision; and (3) without variance estimates, inverse-variance weighting—the basis of most meta-analytic models—cannot be applied. Given these restrictions, pooling data would likely lead to biased or overestimated effect sizes, which is why an average effect size cannot be reliably calculated (see [100]).

Can an average effect size be calculated based on the available evidence? The answer is no.

First, both original reviewers and this study encountered difficulties in pooling data due to substantial variation in sample sizes and dependent variables. Although statistical corrections such as Hedges’s g could address small-sample bias in Cohen’s d, this does not fully resolve concerns about overestimating effects. Second, the diversity of FC designs limits comparability across studies, making aggregation problematic. Third, incomplete or insufficient reporting, such as missing standardized mean differences or confidence intervals prevents consistent effect size calculation. Some studies report only qualitative findings or use non-standardized measures, further hindering comparison. Fourth, heterogeneity in research models, knowledge domains, educational standards, and sample characteristics impedes meaningful meta-analytic synthesis. Even within single disciplines, inconsistent standards increase the risk of error in calculating an overall average effect size.

RQ 7. What are the challenges reported in FC review studies?

After clustering the challenges reported in FC reviews, student- and teacher-related stress emerged as the most frequently cited issues. This is unsurprising, as these key actors must adapt to new teaching and learning demands within often unchanged educational contexts. Many FC studies examine innovations affecting only a single course or curriculum component rather than positioning FC as part of a comprehensive educational reform. As a result, FC is rarely studied as an integrated institutional innovation, leading to additional challenges being reported [5].

Pedagogical and school policy issues are reported less frequently, likely due to the isolated nature of many FC interventions, which seldom reach the program or policy level. Nevertheless, current implementations raise important questions about institutional support, technology access policies, infrastructure, teacher professional development, out-of-class guidance, and the long-term sustainability of FC within broader processes of digital transformation.

These findings suggest several directions for future research. First, strengthen FC models by linking design features to learning outcomes and considering relevant moderators (e.g., motivation). Clearer operationalization of outcomes would improve comparability. Second, examine implementation factors, especially between teachers and students’ interactions across pre-, in- and post-class phases. Third, assess long-term, multi-course FC designs to evaluate curricular impact and contributions to sustainable education. Finally, enhance methodological rigor and transparency and report practices.

From a practical perspective, address workload-related stress among students and teachers. balancing pre-class preparation, in-class engagement, and post-class activities requires appropriate pedagogical resources, professional development, and coherent instructional design frameworks. Institutional policies and technological infrastructure must also be strengthened to support equitable and sustainable digital transformation in FC implementation.

6. Limitations

First, some reviews were excluded for not meeting inclusion criteria, and the focus on higher education may have overlooked cross-level insights, although this ensured contextual consistency. Future research should broaden variables to include both cognitive (e.g., critical thinking, problem-solving) and non-cognitive factors (e.g., engagement, motivation, self-regulated learning). It should also employ longitudinal and mixed-method approaches and conduct comparative reviews across K–12 and higher education to explore the similarities and differences in FC implementation.

7. Conclusions

This study adopted a review-of-reviews approach to synthesize evidence from existing FC reviews, providing a multi-level and interdisciplinary overview of research conducted in higher education. By examining FC implementations across diverse disciplinary contexts, the study offers a broader analytical perspective on instructional designs, research practices, and implementation patterns. The synthesis of multiple reviews contributes a more comprehensive understanding of the current status of FC research and its practical implications for teaching and learning.

From a sustainability perspective, the findings highlight that despite growing interest in FC, the field remains insufficiently developed with respect to instructional design maturity, conceptual and theoretical grounding, and methodological rigor—particularly in relation to digital transformation and sustainable education agendas. These results suggest the need for more rigorous research that systematically integrates sustainability, scalability, and contextual considerations into FC implementations.

To address these limitations, this study introduces the IDAMFC and TAT-FC frameworks as integrative tools that support the systematic design, evaluation, and institutional embedding of FC pedagogies. By linking theoretical insights with practical implementation strategies, these frameworks provide a structured foundation for future research, policy development, and sustainable educational innovation.

Although numerous systematic reviews and some meta-analyses on flipped classrooms have been published, the existing evidence remains fragmented due to disciplinary boundaries, heterogeneous methodological approaches, and variations in review quality and scope. Moreover, contextual factors influencing the effectiveness of FC implementations are addressed inconsistently across studies. By systematically pooling findings across disciplines, critically assessing the methodological quality of existing reviews, and synthesizing evidence on outcomes and implementation conditions, this review of reviews provides a consolidated and comprehensive evidence base for advancing flipped classroom research and practice in higher education.