Addressing Doubts About Flipped Learning: An Empirical Study Across All Faculties and Schools at a Comprehensive University

Abstract

Abstract

Despite a robust evidence base supporting flipped learning, institution-wide adoption in higher education remains limited. Faculty members often have doubts about whether flipped learning works equally well for students with different characteristics, whether it is effective across all disciplines, and whether its implementation negatively affects teaching evaluations. These concerns persist largely because few large-scale, multi-faculty studies have addressed them simultaneously with empirical data. This study examined these three misconceptions using data from 54 flipped-learning subjects spanning all 10 faculties/schools of a government-funded university in Hong Kong. Three data sources were analysed: student surveys on perceived learning experience (N = 1,599), academic performance records comparing flipped and traditional cohorts across 33 subjects (approximately 10,000 student grade records), and Student Feedback Questionnaire (SFQ) scores for 31 subjects. Results showed that perceived learning experience did not differ significantly by student GPA, first language, or personality type. Academic performance in flipped subjects was marginally but significantly higher overall (Cohen’s d = 0.15), with no evidence of systematic disciplinary disadvantage. SFQ scores were virtually identical between flipped and traditional formats across all three evaluation items. Taken together, these findings suggest that common faculty concerns about flipped learning are empirical misconceptions rather than evidence-based objections. The study provides institution-wide evidence that flipped learning can be adopted broadly without compromising student experience, academic standards, or teaching evaluations, thereby supporting policies for wider pedagogical adoption.