Enabling Stakeholders to Change: Development of a Change
Guideline for Flipped Classroom Implementations
Linda Blömer, Alena Droit and Uwe Hoppe
Institute of Information Management and Information Systems Engineering, Osnabrueck University,
Katharinenstr. 3, Osnabrueck, Germany
Keywords: Blended Learning, Flipped Classroom, Change Management, Stakeholder, Guideline.
Abstract: The successful introduction of the popular blended learning method Flipped Classroom (FC) is a major
challenge because many stakeholders are affected. However, the transformation is dependent on the
commitment of engaged individuals, who rarely have access to institutionalized support. Repeatable
descriptions of strategic approaches and recommendations for how to manage a successful change in Higher
Education Institutions are rare. This paper aims to synthesize research findings concerning Change
Management (CM) approaches in a flipped learning context. Based on a systematic literature review, we
develop a Guideline with specific recommendations for successful CM to develop and implement FC courses.
Since the beginning of 2000 Blended Learning (BL)
has emerged as one of the most popular e-learning
concepts (Güzer & Caner, 2014). BL can be best
described as “a blending of campus and online
educational experiences for the express purpose of
enhancing the quality of the learning experience”
(Garrison & Vaughan, 2013). There are several BL
methods that Higher Education Institutions (HEI) can
use in their curricula, the most popular of which is
currently the Flipped Classroom (FC) (Said & Zainal,
2017). In an FC, mere knowledge transfer takes place
outside the classroom, e.g. by using videos, podcasts,
and reading assignments (Said & Zainal, 2017). The
in-class time of an FC can be arranged differently
according to the needs; the main focus is on the
application of the knowledge imparted online,
problem-oriented and collaborative learning as well
as discussions between students and teachers
(McLean, Attardi, Faden, & Goldszmidt, 2016).
Transforming traditional lectures into FCs can be
very complex and time-consuming, not only due to
the fact that new contents and materials have to be
produced and provided, but more importantly because
throughout the whole process of development and
implementation, different stakeholder groups have to
be considered. Though some guidelines and models
for the systematic development of FCs exist, they
primarily concentrate on content creation (Lee, Lim,
& Kim, 2017), technical solutions (Herzfeldt,
Kristekova, Schermann, & Krcmar, 2011), and
student experience (Chiang & Chen, 2017). New
teaching methods need a careful introduction
(Triantafyllou & Timcenko, 2015), and specific
project requirements such as Change Management
(CM) have to be taken into account (Herzfeldt et al.,
2011). Research shows that more than fifty percent of
organizational changes fail, mainly due to the
resistance of affected stakeholders, rather than
difficulties concerning technology or organizational
structures (Bondarev, 2018). Stakeholders can
develop a resistance to change either because they
lack the knowledge and extent of the change, are
uncertain about the results, fear the unknown, are
afraid of innovation or because they think that they
lack certain competencies (Bondarev, 2018). Flavell
has discovered in an extensive literature research, that
especially academic staff has issues to embrace new
technologies (Flavell, Harris, Price, Logan, &
Peterson, 2018), which are essential to creating FC
courses. More specifically the low perceived value
and relevance of technology (Debuse, Lawley, &
Shibl, 2008), the fear of potential failure (Howard,
2013), lacking confidence (Dusick & Yildirim, 2000)
and a lack of resources and support for new
technologies (Adams Becker, Cummins, Davis, Hall
Blömer, L., Droit, A. and Hoppe, U.
Enabling Stakeholders to Change: Development of a Change Management Guideline for Flipped Classroom Implementations.
DOI: 10.5220/0009352402270237
In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2020) - Volume 1, pages 227-237
ISBN: 978-989-758-417-6
2020 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
Giesinger, & Ananthanarayanan, 2017) are reported
issues. Students, administration and other HEI staff
show signs of resistance to change during the FC
development as well (Bishop & Verleger, 2013).
Implementing an effective CM at universities is,
therefore, necessary, but very challenging since HEIs
are organizations that mainly consist of experts who
are working quite independently in research and
teaching (Morisse, 2016).
Although several studies have identified the
relevance of CM in HEIs (Bondarev, 2018), the
establishment of CM strategies and its integration into
e-learning concepts, especially the FC, is rare (Flavell
et al., 2018). Due to the defined lack of applicable
models and approaches that include stakeholders and
their motivation, this paper aims to present a Flipped
Classroom Change Management Guideline (FC
Guideline). Doing so, we will answer the following
three research questions: (1) What current research
can be found regarding the change from traditional
lectures to FC courses? (2) Which specific change
management tasks regarding the transition from
traditional classes to FC courses exist in this
literature? (3) How can the specific tasks be assigned
to stakeholder groups and summarized as
recommendations for action within the framework of
a Guideline? To answer these questions, we conduct
an intensive literature research. We describe our
literature search in chapter 2 and give an overview of
the findings in chapter 3. We then identify specific
tasks and recommendations for action and summarize
them in our FC
Guideline in chapter 4.
Figure 1: Research Process.
To build the FC
Guideline on a solid foundation,
we conduct a systematic literature review (Webster &
Watson, 2002) considering the research phases search
and assessment, synthesis and interpretation,
guidance as well as a conclusion (Schryen, 2015).
Figure 1 illustrates an overview of the research
process by relating the respective phases of the
literature review to the main focus of each chapter and
the corresponding research questions.
The aim of our search is to obtain an overview of
current research concerning CM in an FC context
with a focus on existing CM tasks. Figure 2 shows the
procedure of the systematic literature review in detail.
Figure 2: Systematic Literature Review.
We used a fixed search string shown in figure 2 in
recommended databases for IS research (Schryen,
2015): AISel, Google Scholar, Science Direct,
Scopus, and Web of Science. We also used ERIC
(Education Resources Information Center) as a sixth
database to include a more educational point of view.
We only include articles published since 2015 to
focus on current research. We then review the results
in two steps and select them according to specific
criteria (Figure 2). After the first exclusion of
duplicates, we use predefined criteria to review the
title and abstracts of the remaining papers (n=282).
The underlying criteria relate to relevance, quality,
and feasibility. In order to evaluate the relevance of
the source in terms of content, a reference to CM and
FC, or at least to BL, should be recognizable in the
abstract. For example, articles often deal with the
implementation of an FC in which CM is a topic of
the affected course - however, the change process to
FC that is of interest here is not addressed. In order to
ensure the quality of the data, only published articles
and conference papers are considered. For the sake of
feasibility, sources that are not written in English or
German are also excluded. The remaining articles and
papers (n=44) are checked for their eligibility in a
subsequent full-text review. As before, the underlying
criteria is used to check the articles and papers. In
addition, articles that are not considered relevant for
CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
the HEI context (e.g. articles referring to K1-12) are
excluded at this point since the present study deals
with the change to FC in HEI.
Our systematic literature research resulted in 20
articles. Surprisingly, in most articles we found, there
was no usage or mention of any strategic CM
approaches for transforming traditional classes to FC,
even though that is often recommended (Bondarev,
2018). However, most articles mention the
importance of CM and describe different CM actions,
that were executed at their own HEI or observed in
case studies.
Concerning the year of publication, it is striking
that most papers were published within the last two
years (n=15), showing the topicality of the papers.
The 20 articles, which serve as a further basis,
originate from 12 different countries, including
Germany, Sweden, Australia, Chile, Pakistan and the
US. It is surprising that only one article has its origins
in the US because generally most studies on FC
originate from there (Harris, Harris, Reed, & Zelihic,
2016) – however, the usage and research of CM
approaches do not seem to have been increasingly
addressed so far. The sources also vary in study
design, e.g. project reports, case studies, literature
analysis, as well as qualitative and quantitative
surveys. There is a clear tendency towards case
studies (n=7) and project reports (n=6), showing that
the dominating part of research available is case-
based. This can lead to a “siloed” character of the
research field, lacking systematic approaches. Since
our guideline is based on these very different sources,
we hope develop a guideline for practitioners and
researchers that is applicable to different countries
and for different approaches.
After identifying the relevant articles (n=20), we
collected and interpreted the CM tasks that can be
found in the papers. In this step, two researchers, who
are both experienced in implementing FCs,
independently read the articles in regard to specific
CM tasks and then synthesized their results. A total
number of 132 tasks was identified and bundled on
the basis of similar content into 58 specific tasks. We
summarized the tasks into 34 more general
recommendations for action, which in turn are
classified into ten upper categories, more precisely
described in the following chapter.
4.1 Overview of the Guideline
The ten derived categories are motivation, leadership,
creation of a team, communication, culture and
climate, goals and vision, removal of barriers,
collaboration, infrastructure and technology, and
feedback and adjustments. There is no universally
valid order of the categories, but figure 3 shows one
possible way to organize them.
Figure 3: FC
Guideline Overview.
Regardless of which stakeholder is driving the FC
idea forward, the core process of the FC
starts with the HEI management, that should support
the idea and adapt its leadership accordingly, as well
as with the creation of an FC development team. They
then create goals and a vision for the transformation.
Barriers of stakeholder groups have to be removed,
and collaboration, inside and outside of the HEI
should be encouraged. The FC development team
should periodically collect feedback and adapt the
development and implementation correspondingly.
There are several categories that cannot be put into a
specific order since they support multiple tasks of the
core process. At all times, but especially in the
beginning, it is important to motivate stakeholders
and create incentives for them to participate. The
culture and climate within the HEI should support
innovative thinking and create an atmosphere of trust.
The infrastructure and technology have to be planned
by the project team and provided to students and
teachers to enable a successful implementation.
Throughout the whole CM process, communication
within and between the stakeholder groups is the key
for a successful change to FC. The corresponding
recommendations for action and specific tasks are
explained in chapter 4.2.
Enabling Stakeholders to Change: Development of a Change Management Guideline for Flipped Classroom Implementations
4.2 Recommendations and Specific
In the following chapter, we present the
recommendations and specific tasks for each of the
ten categories, in the order of the categories shown in
figure 3. For each category, we first present a table
(see table 1-10) and then provide additional
information, like concrete examples from case
studies. Each table shows the name of the
recommendation, multiple related specific tasks, the
stakeholder groups, who are mainly responsible for
the tasks, and a reference to the articles.
Table 1: Leadership.
No. Specific CM tasks Stakeholder References
1. Leadership style
Give the project team
and teachers enough
autonomy, have faith in
teachers, use a mixture
of top-down and bottom-
up policies
(Adekola, Dale, &
Gardiner, 2017;
& Chavez, 2018;
Liebscher et al.,
2015; Van
Twembeke &
Goeman, 2018)
Embrace success and
mistakes, collect
feedback, learn from it
and communicate it
H, F, PM
(Adekola et al.,
2017; Charbonneau-
Gowdy & Chavez,
Acknowledge teachers’
fears and do not tell
them their ways are
(Collyer &
Campbell, 2015; Van
Twembeke &
Goeman, 2018)
Communicate clearly
that excellent education
is one of the HEIs major
goals, not only research
H, F (White et al., 2016)
2. Conditions
Provide infrastructure,
training, funding,
(Adekola et al.,
2017; Collyer &
Campbell, 2015)
Ensure that there are
explicit guidelines and
policies for e-learning to
reassure teachers and
give orientation
H, F, PM
(Adekola et al.,
(H) HEI management, (F) faculty chairs, (T) teachers, (C) curriculum
designers, (PM) FC project manager, (PT) FC project team, (IT) IT
staff, (S) students
Leadership: The HEI management and project team
should ensure proper working conditions for the FC
transformation, like the supply of infrastructure,
training, funds, and guidelines (Adekola et al., 2017).
Explicit guidelines and policies for e-learning provide
teachers with ethics and legal orientation (Adekola et
al., 2017; Iqbal, Ahmad, & Willis, 2017). One of the
drivers for change can be nationwide governmental
policies for the implementation of technology-
enhanced learning (Iqbal et al., 2017). The
effectiveness of leadership is highly dependent on the
leadership style. Research recommends that leaders
have to carefully communicate with stakeholders, for
example, not telling teachers that the way they have
taught for the last 20 years was wrong, and they have
to do everything differently now. Instead appreciate
what they have done before, explain to them that the
usage of new technologies can help to make their
courses even better and show the benefits (Collyer &
Campbell, 2015; Van Twembeke & Goeman, 2018).
Some authors state, that neither only a bottom-up nor
a top-down approach work for most HEIs, but instead
the combination of both (Charbonneau-Gowdy &
Chavez, 2018; Liebscher et al., 2015; Van Twembeke
& Goeman, 2018). Great support of the senior
management for the FC project as well as single
motivated teachers (Van Twembeke & Goeman,
2018) are major factor for the success of the project
(Adekola et al., 2017). The HEI management should
have faith in teachers and grant them a certain
autonomy (Adekola et al., 2017) because otherwise
teachers might feel forced, disempowered and settle
for less (Charbonneau-Gowdy & Chavez, 2018).
Duisburg-Essen University’s management
deliberately chose the way via faculty committees to
involve all status groups at an early stage in the sense
of promoting ownership (Liebscher et al., 2015).
Table 2: Creation of a team.
No. Specific CM tasks Stakeholder Ref.
3. Members
Involve teachers,
students, faculty,
development leaders,
curriculum designers,
technology support,
(Hurtubise, Hall,
Sheridan, & Han,
2015; Hutchings &
Quinney, 2015;
Nordquist, Sundberg,
& Laing, 2016; Van
Twembeke &
Goeman, 2018)
Choose resilient and
experienced team
members for success
& Chavez, 2018;
Owen & Dunham,
4. Roles and tasks
Declare change agents
who set routine meetings
& manage team climate,
collecting feedback
(Hurtubise et al.,
2015; Nordquist et al.,
2016; Van Twembeke
& Goeman, 2018)
Establish leadership;
form a guiding coalition
(Hurtubise et al.,
Develop curricular
goals, define new ways
of assessments, select
technology tools
PM, PT, T,
(Hurtubise et al.,
5. Working
Use for example an
iterative agile approach
to implement FCs
(Owen & Dunham,
6. Team
Establish trust and open
communication within
the team
(Hutchings &
Quinney, 2015;
Nordquist et al., 2016)
(H) HEI management, (F) faculty chairs, (T) teachers, (C) curriculum
designers, (PM) FC project manager, (PT) FC project team, (IT) IT
staff, (S) students
Creation of a Team: The FC project team should be
a multidisciplinary task force (Nordquist et al., 2016)
CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
with experienced members and clearly defined
leadership by a project manager (Charbonneau-
Gowdy & Chavez, 2018), who also acts as a role
model (Daniel, Hüther, & Ohngemach, 2018). Team
members draw on the enthusiasm, experience, and
commitment of each other to deal with challenges and
constraints (Hutchings & Quinney, 2015) and it is
therefore very important to meet periodically (Van
Twembeke & Goeman, 2018) and to establish trust
within the team (Owen & Dunham, 2015). If the
project team chooses an iterative agile approach for
the implementation of FCs, it has to remember that
besides the advantages explained in detail by Schoop
et al., existing institutional systems and structures at
university might not be compatible with agile
approaches (Owen & Dunham, 2015).
Table 3: Goals and vision.
No. Specific CM tasks Stakeholder Ref.
7. E-learning strategy
Address different fields in
your strategy: didactics,
technology, organization,
economy, culture
(Schoop, E., Köhler,
T., Börner, C., Schulz,
J. , 2016)
Define e-learning goals,
set interims targets
(Liebscher et al.,
2015; White et al.,
Define quality criteria and
measures, integrated into
the university’s quality
management system and
test these throughout the
(Daniel et al., 2018;
Hurtubise et al., 2015;
Schoop et al., 2016)
8. Vision
Build a task force of
stakeholders, including
faculty, students,
administration, facility
management, educate all
members of the task force,
and create a shared vision
(Nordquist et al.,
2016; White et al.,
Communicate the vision
by sharing the intent and
value of FC with students
and other stakeholders
H, PM, PT,
(Hurtubise et al.,
(H) HEI management, (F) faculty chairs, (T) teachers, (C) curriculum
designers, (PM) FC project manager, (PT) FC project team, (IT) IT
staff, (S) students
Goals and Vision: HEIs should not engage in e-
learning just to use new technologies; e-learning is a
tool and not a solution (Liebscher et al., 2015). That
is why it is so important to define an e-learning
strategy that includes specific goals (White et al.,
2016) and interim targets (Van Twembeke &
Goeman, 2018), with defined quality criteria and
measures (Schoop et al., 2016). Some universities
might have to develop new methods of teaching
evaluations (Daniel et al., 2018) to measure those
criteria. It is important to evaluate throughout the
different project stages and beyond to compare
results, e.g., in order to see if student satisfaction or
learning outcomes have improved (Hurtubise et al.,
2015). A task force should be founded to develop a
vision for the institution and communicate it
(Nordquist et al., 2016; White et al., 2016).
Table 4: Removal of barriers.
No. Specific CM tasks Stakeholder Ref.
9. Time and effort
Start small, instead of
reconstructing the whole
syllabus right away begin
with partly transforming
units into FC
PT, T (Harris et al., 2016)
Release involved teachers
from parts of their duties
during the
implementation of an FC
H, F
(Berglund et al.,
2017; Owen &
Dunham, 2015)
10. Financial
Minimize impact on staff
time by supplying e-
tutors or additional
teaching assistants
H, F
(Van Twembeke &
Goeman, 2018;
White et al., 2016)
Provide money for new
infrastructure and
technology, ensure
sustainable funding
H, F
(Liebscher et al.,
2015; Schoop at al.,
11. Teacher training
Offer in-depth training
for media competence,
technology usage, LMS,
copyright issues. Provide
easily understandable
materials in the local
(Berglund et al.,
2017; Hurtubise et
al., 2015; Liebscher
et al., 2015; Van
Twembeke &
Goeman, 2018)
Hire e-learning teachers
who organize regular
sessions and consulting
PM, PT (Schoop et al., 2016)
12. Teacher support
Implement peer to peer
teacher classroom
observations for
discussions and reflection
(Adekola et al., 2017;
Berglund et al., 2017)
Provide long term support
through mentors,
consultants, D-guides,
center for university
(Berglund et al.,
2017; Charbonneau-
Gowdy & Chavez,
2018; Collyer &
Campbell, 2015;
Daniel et al., 2018;
Dion et al., 2018.;
Schoop et al., 2016)
Provide emotional
support and exemption of
other tasks
(Schoop et al., 2016;
Van Twembeke &
Goeman, 2018)
13. Student inclusion
Include students in
processes from the
beginning, create student-
staff collaborations, hire
students for the
development and
planning of FCs
(Adekola et al., 2017;
Daniel et al., 2018;
Harris et al., 2016;
Hurtubise et al.,
14. Student
Offer classes for media
skills, techniques to study
efficiently and time
PT, T, IT (Schoop et al., 2016)
(H) HEI management, (F) faculty chairs, (T) teachers, (C) curriculum
designers, (PM) FC project manager, (PT) FC project team, (IT) IT
staff, (S) students
Removal of Barriers: Removing barriers is the most
important task to lower the resistance of involved
Enabling Stakeholders to Change: Development of a Change Management Guideline for Flipped Classroom Implementations
stakeholders. In terms of finances, the HEI
management and the project team need to develop a
plan for sustainable financing of the infrastructure,
technologies, and personnel needed for the FC
(Liebscher et al., 2015), that goes further than just
start-up funding (Schoop et al., 2016). One barrier is
the fear or lack of digital literacy of teachers. The
literature search resulted in many articles that pointed
out the importance of specific training for teachers.
There are for example 30 credit graduate classes for
teaching e-learning classes (Dion et al., o. J.), and the
possibility of hiring e-learning coaches, who offer
introductions to FC teaching, workshops and regular
courses (Collyer & Campbell, 2015). E-learning
coaches should offer regular consultation hours, so
that inexperienced as well as advanced teachers can
always ask the questions that are relevant for their
individual level of FC implementation and the
problems that might occur during a semester (Collyer
& Campbell, 2015; Daniel et al., 2018), e.g. about
new ways of online assessments or decreasing
attendance rates. The aim of the training is to give
lecturers both confidence and support in order to
effectively prepare excellent teaching (Schoop et al.,
2016). Van Twembeke and Goeman pointed out the
need for customized materials for teachers, that are
easy to understand, and provided in the teacher’s
language (Van Twembeke & Goeman, 2018).
Teachers should receive ongoing support from
mentors or a university center for HEI didactics
(Charbonneau-Gowdy & Chavez, 2018; Daniel et al.,
Table 5: Collaboration.
No. Specific CM tasks Stakeholder Ref.
15. Community
Build communities of
practice for teachers
with different
backgrounds or
communities of
knowledge for experts
(Berglund et al., 2017;
Schoop et al., 2016;
Van Twembeke &
Goeman, 2018; White
et al., 2016)
Organize networking
events for all
stakeholders to share
(Adekola et al., 2017;
Schoop et al., 2016)
Establish cross-
university networks and
name local coordinators
who share experiences in
regular meetings
(Berglund et al., 2017;
Dion et al., o. J.;
Schoop et al., 2016)
16. Peer
Organize peer mentoring
by early adapters,
facilitate classroom
(Adekola et al., 2017;
Berglund et al., 2017;
& Chavez, 2018;
Liebscher et al., 2015)
(H) HEI management, (F) faculty chairs, (T) teachers, (C) curriculum
designers, (PM) FC project manager, (PT) FC project team, (IT) IT
staff, (S) students
2018). At the DHBW Karlsruhe for example,
information systems students are trained as D-Guides
(digital guides) over the course of eight weeks. They
then help teachers to transform their lectures to FCs.
Usually three D-guides get appointed to one teacher
for ten weeks, which equals 300 hours of the
additional workforce for the teacher to redesign a
course (Daniel et al., 2018).
Collaboration: Many authors named collaboration,
both inside and outside of the university, as an
impactful factor for a successful FC implementation.
Within the HEI, the project team should establish
communities of practice for teachers to learn together
(Schoop et al., 2016), where more experienced FC
teachers present their accomplishments and learning
materials (Charbonneau-Gowdy & Chavez, 2018;
Liebscher et al., 2015; White et al., 2016). Teachers
can talk about pedagogical issues (Adekola et al.,
2017) and have a discussion in a collegial setting
(Berglund et al., 2017). These communities can be
powerful motivators for extending e-learning
(Adekola et al., 2017; Schoop et al., 2016). To
enhance teaching competence, the KTH Royal
Institute of Technology (Sweden) organized
classroom observations, were teachers visited each
other’s BL lectures in small groups, followed by
discussions and reviews of the observations
(Berglund et al., 2017). They also appointed part-time
pedagogical developers (PDs) in faculties who
facilitate networking and knowledge exchange
among faculty members (Van Twembeke & Goeman,
2018). Hutchings and Quinney describe the
networking with other HEIs and with experts of
different disciplines facilitated through the HEA
Enhancement Academy (UK) as a powerful resource
of information and support (Hutchings & Quinney,
2015). Not only experiences can be shared in cross-
university networks, but they can also be used to
share learning materials and carry out joint online
assessments (Schoop et al., 2016). Dion et al. report
on EIT Digital, a Knowledge and Innovation
Community funded by the European Union that offers
a European network for universities who want to
adapt BL (Dion et al., 2018). Each involved
university designates an experienced local
coordinator, who leads the CM at his university and
also attends multiple physical coordinator meetings to
share results and feedback (Dion et al., 2018).
CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
Table 6: Feedback and adjustments.
No. Specific CM tasks Stakeholder Ref.
17. Feedback
Survey students and
teachers, examine
learning outcomes,
collect data on quality
(Collyer & Campbell,
2015; Hurtubise et al.,
Use survey and
feedbacks in class and
training sessions to
constantly monitor and
improve the outcomes
(Collyer & Campbell,
2015; Hurtubise et al.,
19. Results
Share feedback locally
first, then share in
education and
technology publications
and with the e-learning
(Hurtubise et al.,
(H) HEI management, (F) faculty chairs, (T) teachers, (C) curriculum
designers, (PM) FC project manager, (PT) FC project team, (IT) IT
staff, (S) students
Feedback and Adjustments: During and after the
implementation of an FC, it is important to regularly
collect feedback of students and teachers, e.g., using
qualitative surveys (Collyer & Campbell, 2015).
Feedback like students’ perceptions of the process,
discussed locally, amongst teachers, in project
meetings or with HEI management (Hurtubise et al.,
2015) and it has to be decided which changes should
be made accordingly to the feedback. The assessed
data should be compared to previous years; gathered
longitudinal data on curricula outcomes could also be
shared with the (inter-)national community
(Hurtubise et al., 2015).
Table 7: Motivation of stakeholders.
No. Specific CM tasks Stakeholder Ref.
20. Incentives
Create rewarding
systems that reward
engaged staff with
scholarship and
H, F (Adekola et al., 2017)
Provide prizes for
involved staff, e.g. for
development of the year"
H (Berglund et al., 2017)
Offer extra funding for
teachers and faculties
H (Schoop et al., 2016)
Work on real-world
projects with real
customers during in-
class time as incentive
for students
C, T
(Pisoni, Marchese, &
Renouard, 2019)
21. Information
Show teachers benefits
of using technology, like
better pedagogical
practice, more flexibility
for students, better
learning outcomes;
communicate benefits in
(Collyer & Campbell,
22. Voluntariness
Work with teachers who
volunteer first, start
pilots and test materials
& Chavez, 2018;
Collyer & Campbell,
2015; Daniel et al.,
2018; Hurtubise et al.,
2015; Owen &
Dunham, 2015)
23. Acknow-
Show teachers that their
hard work is valued and
communicate it openly
H, F
(Van Twembeke &
Goeman, 2018)
24. Needs
Survey students and find
out about their fears and
wishes (e.g., 75% prefer
PT (Bondarev, 2018)
Survey well-being and
current workload of staff
as well as their digital
literacy and their wishes
for training
(Daniel et al., 2018;
Van Twembeke &
Goeman, 2018)
(H) HEI management, (F) faculty chairs, (T) teachers, (C) curriculum
designers, (PM) FC project manager, (PT) FC project team, (IT) IT
staff, (S) students
Motivation of Stakeholders: Since implementing an
FC takes a lot of time and effort, HEIs can motivate
teachers by using tangible incentives (Berglund et al.,
2017), like providing additional funds for rewards
and prizes (Berglund et al., 2017; Schoop et al.,
2016). It is also important to recognize the efforts
publicly, as colleagues and learners are often unaware
of the workload an FC implementation requires (Van
Twembeke & Goeman, 2018). Working with
interested teachers who volunteer as early adopters is
easier in the beginning since those teachers are
already more open to new teaching formats,
innovative teaching and the new understanding of
Table 8: Culture and climate.
No. Specific CM tasks Stakeholder Ref.
25. Encouragement
Peer-mentoring for
emotional support to help
with fear of failure,
workshops by early
PT, S, T
(Van Twembeke &
Goeman, 2018; White
et al., 2016)
Communicate willingness
to fail and learning from
H, F, PM
(Adekola et al., 2017;
& Chavez, 2018)
Establish a CM Process
that gives stakeholders time
to free themselves from old
(Daniel et al., 2018;
Liebscher et al., 2015)
26. Team
Work together on
institutional success, open
communication, and trust
H, PT, T (Berglund et al., 2017)
27. Appre-
Provide public recognition
of success, reward
accomplishments but also
appreciate basic efforts
(Adekola et al., 2017;
Berglund et al., 2017;
Van Twembeke &
Goeman, 2018)
(H) HEI management, (F) faculty chairs, (T) teachers, (C) curriculum
designers, (PM) FC project manager, (PT) FC project team, (IT) IT
staff, (S) students
Enabling Stakeholders to Change: Development of a Change Management Guideline for Flipped Classroom Implementations
roles (Daniel et al., 2018). Experimental approaches
should be encouraged, and early adopters can then
promote FCs and peer mentor other teachers
(Adekola et al., 2017; Daniel et al., 2018).
Culture and Climate: The predominant culture in the
institution has a large impact on the successful change
to FC, but it is a long and complex process to change
the culture itself. If the HEIs culture penalizes failure,
it can lead to more risk-averse teachers and staff, who
then, out of fear, are not willing to try out innovations
anymore. Therefore, management should
communicate that they will back teachers up if any of
their FC implementations fail (Adekola et al., 2017;
Charbonneau-Gowdy & Chavez, 2018). The results
of 18 interviews with FC teachers showed that they
had to deal with negativity of colleagues inside and
outside of their own department who were skeptical
towards e-learning and it created an atmosphere of
distrust, which can potentially lead the change
management process to fail (Owen & Dunham,
2015). Encouragement from colleagues and a
cooperative climate seem to be major factors for the
engagement of single teachers and overall successful
e-learning projects (Owen & Dunham, 2015; Van
Twembeke & Goeman, 2018; White et al., 2016). The
fear of failure, especially from older or digitally less
literate teachers should be taken seriously (Van
Twembeke & Goeman, 2018) as they need emotional
support (Daniel et al., 2018) and a slow and gentle
change management process in order not to feel
overwhelmed or frustrated (Liebscher et al., 2015).
Table 9: Infrastructure and technology.
No. Specific CM tasks Stakeholder Ref.
28. Infrastructure
Cooperate with facility
management and build
flexible learning spaces
for students, redesign
laboratory space for
group works and
discussions, provide
teachers with shared
(Adekola et al., 2017;
Nordquist et al., 2016;
Pisoni et al., 2019;
Van Twembeke &
Goeman, 2018)
29. Technology
Avoid untested
technologies and tools,
keep it small and simple
and start with basic
functionalities, focus on
reliability, stability high
performance and user
& Chavez, 2018;
Collyer & Campbell,
2015; Daniel et al.,
2018; Dion et al.,
o. J.)
30. Usage
Provide support for
students and teachers,
maintain the systems and
keep them up-to-date
(Adekola et al., 2017;
Collyer & Campbell,
2015; Dion et al.,
o. J.)
(H) HEI management, (F) faculty chairs, (T) teachers, (C) curriculum
designers, (PM) FC project manager, (PT) FC project team, (IT) IT
staff, (S) students
Infrastructure and Technology: It is often
overlooked that the HEI should redesign learning
spaces to support FC teaching. Students need flexible,
interactive workspaces with good internet access to
prepare the online-materials (Adekola et al., 2017;
Pisoni et al., 2019) and for the interactive, group work
in-class activities, rooms with flexible furniture,
soundproof room dividers and touch screen monitors
with shared screens support FC teaching (Nordquist
et al., 2016). If teachers decide to use online exams,
spacious laboratory rooms are needed as well
(Hutchings & Quinney, 2015). Concerning the
technology, the FC project team should introduce
well-established up-to-date solutions, preferably
from vendors with a long history and ongoing support
(Collyer & Campbell, 2015). All technology,
including the Learning Management Systems (LMS)
has to be reliable, stable and efficient; otherwise
teachers and students can get frustrated and reject the
technology (Charbonneau-Gowdy & Chavez, 2018;
Daniel et al., 2018). Technical support for students
and teachers has to be guaranteed at all times (Collyer
& Campbell, 2015).
Table 10: Communication.
No. Specific CM tasks Stakeholder Ref.
31. Discussions
Conduct periodic peer
discussions and regular
stakeholder meetings in
which preconceptions
about FC can be
& Chavez, 2018; White
et al., 2016)
Support internal
systems for
communication and
create communities of
(Van Twembeke &
Goeman, 2018)
33. Enlightning
Communicate with the
students in the early
beginning of FC
projects, explain the
benefits, expectations
and their
(Adekola et al., 2017;
Dann, 2019; Harris et
al., 2016; Morisse,
34. Visualization
Promote achievements
in a staff meeting, via
e-mails and newsletters
(Collyer & Campbell,
2015; Van Twembeke
& Goeman, 2018;
White et al., 2016)
Organize e-teaching
events for the
PT (Schoop et al., 2016)
(H) HEI management, (F) faculty chairs, (T) teachers, (C) curriculum
designers, (PM) FC project manager, (PT) FC project team, (IT) IT
staff, (S) students
Communication: Communication is important
during all CM tasks. Communication can be internal,
within the HEI, e.g., amongst teachers, amongst
teachers and students or HEI management and other
stakeholders. The tone of communication is crucial;
CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
constructive discussions should be promoted (White
et al., 2016), and an atmosphere where every
stakeholder is allowed to openly talk about the
impacts of FCs without feeling judged should be
ensured (Charbonneau-Gowdy & Chavez, 2018).
When the project team or the HEI management talk
to instructors, it is important to do so according to the
teacher’s reality and objectives; instead of using
technical terms, product or vendor’s names (Collyer
& Campbell, 2015). Teachers need to clearly
communicate with students, especially during the
early stages of implementing an FC. Students have to
adjust to the new teaching model and to new ways to
learn (Harris, Harris, Reed, & Zelihic, 2016), e.g.
more independently and self-paced when working on
online lectures. They need explanations about the
benefits of an FC as well as the teachers telling them
explicitly what is expected from them in an FC
(Adekola et al., 2017; Dann, 2019), e.g. being
prepared before in-class activities. External
communication and promotion of the FC project are
also crucial. HEIs could use newsletters to inform
about the latest FC developments, show
demonstrations, make FC pilots available outside of
the institution or organize an e-teaching day as the TU
Dresden did in 2015 (Collyer & Campbell, 2015).
To fully exploit the possibilities of an FC, the
consideration of a CM strategy is essential (Hurtubise
et al., 2015). Our literature research has shown that
many authors have recognized the important role of
CM in the DT of education. However, how to convert
this awareness into practice? To empower
stakeholders to manage the change to FC by
involving them to reduce resistance and to increase
motivation, we identified specific CM tasks from
literature for different stakeholder groups and built a
guideline. The guideline consists of ten upper
categories, which include a total of 34
recommendations of action and 58 specific tasks, as
well as further explanations and examples.
The most common topics in the selected articles
were communication and collaboration, especially
amongst teachers. Institutions should encourage
stakeholders to discuss and exchange ideas and
support new structures for networking, within their
own institution and in cross-university networks. In
most cases, the tasks described in our guideline can
be assigned to several stakeholder groups, who have
to work together. Successful fulfillment is therefore
generally dependent not only on one group of people
but on functioning cooperation between different
groups. Our findings show how important it is to
recognize that a sustainable and successful FC
transformation must be supported by all stakeholders,
not just by single motivated teachers, as often
described in case studies. This is also supported by
observations of some researchers, that neither just a
bottom-up or only a top-down approach effectively
work for the FC implementation, but a combination
of both (Charbonneau-Gowdy & Chavez, 2018;
Liebscher et al., 2015; Van Twembeke & Goeman,
We rate the FC
guideline as useful for
researchers and practitioners who are interested in a
holistic view of the change process accompanying the
implementation of FCs at HEIs. We consider all
stakeholders in our guideline, compared to others that
solely focus on the inclusion of teachers and students.
Our guideline creates an awareness of which tasks
one has to perform oneself and which tasks have to be
performed by other persons in order for the change to
FC to succeed. Therefore, we think that the guideline
leads to a more transparent distribution of tasks as
well as to a better mutual understanding of the
affected groups. We provide an overview of
recommendations for action as well as concrete tasks
and current examples from the literature. Our
guideline is easy to understand and can be extended
by the user. As our model does not claim to be
complete, with this paper, we like to encourage other
researchers to look for recommendations for action
and publish their findings to enlarge the research
field. We aim to build a basis for discussion for
researchers and practitioners to enhance effective FC
implementations. For further development, we aim to
evaluate the guideline. With the help of qualitative
interviews, we will iteratively improve our results and
include different views from all types of stakeholders.
Relevant stakeholders for the interviews will be
lecturers, students, student tutors, IT staff, and –to
bridge the gap between administration and student
needs– program coordinators and HEI management.
The proceeding of the evaluation will orient towards
the principles of model evaluation (Frank, Fettke, &
Loos, 2007; Österle & Otto, 2010). We also consider
developing an agile version of the FC
Although we based our guideline on well-prepared
literature research, it is possible that other models
exist, that would be suitable as well. Depending on
the size, equipment and financial resources of an HEI,
fewer or different stakeholder groups than those
mentioned here could be affected by the change,
which would lead to a different distribution of tasks.
Before the guideline can be applied, it is advisable to
Enabling Stakeholders to Change: Development of a Change Management Guideline for Flipped Classroom Implementations
identify all affected stakeholder groups. Research that
presents the application of the guideline within case-
studies could deliver further valuable improvement.
Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Hall
Giesinger, C., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC
Horizon Report: 2017. Higher Education Edition.
Adekola, J., Dale, V. H. M., & Gardiner, K. (2017).
Development of an institutional framework to guide
transitions into enhanced blended learning in higher
education. Research in Learning Technology, 25(0), 1–
16. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1973
Berglund, A., Havtun, H., Jerbrant, A., Wingård, L.,
Andersson, M., Hedin, B., & Kjellgren, B. (2017). The
pedagogical developers initiative—Systematic shifts,
serendipities, and setbacks. 13th International CDIO
Conference, 497-508.
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped
classroom: A survey of the research. ASEE National
Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, 30, 1–18.
Bondarev, M. (2018). University Students’ Readiness For
E-Learning: Replacing Or Supplementing Face-To-
Face Classroom Learning. 18th PCSF 2018 -
Professional Сulture of the Specialist of the Future,
Charbonneau-Gowdy, P., & Chavez, J. (2018). Endpoint:
Insights for theory development in a blended learning
program in chile. 17th European Conference on e-
Learning, ECEL 2018, 81–89.
Chiang, F., & Chen, C. (2017). Modified Flipped
Classroom Instructional Model in „Learning Sciences“
Course for Graduate Students. The Asia - Pacific
Education Researcher, 26(1–2), 1–10.
Collyer, S., & Campbell, C. (2015). Enabling Pervasive
Change: A Higher Education Case Study. EdMedia+
Innovate Learning, Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE), 249-255.
Daniel, M., Hüther, J., & Ohngemach, C. (2018). Smile–
Studierende als Multiplikatoren für innovative und
digitale Lehre. DeLFI 2018-Die 16. E-Learning
Fachtagung Informatik, 57-68.
Dann, C. E. (2019). Blended Learning 3.0: Getting Students
on Board. In V. L. Uskov, R. J. Howlett, L. C. Jain, &
L. Vlacic (eds.), Smart Education and e-Learning 2018,
Debuse, J. C. W., Lawley, M., & Shibl, R. (2008).
Educators’ perceptions of automated feedback systems.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
24(4), 374-386. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1198
Dion, G., Dalle, J.-M., Renouard, F., Guseva, Y., León, G.,
Mutanen, O.-P. Stranger, A.P., Pisoni, G., Stoycheva,
M., Tejero, A., Vendel, M (2018). Change
Management: Blended Learning Adoption in a Large
Network of European Universities. 1-8.
Dusick, D. M., & Yildirim, S. (2000). Faculty Computer
Use and Training: Identifying Distinct Needs for
Different Populations. Community College Review,
27(4), 33–47.
Flavell, H., Harris, C., Price, C., Logan, E., & Peterson, S.
(2018). Empowering academics to be adaptive with
eLearning technologies: An exploratory case study.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35,
1–15. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2990
Frank, U., Fettke, P., & Loos, P. (2007). Evaluation of
Reference Models. In Reference Modeling for Business
Systems Analysis (S. 118–140). IGI Global.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2013). Institutional
change and leadership associated with blended learning
innovation: Two case studies. The Internet and Higher
Education, 18, 24–28.
Güzer, B., & Caner, H. (2014). The Past, Present and Future
of Blended Learning: An in Depth Analysis of
Literature. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
116, 4596–4603.
Harris, B. F., Harris, J., Reed, L., & Zelihic, M. M. (2016).
Flipped classroom: Another tool for your pedagogy tool
box. Developments in Business Simulation and
Experiential Learning: Proceedings of the Annual
ABSEL conference, 43, 325–333.
Herzfeldt, A., Kristekova, Z., Schermann, M., & Krcmar,
H. (2011). A Conceptual Framework of Requirements
For The Development of E-Learning Offerings From a
Product Service System Perspective. AMCIS, 1–10.
Howard, S. K. (2013). Risk-aversion: Understanding
teachers’ resistance to technology integration.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(3), 357–372.
Hurtubise, L., Hall, E., Sheridan, L., & Han, H. (2015). The
Flipped Classroom in Medical Education: Engaging
Students to Build Competency. Journal of Medical
Education and Curricular Development, 2, 35–43.
Hutchings, M., & Quinney, A. (2015). The flipped
classroom, disruptive pedagogies, enabling
technologies and wicked problems: Responding to ‘the
bomb in the basement’. Electronic Journal of E-
Learning, 13, 106–119.
Iqbal, S., Ahmad, S., & Willis, I. (2017). Influencing
Factors for Adopting Technology Enhanced Learning
in the Medical Schools of Punjab, Pakistan.
International Journal of Information and
Communication Technology Education (IJICTE),
13(3), 27–39.
Lee, J., Lim, C., & Kim, H. (2017). Development of an
Instructional Design Model for Flipped Learning in
Higher Education. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 65(2), 427–453.
CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
Liebscher, J., Petschenka, A., Gollan, H., Heinrich, S., van
Ackeren, I., & Ganseuer, C. (2015). E-Learning-
Strategie an der Universität Duisburg-Essen—Mehr als
ein Artefakt? Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung,
10(2), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.3217/zfhe-10-02/07
McLean, S., Attardi, S. M., Faden, L., & Goldszmidt, M.
(2016). Flipped classrooms and student learning: Not
just surface gains. Advances in Physiology Education,
40(1), 47–55.
Morisse, K. (2016). Inverted Classroom in der
Hochschullehre–Chancen, Hemmnisse und
Erfolgsfaktoren. Das Inverted Classroom Modell.
Begleitband zur 5. Konferenz Inverted Classroom and
Beyond, 1–11.
Nordquist, J., Sundberg, K., & Laing, A. (2016). Aligning
physical learning spaces with the curriculum: AMEE
Guide No. 107. Medical Teacher, 38(8), 755–768.
Österle, H., & Otto, B. (2010). Consortium Research.
Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2(5),
283–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-010-0119-3
Owen, H., & Dunham, N. (2015). Reflections on the Use of
Iterative, Agile and Collaborative Approaches for
Blended Flipped Learning Development. Education
Sciences, 5(2), 85–103.
Pisoni, G., Marchese, M., & Renouard, F. (2019). Benefits
and Challenges of Distributed Student Activities in
Online Education Settings: Cross-University
Collaborations on a Pan-European Level. 2019 IEEE
Global Engineering Education Conference
(EDUCON), 1017–1021.
Said, M. N. H. M., & Zainal, R. (2017). A Review of
Impacts and Challenges of Flipped-Mastery Classroom.
Advanced Science Letters, 23(8), 7763–7766.
Schoop, E., Köhler, T., Börner, C., Schulz, J. (2016).
Consolidating eLearning in a Higher Education
Institution: An Organisational Issue integrating
Didactics, Technology, and People by the Means of an
eLearning Strategy. Proceedings of 19th Conference
GeNeMe, 39-50.
Schryen, G. (2015). Writing Qualitative IS Literature
Reviews—Guidelines for Synthesis, Interpretation, and
Guidance of Research. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 37, 286–325.
Triantafyllou, E., & Timcenko, O. (2015). Student
behaviors and perceptions in a flipped classroom: A
case in undergraduate mathematics. Proceedings of the
Annual Conference of the European Society for
Engineering Education 2015 (SEFI 2015).
Van Twembeke, E., & Goeman, K. (2018). Motivation gets
you going and habit gets you there. Educational
Research, 60
(1), 62–79.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to
Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review.
MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.
White, P. J., Larson, I., Styles, K., Yuriev, E., Evans, D. R.,
Rangachari, P. K., … Naidu, S. (2016). Adopting an
active learning approach to teaching in a research-
intensive higher education context transformed staff
teaching attitudes and behaviours. Higher Education
Research & Development, 35(3), 619–633.
Enabling Stakeholders to Change: Development of a Change Management Guideline for Flipped Classroom Implementations