You are here:

Implications of Flipped Teaching Strategy on Preservice Teachers’ Self-efficacy and Intention to Integrate Technology in Future Classroom

, , Arkansas Tech University, United States

AACE Award

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-35-3 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA


This study investigates the implications of flipped teaching strategy on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and intention to integrate technology in future classroom. The researchers used the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as theoretical framework. Participants were 71 preservice teachers enrolled in graduate and undergraduate technology integration course. Multiple linear regression analysis and paired sample t-test were conducted to examine the preservice teachers’ intention to use of technology in future classrooms and the change in their self-efficacy level. The results of the predictor model were able to account for 41% of the variance in students’ intention to use technology and was statistically significant. The results also found that self-efficacy and perceived behavioral control are significant predictors of preservice teachers’ use of technology in future classroom. Furthermore, the results show that the mean of all three variables at the end of the course did not differ significantly compared to prior attending the course with flipped teaching method. Implications of these findings were also discussed.


Ibrahim, M. & Callaway, R. (2018). Implications of Flipped Teaching Strategy on Preservice Teachers’ Self-efficacy and Intention to Integrate Technology in Future Classroom. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 413-421). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 26, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Ahmad, A., & Rainyee, A. (2014). Which is the better predictor of employee turnover intentions: Job satisfaction or organizational commitment? A literature reviews. International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 6 (1), 2.
  2. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior Action control (pp. 11-39): Springer.
  3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
  4. Ajzen, I. (2014). Constructing a TPB Questionnaire: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations. Revised version, 2006.
  5. Armitage, J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta‐analytic review. British journal of social psychology, 40 (4), 471-499.
  6. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.
  7. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
  8. Bishop, J., & Verleger, M. (2013). The Flipped Classroom: A Survey of the Research. Paper presented at the 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta.
  9. Bok, G., Teunissen, P.W., Spruijt, A., Fokkema, J.P., van Beukelen, P., Jaarsma, D.A., & Van der Vleuten, C.P. (2013). Clarifying students’ feedback‐seeking behavior in clinical clerkships. Medical education, 47(3), 282-291.
  10. Demetry, C. (2010). Work in Progress-An Innovation Merging "Classroom Flip" and Team-Based Learning. Paper presented at the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Washington, DC.
  11. Dewey, J. (1997). How we think: Courier Corporation.
  12. Fraser, T., Johnson, K., Hebert, J., Ajzen, I., Copeland, J., Brown, P., & Chan, F. (2010). Understanding employers’ hiring intentions in relation to qualified workers with disabilities: Preliminary findings. Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 20 (4), 420-426.
  13. Frydenberg, M. (2013). Flipping Excel. Information Systems Education Journal, 11 (1), 63-73.
  14. Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Research Says / Evidence on Flipped Classrooms in Still coming In. Technology Rich Learning, 70(6), 78-80.
  15. Griffin, P., & Care, E. (2014). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach : Springer.
  16. Hatcher, A., Shaker, G.G., & Freeman, T.M. (2016). Faculty Learning Communities: Taking Collective Action to Improve Teaching and Learning in Nonprofit and Philanthropic Studies. The Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 6(3).
  17. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London; New York: Routledge.
  18. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (2007). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 13 (1), 57-74.
  19. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  20. Montano, E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. Health behavior: Theory, research and practice (
  21. Nilson, B. (2016). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors : John Wiley & Sons.
  22. Staples, Hulland, & Higgins (1999). A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10(6), 758-7
  23. Strampel, K., & Oliver, R. (2010). They think they are learning, but are they? Strategies for implementing Web 2.0 to positively impact student learning. Curriculum, technology and transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney, 924-935.
  24. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact