You are here:

Technology Integration in STEM Flipped Classrooms Using SAMR Framework as a Benchmarking Tool

, Purdue University, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Washington, DC ISBN 978-1-939797-29-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC


This paper presents some common technology and tools used by the instructors to administer flipped classrooms in higher education and also the purposes behind using them. This study used a semi-structured interview method with four STEM faculty members teaching large undergraduate courses in a South Central University in the United States. The study was guided by Carspecken’s (1996) method to collect and analyze data. The preliminary findings represent the technologies and tools that were used to implement and run their flipped classes. To analyze the purpose of using the technologies and tools, the SAMR framework was used to check whether they were enhancing or transformative in nature. Additionally, the implication of the study is discussed. At the end, this study strongly recommends that SAMR model should be used as a benchmarking tool for technology integration in course of a flipped classroom design.


Dey, T. (2017). Technology Integration in STEM Flipped Classrooms Using SAMR Framework as a Benchmarking Tool. In J. Johnston (Ed.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2017 (pp. 762-767). Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 13, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Bishop, J.L., & Verleger, M.A. (2013, June). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA (Vol. 30, No. 9, pp. 1-18).
  2. Bullen, M., & Morgan, T. (2016). Digital learners not digital natives. La Cuestión Universitaria, (7), 60–68.
  3. Carspecken, F.P. (1995). Critical Ethnography in Educational Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide (First Edition). New York: Routledge.
  4. Flipped Learning Network. (2014). The four pillars of F-L-I-P™. Retrieved May 7, 2017, from Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: Flip Your Classroom to Improve Student Learning. Learning& Leading with Technology, 39(8), 12–17.
  5. Hill, C. (2013, August 26). The Benefits of Flipping Your Classroom. Retrieved April 30, 2017, from,M.(2011,February10).TheSAMRModel.RetrievedMay8,2017,from
  6. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., and Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC Horizon Report: 2013 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium
  7. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
  8. Mazur, E. (1997, March). Peer instruction: getting students to think in class. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 399, No. 1, pp. 981-988). AIP
  9. Musallam, R. (2013) A Pedagogy-First Approach to the Flipped Classroom. Retrieved May 7, 2017, from
  10. Quaye, S.J., & Harper, S.R. (2014). Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. Routledge.
  11. Romrell, D., Kidder, L.C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR Model as a Framework for Evaluating mLearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(2). Retrieved from Zainuddin, Z., & Halili, S.H. (2016). Flipped Classroom Research and Trends from Different Fields of Study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3). Https://

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