Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Given the crucial role that teachers play in the acceptance and implementation of the flipped classroom (FC) instruction, this study investigated teachers’ instructional practices and the effects of self-efficacy and technological perceptions on their behavioral intention to adopt this new instructional approach in the context of Chinese language teaching, which has traditionally been dominated by teacher-centered instruction. A total of 130 Chinese language teachers from primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong completed a questionnaire designed based on the technology acceptance model (TAM). Descriptive analysis indicated that while teachers exhibited a high level of behavioral intention and positive perceptions, their self-efficacy for using FC instruction was only moderate. Consistent with the hypothesis of TAM, the results of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) indicated that teacher technological perceptions of FC instruction significantly affected behavioral intention, and self-efficacy exerted strong and positive effects on technological perceptions. Additionally, teachers with more teaching experience and those working in secondary schools demonstrated lower self-efficacy for using FC instruction compared to their counterparts with less teaching experience and those working in primary schools. The findings provide empirical evidence to enhance the understanding of language teachers’ acceptance of FC in a previously unexplored teaching context.

Plain Language Summary

Effects of Sself-Efficacy and Technological Perceptions on Behavioral Intention to use Flipped Classroom Instruction Among Language Teachers

This study explored language teachers’ instructional practices and the influence of their self-efficacy and technological perceptions on intentions to use the flipped classroom (FC) approach. Data were obtained from 130 Chinese language teachers in Hong Kong through a questionnaire designed based on the technology acceptance model (TAM). Results revealed that while teachers reported a high level of behavioral intention and positive perceptions, their self-efficacy was only moderate. Positive technological perceptions, which were strongly influenced by self-efficacy, directly predicted teachers’ adoption intention to use FC. The study also found that more experienced teachers and those in secondary schools reported lower self-efficacy than their less-experienced and primary-school counterparts. These findings offer valuable insights for understanding language teachers’ acceptance of FC and for designing targeted training to support its successful implementation.

Keywords

Chinese language teachers self-efficacy flipped classroom instruction technology acceptance model

Introduction

The development of technologies has driven paradigm shifts in education by unlocking significant potential to innovate pedagogical practices and learning experiences across the global educational landscape. Flipped classroom (FC) instruction—a major type of blended learning that emphasizes thoughtful integration of face-to-face classroom learning with online learning—has become a popular and strongly advocated instructional approach across various disciplines and educational levels (R. Li et al., 2023; Strelan et al., 2020). In a typical FC, traditional classroom instruction is switched outside the classroom, mostly through online videos, for students to acquire new knowledge and skills independently prior to the lesson, while class time is spent on interactive and higher-order student-centered activities to deepen students’ learning and facilitate their application of the learned knowledge and skills (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). FC instruction has been widely endorsed as an effective approach in providing flexible, timely, and adaptive learning to promote student active learning (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018; S. Li et al., 2025; She & Lai, 2025).

Despite the benefits of FC instruction being widely supported, its adoption in regular classroom practices remains limited. FC instruction is significantly different from and more demanding than traditional teacher-centered instruction. It requires teachers to identify and integrate appropriate technologies from diverse resources and adapt their pedagogical beliefs to foster effective learning experiences (Zhang & Fang, 2022). Previous research has indicated that teachers’ low self-efficacy and negative perceptions regarding the use of FC instruction can lead to their reluctance to adopt it (Wilson, 2023; Zhang & Fang, 2022). However, existing studies have largely focused on student perception and learning outcomes in FC (e.g., Hsieh et al., 2017; Qbeita & Gasaymeh, 2025), with relatively less attention given to teachers’ perspectives and acceptance. Therefore, exploring teachers’ instructional practices in adopting FC approach, as well as how their self-efficacy and technological perceptions influence its acceptance, is fundamental to realizing the potential benefits of FC in reshaping teaching and learning.

While research on the FC is growing rapidly, scholarly attention has largely focused on higher education sector and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, with a predominant geographical context in the United States (Lundin et al., 2018). In Hong Kong, the FC approach has been advocated in primary and secondary schools under the “Information Technology for Interactive Learning” policy (Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council [HKCDC], 2001) for years. Nevertheless, empirical research on FC implementation in K-12 settings in Hong Kong remains scarce. In contrast to the well-studied context of STEM subjects, the implementation of FC is even more pronounced for language instruction by strategically reallocating class time to activities dedicated to classroom discourse. Paradoxically, such potential may be hindered in the case of Chinese language teachers, as many are accustomed to lecture-based teacher-centered instruction under the influence of traditional Confucian culture, leading to their reluctance to embrace the pedagogical shift to the FC approach.

Against this background, this study explored teacher practices and the factors shaping their behavioral intention (BI) to adopt FC instruction to provide a comprehensive understanding of its implementation in Chinese language education. Specifically, this study first employed descriptive statistics to profile the implementation of FC in Chinese language teaching, establishing a holistic picture of its current state and a crucial context for interpreting teachers’ behavioral intentions. Second, this study investigated how Chinese language teachers’ technological perceptions affect their behavioral intention to use FC instruction, building upon the technology acceptance model (TAM; Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Additionally, based on the extended TAM (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), this study explored the role of teachers’ self-efficacy in shaping their perceptions and willingness to use FC instruction (Arpaci & Basol, 2020; Jiang et al., 2022). Finally, teachers’ school types and teaching experiences were also examined to determine their influence on FC acceptance, thereby informing the development of targeted professional support for teachers with different backgrounds. As most research on FC in language teaching has focused on English (e.g., Han et al., 2023; Jiang et al., 2022), this study contributes to the field by providing findings on teachers’ instructional practices and acceptance of FC in a language-teaching area traditionally dominated by teacher-centered instruction.

FC in Language Education

FC instruction is not a simple rearrangement of in-class and out-of-class learning activities. Grounded in the theoretical underpinnings of constructivism, FCs represent a transformative shift from traditional teacher-centered and lecture-based approaches toward an active learning paradigm that promotes student autonomy, cultivates deeper understanding, and facilitates skill practice within meaningful contexts (Cheng et al., 2019; R. Li et al., 2023; Q. F. Yang et al., 2021). By providing students with a flexible and autonomous learning environment, FCs enable differentiated instruction to cater to individual needs and promote interactions, collaboration, higher-order learning, and self-regulated learning, enhancing students’ cognitive skills, academic performance, and learning motivation (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018; Maimaiti & Hew, 2025; Nsabayezu et al., 2025; Strelan et al., 2020).

Given its inherent educational benefits, FC instruction being increasingly promoted in language education (Jiang et al., 2022; Shahnama et al., 2021; Turan & Akdag-Cimen, 2020). As language learning requires learning extensive linguistic knowledge and diligent practice, using FCs to shift fundamental knowledge and skill acquisition to self-paced, pre-class learning can free up classroom time for more effective engagement in higher-order, interactive language activities (Haghighi et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Nsabayezu et al., 2025; Turan & Akdag-Cimen, 2020). Based on a meta-analysis of 56 relevant studies, Vitta and Al-Hoorie (2023) demonstrated that FCs outperform traditional classrooms in enhancing language learning outcomes. Specifically, with increased interactive opportunities provided during class time, FCs have been particularly effective in developing language learners’ writing, listening, and speaking skills (Jia et al., 2025; Li et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022). FCs have also enhanced students’ motivation, self-regulated learning strategies, and overall satisfaction by fostering an active learning culture in language classrooms (Lau & Qian, 2025; Liu et al., 2022; Turan & Akdag-Cimen, 2020; Zou et al., 2022).

Despite scholars’ strong advocacy for the FC model, transitioning from traditional classroom teaching to FCs poses challenges for teachers and students, specifically the increased workload and students’ insufficient self-learning capabilities (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018; Lo & Hew, 2017). While language teachers have shown positive attitudes toward FC instruction (Taghizadeh & Hasani Yourdshahi, 2020; Wang, 2021), some feel reluctant to try it due to the increased workload, insufficient knowledge and training, technical difficulties, and conflicts with their original teaching beliefs and approaches (Lai et al., 2018; Wilson, 2023; Zhang & Fang, 2022; Zou et al., 2022). Compared to STEM teachers, language teachers more often report insufficient pedagogical and technological knowledge and face greater challenges in integrating technology into their teaching (Taghizadeh & Hasani Yourdshahi, 2020; Zhang & Fang, 2022). Therefore, implementing FC instruction in language classes may be more challenging than in other disciplines.

Teacher Technological Perception and Acceptance of FC Instruction

While students are at the center of FC learning, teachers are pivotal in designing high-quality instructional materials, providing tailored support to address students’ varying levels of out-of-class preparation, and facilitating students’ active learning in in-class activities (Jiang et al., 2022; Shahnama et al., 2021; Zou et al., 2022). In addition to serving as skilled designers and facilitators, teachers must act as effective navigators to provide clear guidance and immediate redirection, as students often encounter challenges such as ambiguity in responsibilities, cognitive overload, and technical difficulties throughout the FC learning process (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018; Lo & Hew, 2017). Therefore, the effectiveness of FC instruction is not merely a function of the pedagogical model itself but of teachers’ willingness and ability to adapt it to students’ learning needs through intentional instructional designs (Tondeur et al., 2017).

Given teachers’ crucial role in educational innovations, their resistance to adopting information communication technology (ICT) in their teaching could pose a significant barrier to meaningful technology integration (Sun & Gao, 2019). Significant research has been devoted to understanding teachers’ adoption of educational technologies, guided by theoretical models instrumental in explaining technology acceptance (Xue et al., 2024). Among these, the TAM has long proven effective in exploring the adoption of diverse educational technologies and technology-integrated instructional approaches, such as mobile learning (Bali et al., 2025; Mascret et al., 2023), generative artificial intelligence (Choi et al., 2023; Kim & Moon, 2025), and virtual reality (Guo et al., 2025). It has also emerged as the most widely used framework for investigating FC acceptance (Al-Maroof & Al-Emran, 2021). According to this model, perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU) are two fundamental determinants of individuals’ BI to adopt technologies. Their positive influence on teachers’ intentions to adopt technology-enhanced instructions has been empirically supported in various educational contexts (e.g., Choi et al., 2023; Mascret et al., 2023). Research on applying TAM to investigate user acceptance of flipped language classrooms has supported students’ positive perceptions of the usefulness of FC for enhancing their language learning and enjoyment of learning the target language (Haghighi et al., 2019; Lau et al., 2024). Nevertheless, the application of TAM in these studies has disproportionately focused on students’ rather than teachers’ acceptance (Al-Maroof & Al-Emran, 2021).

Although studies directly adopting TAM to investigate teachers’ technological perceptions and acceptance of FC instruction in language subjects are rare, findings from studies on language teachers’ general attitudes and perceptions can be categorized into PEU and PU to provide insights for understanding the factors that affect FC acceptance. Most studies on teachers’ negative perceptions of FC instruction are related to the PEU dimension. The transition to FC instruction has considerably increased teachers’ time investments and professional workloads, particularly in integrating appropriate digital tools and preparing online materials to cater to students’ different needs, which may reduce their PEU and foster hesitancy toward flipping their courses in educational practices (Han et al., 2023; Lo & Hew, 2017; C. C. R. Yang & Chen, 2020). Compared to traditional teaching approaches, the successful implementation of FC instruction may require more effort from language teachers, considering the widely noted gaps in their pedagogical and technological knowledge for effective technology integration (Shiu, 2024; Taghizadeh & Hasani Yourdshahi, 2020). Regarding the PU dimension, some language teachers believe that language subjects are less suited to the FC model compared to mathematics and science subjects, where yes-or-no answers are more prevalent (Unal et al., 2021). There are also controversies among language teachers about the effectiveness of FC instruction in facilitating language learning. While language teachers generally endorse its usefulness for enhancing students’ language proficiency and motivation through increased practice and interaction in online and in-class activities (C. C. R. Yang & Chen, 2020; Zou et al., 2022), some are reluctant to adopt it due to its impracticality and disconnection from real teaching contexts (Wilson, 2023) and the perceived lack of motivation stimulation for language learners when teachers are not physically present in the online learning component of FCs (Han et al., 2023).

Language Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in FC Instruction

Teachers’ self-efficacy, defined as individual teachers’ confidence in their ability to plan, organize, and implement educational activities to attain teaching goals (Zhang & Fang, 2022), is a critical factor influencing their technological integration in the extended TAM (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). As FC instruction has dramatically changed the role of teachers, requiring them to learn new teaching skills for successful instruction (Sun & Gao, 2019), teachers with stronger self-efficacy are more likely to overcome obstacles during the transition to this new approach, recognize the value of instructional innovation, and perceive adoption as an opportunity for professional development (Jiang et al., 2022; Lai et al., 2018). Conversely, a lack of self-efficacy in mastering necessary technological knowledge, managing classrooms, and engaging students is a major pedagogical challenge for teachers attempting to implement FC instruction (Hao & Lee, 2016; Zhang & Fang, 2022). Several studies in other disciplines have demonstrated the significant positive effects of teacher self-efficacy on PEU and PU, which lead to stronger adoption intention of the FC approach (Arpaci & Basol, 2020; Ateş et al., 2024; Lai et al., 2018). As language teachers usually experience more technical challenges (Shiu, 2024; Taghizadeh & Hasani Yourdshahi, 2020), how their self-efficacy may affect their technological perceptions of FC instruction requires further investigation.

Teachers’ self-efficacy is shaped by various contextual and personal factors. Given the different demands and working cultures across school types, some studies have found that primary school teachers exhibit higher self-efficacy in teaching strategies, student engagement, and classroom management compared to secondary school teachers (Chao et al., 2017, 2018; Klassen & Chiu, 2010). In Hong Kong, the increased emphasis on knowledge mastery and examination-driven outcomes at higher educational levels may lead to the prevalent use of traditional didactic lectures and diminish secondary school teachers’ self-efficacy in employing student-centered instruction (Chao et al., 2017). Given this context, secondary school teachers may have lower self-efficacy when adopting FC instruction than primary school teachers.

Teaching experience is viewed as a significant personal factor that impacts self-efficacy. Teachers with longer teaching experience tend to have a higher sense of general self-efficacy due to their accumulated mastery experiences (Hammack et al., 2024). However, teachers with extensive teaching experience also demonstrate more resistance to educational changes compared to those in the early stages of their careers (Hargreaves, 2005). This pushback effect of teaching experience has been particularly observed in the context of technology-enhanced pedagogies, where experienced teachers generally possess less knowledge for effective technology integration (Liang et al., 2025; Momdjian et al., 2025; L. Yang et al., 2022). With the demanding workload and technological skills involved in FC instruction, teaching experience may negatively impact self-efficacy in FC adoption.

Study Purpose and Research Hypotheses

Given the importance of teachers’ perceptions and self-efficacy in technology integration and the scarcity of studies on Chinese language teachers’ acceptance of FC instruction, this study investigated teachers’ instructional practices and the influence of their self-efficacy and technological perceptions on BI to adopt FC instruction among Chinese language teachers in Hong Kong. Guided by TAM’s assumptions and previous findings from FC studies, the hypothesized model (Figure 1) proposes that teachers’ PEU and PU directly affect their BI to use FC instruction. Based on the most frequently reported benefits of FC instruction for language learning, PU is divided into teachers’ perceived usefulness of FC instruction in enhancing student language ability (PUA) and learning motivation (PUM) in the model.

H1: PUA has a positive effect on BI.

H2: PUM has a positive effect on BI.

H3: PEU has a positive effect on BI.

Figure 1.

The hypothesized model in this study.

Based on the significant role of teachers’ self-efficacy (SE) in their technological perceptions, as proposed in the extended TAM, this study further hypothesizes that teachers’ self-efficacy in using FC instruction directly affects their PEU, PUA, and PUM and indirectly affects their BI through these technological perceptions.

H4: SE has a positive direct effect on PUA.

H5: SE has a positive direct effect on PUM.

H6: SE has a positive direct effect on PEU.

H7: SE has a positive indirect effect on BI through PEU, PUA, and PUM.

To understand how teachers’ background shape their self-efficacy, the model further examines the influence of school type (ST, primary vs. secondary) and teaching experience (TE) on teachers’ self-efficacy in using FC instruction. Based on previous studies, school type and teaching experience are expected to impact teachers’ self-efficacy negatively, which, in turn, indirectly affects their BI through technological perceptions.

H8: School type has a negative direct effect on SE.

H9: Years of teaching experience have a negative direct effect on SE.

H10: School type has a negative indirect effect on BI through SE, PEU, PUA, and PUM.

H11: Years of teaching experience have a negative indirect effect on BI through SE, PEU, PUA, and PUM.

Materials and Methods

Participants

Data were drawn from the dataset of a large-scale survey study investigating Hong Kong teachers’ and students’ acceptance of using FCs in Chinese language classes. Participation in this study was on a voluntary basis. The 10-times rule method and the minimum R² method were employed to estimate the minimum sample size required for running PLS-SEM in this study. Based on the hypothesized model (Figure 1) of this study, 124 samples are required for a significance level of .05, a statistical power of 0.80, and a minimum R² between .10 and .20 (J. Hair et al., 2021). Invitations were sent to all schools in Hong Kong that have implemented FC instruction in their Chinese language classes. Finally, a total of 16 schools (6 primary and 10 secondary), with diverse backgrounds, agreed to participate. The sample comprised 130 teachers (68 from primary and 62 from secondary schools; 17.1% male and 82.9% female). Their teaching experience ranged from 1 to 38 years ( $\overline{x}$ = 12.65 years, SD = 10.13). This sample size met the 10-times rule of thumb, as it was greater than 10 times the maximum number of links pointing to any latent variable in the hypothesized model, and is thus deemed suitable for performing PLS-SEM analysis.

Measures

The teacher questionnaire comprised two sections. The first collected background information about the teachers and their implementation of FC instruction. The second was adapted from validated TAM questionnaires for teachers used in previous studies (Arpaci & Basol, 2020; Ateş et al., 2024; Teo, 2019; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) to measure teachers’ PUA (five items), PUM (three items), PEU (three items), SE (four items), and BI (three items) to use FC instruction. Some questionnaire items were revised to fit the context of Chinese language learning. Teachers were asked to rate their level of agreement with each item on a 5-point Likert scale. A full set of the questionnaire items is provided in Supplemental Materials 1.

Data Collection and Analysis

The study design was granted ethnics approval from the corresponding author’s university’s research ethics committee (approval number: SBRE-21-0130). Before data collection began, informed consent was obtained from the schools and participants. The school coordinators were responsible for distributing the questionnaires to teachers who have experience in using FC instruction in their Chinese language classes. A total of 140 teacher questionnaires were sent to the schools, with a response rate of 92.86%. A cover letter attached to the first page of the questionnaire informed teachers about the purpose of the study, the confidentiality of the data handling procedures, and reassured them that all data would be collected solely for research purposes. The questionnaire took approximately 10 min to complete and was administered anonymously. To facilitate the delivery of the questionnaires, participating schools were allowed to choose between the paper-based or online versions by filling out a Google Form.

Data were analyzed using SPSS 29.0 and SmartPLS 4 in the following steps. First, an initial check of the data was conducted to clear up missing data and abnormal entries. The dataset was subsequently verified to be free of these data quality concerns, and all samples were therefore deemed valid for analysis. Then, Harman’s single-factor test and full collinearity test were conducted to examine common method variances. The results showed the study was free of common method bias (CMB), with the maximum variance explained by a single factor at 46.43% and all variance inflation factor (VIF) values below the recommended threshold of 5. Second, descriptive analysis was conducted to understand teachers’ general practices, self-efficacy, technological perceptions, and BI to use FC instruction. Finally, the hypothesized model was tested using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), which was selected over covariance-based methods due to its capacity to handle binary data and provide robust results with a relatively small sample size (J. Hair et al., 2021). The psychometric properties of the measurement model were evaluated in terms of reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, following the criteria suggested by J. Hair et al. (2021). The results indicated high internal consistency reliability for the measurement model, with both Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability coefficients exceeding the suggested threshold of 0.70 (see Table 1). Convergent validity was established as all indicator loadings and average variance extracted (AVE) values surpassed the recommended thresholds of 0.70 and 0.50, respectively. All heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) values were below 0.90, providing strong evidence for discriminant validity of the measurement model. The hypothesized relationships in the structural model were then assessed by employing the bootstrapping technique with 5,000 resamples. Furthermore, the PLS-SEM results indicated satisfactory explanatory power for all endogenous variables, with R² values of 0.12, 0.26, 0.24, 0.31, and 0.64 for SE, PUA, PUM, PEU, and BI, respectively.

Table 1.

Reliability and Validity of the Measurement Model.

Subscale	Factor loading	Mean	SD	Cronbach’s α	AVE	CR	HTMT ratio
Subscale	Factor loading	Mean	SD	Cronbach’s α	AVE	CR	2	3	4	5
1. Self-efficacy	0.80–0.85	3.16	0.64	.85	0.69	0.90	0.639	0.586	0.552	0.506
2. Perceived ease of use	0.85–0.92	3.59	0.65	.87	0.80	0.92		0.724	0.687	0.686
3. Perceived usefulness (language ability)	0.75–0.86	3.81	0.55	.87	0.67	0.91			0.869	0.796
4. Perceived usefulness (learning motivation)	0.90–0.95	3.85	0.64	.92	0.86	0.95				0.835
5. Behavioral intention	0.91–0.93	3.92	0.63	.91	0.85	0.94

Note. SD = standard deviation; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; HTMT = Heterotrait-Monotrait.

Results

Teachers’ General Practices, Self-Efficacy, Technological Perceptions, and Behavioral Intentions

The results of the descriptive analysis indicated that teachers implemented FC instruction on an average of 12.47 lessons throughout the academic year. The most frequently adopted areas ware reading (84.6%), followed by writing (55.3%), vocabulary (53.8%), Chinese culture (33.2%), and speaking and listening (32.7%). For the online component, videos (94.6%) and online exercises (77.8%) were the most frequently used instructional materials. The content of the videos was mainly on learning new knowledge (72.6%) and revising prior knowledge (63.7%). The most frequently adopted in-class activities in FCs were lecturing (80.6%), questioning (79.8%), and completing worksheets (63.6%). Conversely, interactive activities such as group discussions (50.4%), games (48.1%), presentations (34.1%), debates (12.4%), and drama activities (12.4%) were only occasionally or seldom used.

Regarding the second section of the questionnaire, the mean scores for most subscales of the TAM questionnaire exceeded the midpoint of the 5-point Likert scale (see Table 1), indicating that teachers generally held positive perceptions of FC instruction. Among all subscales, teachers’ intention to use FC instruction scored the highest. Regarding the three types of technological perceptions, they rated PUM most positively, followed by PUA and PEU. However, teachers’ self-efficacy in using FC instruction was only moderate.

Relationships Among Self-Efficacy, Technological Perceptions, and Behavioral Intention

Table 2 shows the testing results for hypotheses H1 through H7. Regarding the hypothesized effects of technological perceptions on user intention, H2 and H3 were supported, with significant positive effects from PUM (β = .48, p < .001) and PEU (β = .18, p < .01). However, H1 was rejected due to the non-significant path from PUA to BI (β = .23, p > .05). Regarding the hypothesized effects of self-efficacy on technological perceptions, H4, H5, and H6 were supported by strong, significant positive paths from self-efficacy to PUA (β = .51, p < .001), PUM (β = .49, p < .001), and PEU (β = .55, p < .001). Furthermore, the proposed mediation effect of self-efficacy on BI in H7 was supported by the significant total indirect effect (β = .45, p < .001). When examining the specific pathways, the paths through PEU (β = .10, p < .05) and PUM (β = .24, p < .01) were significant, whereas that through PUA was non-significant (β = .11, p > .05).

Table 2.

Results of Hypotheses (H1–H7) Testing.

Hypothesis	Relationship	β	STDEV	t-Value	p-Value	Result
Direct effect
H1	PUA → BI	.226	0.121	1.858	.063	Not supported
H2	PUM → BI	.481	0.128	3.766	.000***	Supported
H3	PEU → BI	.182	0.066	2.741	.006**	Supported
H4	SE → PUA	.507	0.078	6.494	.000***	Supported
H5	SE → PUM	.492	0.089	5.530	.000***	Supported
H6	SE → PEU	.552	0.068	8.066	.000***	Supported
Indirect effect
H7	SE → BI	.451	0.073	6.203	.000***	Supported
	SE → PUA → BI	.114	0.068	1.687	.092	Not supported
	SE → PUM → BI	.237	0.081	2.936	.003**	Supported
	SE → PEU → BI	.100	0.041	2.465	.014*	Supported

Note. STDEV = standard deviation.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Effects of Teacher Background on Self-Efficacy and Behavioral Intention

Table 3 shows the testing results for hypotheses H8 through H11. The hypothesized direct effects of school type (H8) and teaching experience (H9) on self-efficacy were supported, with both exhibiting significant negative relationships (school type: β = −.49, p < .01; teaching experience: β = −.32, p < .001). Furthermore, the total indirect effects of school type (H10: β = −.22, p < .05) and teaching experience (H11: β = −.14, p < .001) on BI were significant, supporting the proposed mediation. However, the examination of specific indirect pathways revealed that the effects of school type through PUA, PUM, PEU, and self-efficacy were all non-significant. For teaching experience, while the indirect pathways through PUM and self-efficacy (β = .08, p < .05) and those through PEU and self-efficacy (β = −.03, p < .05) reached significance, the pathway through PUA and self-efficacy was non-significant (β = −.04, p > .05).

Table 3.

Results of Hypotheses (H8–H11) Testing.

Hypothesis	Relationship	β	STDEV	t-Value	p-Value	Result
Direct effect
H8	ST → SE	−.491	0.168	2.928	.003**	Supported
H9	TE → SE	−.315	0.071	4.448	.000***	Supported
Indirect effect
H10	ST → BI	−.222	0.088	2.514	.012*	Supported
	ST → SE → PUA → BI	−.056	0.039	1.422	.155	Not supported
	ST → SE → PUM → BI	−.116	0.062	1.889	.059	Not supported
	ST → SE → PEU → BI	−.049	0.028	1.787	.074	Not supported
H11	TE → BI	−.142	0.039	3.693	.000***	Supported
	TE → SE → PUA → BI	−.036	0.024	1.496	.135	Not supported
	TE → SE → PUM → BI	−.075	0.030	2.513	.012*	Supported
	TE → SE → PEU → BI	−.032	0.014	2.328	.020*	Supported

Note. STDEV = standard deviation.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

This study examined Chinese language teachers’ implementation of FC instruction and assessed the influence of their self-efficacy and technological perceptions on behavioral intention to adopt this approach in daily teaching. Participating teachers generally held positive perceptions regarding FC instruction’s usefulness in enhancing students’ language abilities and learning motivation, demonstrating a high intention to use it. These positive perceptions align with the demonstrated effectiveness of FC instruction in enhancing students’ language learning in previous studies (Haghighi et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2022; S. Li et al., 2025; Turan & Akdag-Cimen, 2020; Vitta & Al-Hoorie, 2023), suggesting that it is also considered an effective approach among Chinese language teachers. Unlike studies conducted in the English learning context, where writing and communicative skills are the areas in which FCs are widely adopted (Jia et al., 2025; Li et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022), this study found that FCs are most frequently applied to teaching reading in Chinese language classes, likely because reading is considered the most important area in the Chinese language curriculum (HKCDC, 2017).

While Chinese language teachers revealed high degrees of PUA and PUM, they exhibited the lowest degree of PEU and moderate self-efficacy in implementing FC instruction. These findings support assertions that, compared to STEM teachers, language teachers generally possess less adequate pedagogical and technical knowledge and encounter more technical challenges when flipping their classes (Taghizadeh & Hasani Yourdshahi, 2020; Zhang & Fang, 2022). Additionally, contrary to the emphasis on student-centered activities and higher-order thinking in FCs (Cheng et al., 2019; R. Li et al., 2023; Q. F. Yang et al., 2021), this study found that the teaching videos used by Chinese language teachers primarily focused on knowledge transmission and revision, and in-class activities mainly comprised teacher-centered lecturing, questioning, and exercise drilling. As Chinese language teaching has long been influenced by traditional teacher-centered and lecture-based instruction, these findings suggest that although teachers recognize the benefits of FC instruction, it is difficult for them to change their original instructional practices completely.

The significant effects of Chinese language teachers’ technological perceptions on their BI revealed in this study align with numerous TAM studies (e.g., Arpaci & Basol, 2020; Ateş et al., 2024; Choi et al., 2023; Mascret et al., 2023). While some researchers argue that language teachers may hesitate to adopt FC instruction due to its perceived contradiction with their original teaching beliefs and instructional approaches (Han et al., 2023; Wilson, 2023), the high PUA, PUM, and BI levels in this study suggest that despite FC instruction differing from traditional Chinese language instruction, teachers appear open to trying it because they view it as a beneficial approach for enhancing students’ language learning. Unlike previous TAM studies that combined various benefits of a technology into a single PU construct, this study separated PU into two distinct constructs, PUA and PUM, to examine teachers’ perceptions of FC’s usefulness in enhancing student language ability and improving motivation. The findings revealed that while PUM had a significant direct effect on BI, PUA’s effect was non-significant. Given that improvement in student language ability is a long-term process requiring prolonged observation and standardized tests, teachers who demonstrate infrequent use of the approach may struggle to attribute such gains directly to FC instruction, thereby weakening the influence of PUA on BI. Notably, the stronger influence of PUM on BI suggests that Chinese language teachers prioritize FCs’ motivational benefits over its impact on language ability when deciding whether to adopt it in their teaching. This aligns with student acceptance research (Lau & Qian, 2025; Padilla-Meléndez et al., 2013; Su & Chiu, 2021), which highlights the critical role of motivational elements in technology adoption among teachers who face young students.

Self-efficacy has been widely incorporated into the extended TAM as a key factor influencing individuals’ technological perceptions in recent studies (e.g., L. Yang et al., 2022; J. Yang & Lou, 2024). Consistent with previous research conducted among teachers from other disciplines (Arpaci & Basol, 2020; Ateş et al., 2024; Lai et al., 2018), self-efficacy’s strong and positive effects on technological perceptions and significant indirect effect on BI revealed in this study provide empirical support for its critical role in determining language teachers’ acceptance of FC instruction. Given the more demanding nature of FC instruction compared to traditional instruction, teachers with insufficient confidence in handling this new instructional method will tend to devalue its usefulness, resulting in hesitations to adopt it (Hao & Lee, 2016; Zhang & Fang, 2022). In this study, although teachers expressed a high degree of BI to use FC instruction, they only implemented it in a few lessons throughout the academic year. This discrepancy may be attributed to their low self-efficacy. These findings suggest that self-efficacy not only affects teachers’ perceptions and intentional use but also their actual implementation of FC instruction.

The significant direct effects of school type and teaching experience on self-efficacy, along with their mediating effects on teachers’ BI, underscore the importance of contextual and personal backgrounds in understanding teachers’ acceptance of FC instruction. Consistent with other studies on teachers’ self-efficacy in using student-centered pedagogies (Chao et al., 2017, 2018; Klassen & Chiu, 2010), secondary school teachers exhibited lower self-efficacy in using FC instruction, which negatively affected their perceptions and acceptance. Furthermore, teachers with more teaching experience also showed lower self-efficacy, supporting the view that experienced teachers are usually less familiar with and have lower confidence in technology integration (Liang et al., 2025; Momdjian et al., 2025; L. Yang et al., 2022). These findings suggest that when promoting FC instruction among language teachers, professional training and technical support are particularly essential for experienced and secondary school teachers (Lai et al., 2018; Long et al., 2020).

Conclusion and Suggestions

While FC instruction has been promoted as an effective approach to enhance language learning for years, its adoption in language classes remains limited. Grounded on TAM, this study explored how Chinese language teachers’ self-efficacy and technological perceptions influenced their intention to use FC instruction. The findings contribute to FC research in language teaching in several ways. First, despite the significant role of teachers in FCs, most studies have focused on student acceptance, leaving teacher perspectives scarce. The positive perceptions and high intention to use FC instruction observed among the teacher participants provide empirical support for their acceptance of FC instruction and clarify controversies on language teachers’ attitudes toward it. Second, research on language teachers’ technological perceptions and FC use has mostly focused on English language educators. This study was the first to explore Chinese language teachers’ FC acceptance. While the study’s results generally align with those among English teachers, they also reveal discipline-specific findings, such as the predominant use of FCs for teaching reading over writing and communicative skills and difficulties in fully implementing student-centered principles, underscoring the need to consider curriculum and cultural contexts in FC studies. Third, this study made two major adjustments to TAM. By separating PU into PUA and PUM, the findings highlight the importance of motivational elements in examining FC acceptance among young students. Additionally, including school type and teaching experience in TAM has deepened our understanding of how teachers’ self-efficacy is shaped, benefiting the development of tailor-made support for teachers with different backgrounds.

This study’s findings also provide insights for facilitating language teachers’ acceptance and use of FC instruction. First, as language teachers often lack familiarity with new technologies, more professional training should be provided to equip them with essential knowledge and skills and enhance their confidence in implementing FCs. Second, during the initial stages of implementation, ongoing technical support, including concrete examples and user-friendly e-learning tools, is crucial for enhancing teachers’ PEU and a smooth adoption. Third, schools should encourage collaboration among teachers with different backgrounds. Experienced teachers can share their insights on FC instructional design, while younger teachers can handle the technical aspects of FCs. Finally, schools can help teachers overcome major obstacles by reducing their teaching loads, enhancing ICT facilities, and increasing curriculum flexibility. Given the high stakes of preparing students for external exams, school support is particularly important for creating a supportive environment for secondary school teachers to explore new innovations.

Finally, based on the limitations identified in this study’s design, we propose several suggestions for future research. First, like mainstream TAM studies, this study used a purely quantitative approach. While this method can objectively examine the levels of teachers’ technological perceptions, behavioral intentions, and the significance of paths among different TAM components, future research can include interviews to supplement the quantitative data to comprehend teachers’ views on FC instruction and the underlying mechanisms of how teachers’ backgrounds and self-efficacy affect their technological perceptions and intentional use. Second, in addition to self-efficacy, future studies could add more elements from the extended TAM, such as subjective norms and facilitating conditions, to understand more factors that affect language teachers’ perceptions of FC instruction. Third, FCs are not popular in Hong Kong Chinese language teaching, which limited the potential participant pool. Although invitations were sent to schools with various backgrounds to enhance the participants’ representativeness, the number of participants in this study was limited. Future studies with larger and more diverse samples are necessary to replicate the study’s findings.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251408276 – Supplemental material for Effects of Self-Efficacy and Technological Perceptions on Behavioral Intention to Use Flipped Classroom Among Language Teachers

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251408276 for Effects of Self-Efficacy and Technological Perceptions on Behavioral Intention to Use Flipped Classroom Among Language Teachers by Kit Ling Lau and Nuoen Li in SAGE Open

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Kit Ling Lau

Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Survey and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee, The Chinese University of Hong Kong (approval number: SBRE-21-0130).

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all participating schools and teachers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Kit-Ling Lau; Methodology: Kit-Ling Lau; Formal analysis and investigation: Kit-Ling Lau; Writing: Kit-Ling Lau and Nuoen Li; Review: Nuoen Li; Funding acquisition: Kit-Ling Lau.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Research and Development Projects Fund (Project no: EDB(LE)/P&R/EL/203/2), Hong Kong Standing Committee on Language Education and Research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be availed from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Akçayır

(2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021

Al-Maroof

R. A.

Al-Emran

(2021). Research trends in flipped classroom: A systematic review. In Al-Emran

Shaalan

Hassanien

(Eds.), Recent advances in intelligent systems and smart applications. Studies in systems, decision and control (pp. 253–275). Springer.

Arpaci

Basol

(2020). The impact of preservice teachers’ cognitive and technological perceptions on their continuous intention to use flipped classroom. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 3503–3514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10104-8

Ateş

Garzón

Lampropoulos

(2024). Evaluating science teachers’ flipped learning readiness: A GETAMEL approach test. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(10), 6283–6300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2255232

Bali

Chen

T. C.

Liu

M. C.

(2025). Behavioral intentions of low-achieving students to use mobile English learning: Integrating self-determination theory, theory of planned behavior, and technology acceptance model approaches. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(9), 5522–5532. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2364142

Bergmann

Sams

(2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education.

Chao

C. N. G.

Chow

W. S. E.

Forlin

F. C.

(2017). Improving teachers’ self-efficacy in applying teaching and learning strategies and classroom management to students with special education needs in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 360–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.004

Chao

C. N. G.

Lai

F. T. T.

S. K.

Sin

K. F.

(2018). Which inclusive teaching tasks represent the highest level of teacher efficacy in primary and secondary schools? Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.014

Cheng

Ritzhaupt

A. D.

Antonenko

(2019). Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 793–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9633-7

10.

Choi

Jang

Kim

(2023). Influence of pedagogical beliefs and perceived trust on teachers’ acceptance of educational artificial intelligence tools. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(4), 910–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2049145

11.

Davis

F. D.

(1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

12.

Guo

Zhou

(2025). Validation of technology acceptance model for virtual reality usage in collaborative learning to enhance learner performance. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 62(2), 429–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2024.2307994

13.

Haghighi

Jafarigohar

Khoshsima

Vahdany

(2019). Impact of flipped classroom on EFL learners' appropriate use of refusal: achievement, participation, perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(3), 261–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1504083

14.

Hair

Hult

Ringle

Sarstedt

(2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.

15.

Hammack

Yeter

I. H.

Pavlovich

Boz

(2024). Pre-service elementary teachers’ science and engineering teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy: Exploring the impacts of efficacy source experiences through varying course modalities. International Journal of Stem Education, 11(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00464-9

16.

Han

Røkenes

F. M.

Krumsvik

R. J.

(2023). Student teachers’ perceptions of flipped classroom in EFL teacher education. Education and Information Technologies, 29(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11839-w

17.

Hao

Lee

K. S.

(2016). Teaching in flipped classrooms: Exploring pre-service teachers’ concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.022

18.

Hargreaves

(2005). Educational change takes ages: Life, career and generational factors in teachers’ emotional responses to educational change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 967–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.007

19.

Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council (HKCDC). (2001). Learning to learn - the way forward in Curriculum. Government Printer.

20.

Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council (HKCDC). (2017). Chinese language education curriculum guide (Primary 1 to Secondary 6 grades) (in Chinese). Government Printer.

21.

Hsieh

J. S. C.

W. V.

Marek

M. W.

(2017). Using the flipped classroom to enhance EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1–2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1111910

22.

Jia

Hew

K. F.

(2025). Towards a flipped SEF-ARCS decoding model to improve foreign language listening proficiency. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 38(3), 369–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2191655

23.

Jiang

Zang

Zhou

Cao

(2022). English teachers’ intention to use flipped teaching: Interrelationships with needs satisfaction, motivation, self-efficacy, belief, and support. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(8), 1890–1919. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1846566

24.

Kim

Moon

(2025). Determinants of usefulness of Chat GPT for learning in technology acceptance model (TAM) using information credibility, fun, and responsiveness and moderating role of fun. Sage Open, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251320173

25.

Klassen

R. M.

Chiu

M. M.

(2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Education & Psychology, 102(3), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019237

26.

Lai

H. M.

Hsiao

Y. L.

Hsieh

P. J.

(2018). The role of motivation, ability, and opportunity in university teachers’ continuance use intention for flipped teaching. Computers & Education, 124, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.013

27.

Lau

K. L.

Qian

(2025). Enhancing students’ classical Chinese reading through a two-year flipped self-regulated learning intervention program. Reading and Writing, 38, 293–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10516-9

28.

Lau

K. L.

Qian

Chiu

T. K. F.

(2024). Effects of instructional factors on students’ acceptance of and participation in flipped language learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2375642

29.

Liang

Jin

Chen

(2025). Heterogeneity in AI readiness and its influence on behavioral intentions to use AI: A comparison between pre-service and in-service foreign language teachers. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2025.2565289

30.

Tao

Liu

(2022). The effects of flipped classroom approach in EFL teaching: Can we strategically use the flipped method to acquire communicative competence? Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221081575

31.

Lund

Nordsteien

(2023). The link between flipped and active learning: A scoping review. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(8), 1993–2027. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1943655

32.

Tao

Liu

(2025). The effects of flipped classroom approach in EFL teaching: Can we strategically use the flipped method to acquire communicative competence? Language Teaching Research, 29(3), 1165–1188. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221081575

33.

Liu

Rahimi

Fathi

(2022). Flipping writing metacognitive strategies and writing skills in an English as a foreign language collaborative writing context: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(6), 1730–1751. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12707

34.

C. K.

Hew

K. F.

(2017). A critical review of flipped classroom challenges in K-12 education: Possible solutions and recommendations for future research. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0044-2

35.

Long

Cummins

Waugh

(2020). To flip or not in higher education: A tale of three instructors. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(3), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00470-4

36.

Lundin

Bergviken Rensfeldt

Hillman

Lantz-Andersson

Peterson

(2018). Higher education dominance and siloed knowledge: A systematic review of flipped classroom research. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0101-6

37.

Maimaiti

Hew

K. F.

(2025). Gamification bolsters self-regulated learning, learning performance and reduces strategy decline in flipped classrooms: A longitudinal quasi-experiment. Computers & Education, 230, 105278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105278

38.

Mascret

Marlin

Laisney

Castéra

Brandt-Pomares

(2023). Teachers’ acceptance of an open-source, collaborative, free m-learning app: The predictive role of teachers’ self-approach goals. Education and Information Technologies, 28(12), 16373–16401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11832-3

39.

Momdjian

Manegre

Gutiérrez-Colón

(2025). Bridging the digital competence gap: A comparative study of preservice and in-service teachers in Lebanon using the digcompedu framework. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 30, 655–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09794-7

40.

Nsabayezu

Habimana

Nzabalirwa

Niyonzima

F. N.

(2025). Examining students’ engagement and motivation in organic chemistry through the use of a multimedia-supported flipped classroom approach. Education for Chemical Engineers, 53, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2025.08.001

41.

Padilla-Meléndez

del Aguila-Obra

A. R.

Garrido-Moreno

(2013). Perceived playfulness, gender differences and technology acceptance model in a blended learning scenario. Computers & Education, 63, 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.014

42.

Qbeita

A. A.

Gasaymeh

(2025). Exploring university students’ acceptance and satisfaction of the flipped learning approach in instructional technology related class. Education Sciences, 15(9), 1181. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091181

43.

Shahnama

Ghonsooly

Shirvan

M. E.

(2021). A meta-analysis of relative effectiveness of flipped learning in English as second/foreign language research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(3), 1355–1386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09996-1

44.

She

Lai

(2025). Is the SPOCs flipped classroom model effective in enhancing student exam scores? A meta-analysis. Interactive Learning Environments. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2511235

45.

Shiu

W. H. C.

(2024). Teacher learning in Hong Kong: Primary English language teachers’ cognitions about online teaching to survive or thrive during COVID-19. Teachers and Teaching, 30(7–8), 1097–1125. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2024.2328017

46.

Strelan

Osborn

Palmer

(2020). The flipped classroom: A meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines and education levels. Educational Research and Reviews, 30, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314

47.

C. Y.

Chiu

C. H.

(2021). Perceived enjoyment and attractiveness influence Taiwanese elementary school students’ intention to use interactive video learning. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(6), 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1841423

48.

Sun

Gao

(2019). Exploring the roles of school leaders and teachers in a school-wide adoption of flipped classroom: School dynamics and institutional cultures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1241–1259. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12769

49.

Taghizadeh

Hasani Yourdshahi

(2020). Integrating technology into young learners’ classes: Language teachers’ perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(8), 982–1006. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1618876

50.

Teo

(2019). Students and teachers’ intention to use technology: Assessing their measurement equivalence and structural invariance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(1), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117749430

51.

Tondeur

van Braak

Ertmer

P. A.

Ottenbreit-Leftwich

(2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2

52.

Turan

Akdag-Cimen

(2020). Flipped classroom in English language teaching: A systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(5-6), 590–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1584117

53.

Unal

Bodur

(2021). Using flipped classroom in middle schools: Teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Research in Education, 30(2), 90–112. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1301256.pdf

54.

Venkatesh

Bala

(2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x

55.

Venkatesh

Davis

F. D.

(2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

56.

Vitta

J. P.

Al-Hoorie

A. H.

(2023). The flipped classroom in second language learning: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 27(5), 1268–1292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820981403

57.

Wang

Y. H.

(2021). Exploring the effectiveness of adopting anchor-based game learning materials to support flipped classroom activities for senior high school students. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(3), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1579238

58.

Wilson

(2023). What does it mean to do teaching? A qualitative study of resistance to flipped learning in a higher education context. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(3), 473–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1822312

59.

Xue

Rashid

A. M.

Ouyang

(2024). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in higher education: A systematic review. Sage Open, 14(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241229570

60.

Yang

C. C. R.

Chen

(2020). Implementing the flipped classroom approach in primary English classrooms in China. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 1217–1235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10012-6

61.

Yang

Lou

(2024). Exploring the nexus of self-efficacy in digital literacy and technology acceptance: Insights from L2 Chinese teachers. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2024.2336247

62.

Yang

Martínez-Abad

García-Holgado

(2022). Exploring factors influencing pre-service and in-service teachers’ perception of digital competencies in the Chinese region of Anhui. Education and Information Technologies, 27(9), 12469–12494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11085-6

63.

Yang

Q. F.

Lin

C. J.

Hwang

G. J.

(2021). Research focuses and findings of flipping mathematics classes: A review of journal publications based on the technology-enhanced learning model. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(6), 905–938. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1637351

64.

Zhang

Fang

(2022). Exploring university EFL teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and teacher efficacy in technology-integrated flipped classroom. Sage Open, 12(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221116105

65.

Zou

Luo

Xie

Hwang

G. J.

(2022). A systematic review of research on flipped language classrooms: theoretical foundations, learning activities, tools, research topics and findings. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(8), 1811–1837. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1839502

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB