Research Article

One Tool With Multiple Uses: An Innovation Configuration Map of Flip in Education

Loretta Catherine Donovan 1 * , Erin Besser 1 , Tim D. Green 1
More Detail
1 California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, USA* Corresponding Author
Journal of Digital Educational Technology, 2(3), 2022, ep2208,
Published: 10 October 2022
OPEN ACCESS   465 Views   418 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)


Flip (formerly Flipgrid) was developed almost 10 years ago as a tool to allow opportunities for engagement and social presence in a virtual learning environment. Recently, we have seen an explosion of Flip’s use by PreK-adult educators, and not surprisingly, literature focused on use, frequency, and implementation strategies. What is missing from the literature is a systematic analysis of what Flip integration looks like on a broader scale. Through the development of an innovation configuration map, this study sought to describe the ways in which educators as a group use the educational application, Flip. Results show three configurations of Flip integration. Each configuration has a unique value for teaching and learning. Despite these three unique configurations, there are also uses of Flip that are consistent across all configurations. Understanding the big picture of integration allows for informed decision-making and prepares one for examining the impact of integration. Implications of these findings extend to those planning professional development and administrators wanting to promote ubiquitous uses of technology in schools.


Donovan, L. C., Besser, E., & Green, T. D. (2022). One Tool With Multiple Uses: An Innovation Configuration Map of Flip in Education. Journal of Digital Educational Technology, 2(3), ep2208.


  1. Aloni, M., & Harrington, C. (2018). Research based practices for improving the effectiveness of asynchronous online discussion boards. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 271-289.
  2. Arsenis, P., Flores, M., & Petropoulou, D. (2021). Enhancing graduate employability skills and student engagement through group video assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(2), 245-258.
  3. Baron, P., & Corbin, L. (2012). Student engagement: Rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(6), 759-772.
  4. Barry, S. (2012). A video recording and viewing protocol for student group presentations: Assisting self–assessment through a Wiki environment. Computers and Education 59(3), 855-860.
  5. Bartlett, M. (2018). Using Flipgrid to increase students’ connectedness in an online class. eLearn, 2018(12), 9.
  6. Belvis, E., Pineda, P., Armengol, C., & Moreno, V. (2013). Evaluation of reflective practice in teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 279-292.
  7. Bennett, S., Dawson, P., Bearman, M., Molloy, E., & Boud, D. (2017). How technology shapes assessment design: Findings from a study of university teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 672-682.
  8. Berry, S. (2019). Teaching to connect: Community-building strategies for the virtual classroom. Online Learning, 23(1), 164-183.
  9. Brady, M., Devitt, A., & Kiersey, R. A. (2019). Academic staff perspectives on technology for assessment (TfA) in higher education: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3080-3098.
  10. Christianson, M., Hoskins, C., & Watanabe, A. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of a videorecording based self-assessment system for academic speaking. Language Research Bulletin, 24, 1-15.
  11. Crook, A., Mauchline, A., Maw, S., Lawson, C., Drinkwater, R., Lundqvist, K., & Park, J. (2012). The use of video technology for providing feedback to students: Can it enhance the feedback experience for staff and students? Computers & Education, 58(1), 386-396.
  12. Delmas, P., & Moore, P. (2019). Student perceptions of video-based discussions in online and blended learning. In Proceedings of the E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1280-1286). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  13. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Heath.
  14. Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hartley, K. (2010). An examination of one-to-one computing in the middle school: Does increased access bring about increased student engagement? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(4), 423-441.
  15. Donovan, L., Green, T., & Mason, C. (2014). Examining the 21st Century classroom: Developing an Innovation Configuration Map. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(2) 161-178.
  16. Dousay, T. A., & Weible, J. L. (2019). Build-A-Bug Workshop: Designing a learning experience with emerging technology to foster creativity. TechTrends, 63(1), 41-52.
  17. Drinkwater, M. J., Gannaway, D., Sheppard, K., Davis, M. J., Wegener, M. J., Bowen, W. P., & Corney, J. F. (2014). Managing active learning processes in large first year physics classes: The advantages of an integrated approach. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 2(2), 75-90.
  18. Dwyer, D. (1994). Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow and what we have learned. ASCD.’ve-Learned.aspx
  19. Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C, & Sandholtz, J. (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45-52.
  20. (2016). Student engagement.
  21. Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadikb, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 2(59), 423-435.
  22. Fahey, S., Moura, K., & Saarinen, J. (2019). The educator’s guide to Flipgrid. 2nd_edition.pdf
  23. Grayson, K. (2015). Face time: Vidku chief design officer Charles Miller. Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal.
  24. Green, T., Besser, E., & Donovan, L. (2021). More than amplifying voice and providing choice: Educator perceptions of Flipgrid use in the classroom. Tech Trends, 65, 785-795.
  25. Green, T., & Green, J. (2017). Adding voice and video to online discussion. Tech Trends, 62(1), 128-130.
  26. Gunuc, S., & Kuzu, A. (2014). Factors influencing student engagement and the role of technology in student engagement in higher education: Campus-class-technology theory. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 86-113.
  27. Hall, G. E. (2010a). Technology’s achilles heel. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 231-253.
  28. Hall, G. E. (2010b). Innovation configuration mapping.
  29. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2020). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Pearson.
  30. Henriksen, D., Creely, E., Henderson, M., & Mishra, P. (2021). Creativity and technology in teaching and learning: A literature review of the uneasy space of implementation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 2091-2108.
  31. Henriksen, D., Henderson, M., Creely, E., Ceretkova, S., Černochová, M., Sendova, E., & Tienken, C. H. (2018). Creativity and technology in education: An international perspective. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 409-424.
  32. Henriksen, D., Hoelting, M., & the Deep-Play Research Group. (2016). Rethinking creativity and technology in the 21st century: Creativity in a YouTube world. TechTrends, 60(2), 102-106.
  33. Hiebert, E. H., Quellmalz, E. S., & Vogel, P. (1989). Writing. A research-based writing program for students with high access to computers. Advanced Technology Group.
  34. Johnson, M., & Skarphol, M. (2018). The effects of digital portfolios and Flipgrid on student engagement and communication in a connected learning secondary visual arts classroom.
  35. Kiles, T. M., Vishenchuk, J., & Hohmeier, K. (2020). Implementation of Flipgrid as a self-reflection tool for student engagement–A pilot study. INNOVATIONS in Pharmacy, 11(4), 15-15.
  36. Loveless, A., Burton, J., & Turvey, K. (2006). Developing conceptual frameworks for creativity, ICT and teacher education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 3-13.
  37. Lowenthal, P. R., & Moore, R. L. (2020). Exploring student perceptions of Flipgrid in online courses. Online Learning, 24(4), 28-41.
  38. Lowenthal, P., Borup, J., West, R., & Archambault, L. (2020). Thinking beyond Zoom: Using asynchronous video to maintain connection and engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 383-391.
  39. Mango, O. (2019). Students’ perceptions and attitudes toward the use of Flipgrid in the language classroom. In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1970-1973). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  40. Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2018). Student perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies that enhance instructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 52-65.
  41. McMahon, B., & Portelli, J. P. (2004). Engagement for what? Beyond popular discourses of student engagement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(1), 59-76.
  42. Miller, S. C., McIntyre, C. J., & Lindt, S. F. (2020). Engaging technology in elementary school: Flipgrid’s potential. Childhood Education, 96(3), 62-69.
  43. Mishra, P., & Henriksen, D. (2018). Creativity, technology & education: Exploring their convergence. Springer.
  44. Murphy, K., & Barry, S. (2016). Feed-forward: Students gaining more from assessment via deeper engagement in video-recorded presentations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 213-227.
  45. Nayir, F. (2017). The relationship between student motivation and class engagement levels. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 17(71), 59-78.
  46. Ostashewski, N. (2020). Building a community of inquiry in an online graduate course: Does Flipgrid help? In Proceedings of the Innovate Learning Summit 2020 (pp. 390-393). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  47. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observer. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
  48. Stone, C., & Springer, M. (2019). Interactivity, connectedness and ‘teacher-presence’: Engaging and retaining students online. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 59(2), 146-169.
  49. Stoszkowski, J., Hodgkinson, A., & Collins, D. (2020). Using Flipgrid to improve reflection: A collaborative online approach to coach development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 26(2), 167-178.
  50. Sweeney, T., West, D., Groessler, A., Haynie, A., Higgs, B. M., Macaulay, J., & Yeo, M. (2017). Where’s the transformation? Unlocking the potential of technology-enhanced assessment. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 5(1), 1-16.
  51. Tugrul, T. O. (2012). Student perceptions of an educational technology tool: Video recordings of project presentations. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 133-140.