The aim of this study is to investigate university teachers’ experiences of participating in a research based educational development project in which they participated in developing their teaching based on Flipped Classroom (FC) approach. The context of the study is a multidisciplinary university which aimed at developing the teaching-learning environment to support student learning better. One of the aims was also to provide better support for students to develop their 21^st century skills. Many universities either require beginning teachers to take short courses in order to support teachers to design more efficient courses or provide some possibilities for university teachers professional development in terms of developing their teaching skills. However, there is quite a considerable variation in how important good teaching skills are seen for example in recruiting processes.

Barnett & Coate (2005) have argued that while universities provided some support for teachers to develop their teaching skills through various professional development programs, the curriculum process has not been so well engaged in the educational development processes. The educational development process, in which university teachers participated in this study, was designed so that teachers were provided support for transforming their courses in alignment with the principles of FC and at the same time they were provided pedagogical insights to the pedagogical research and practical teaching methods, which they could utilise in developing their courses. Pedagogical education was provided for the participants in various phases of the development project. Themes such as curriculum work, assessment, activating teaching methods, and ICT in learning as well supporting and guidance of students were included in the training (see e.g. Hyypiä, Sointu, Hirsto & Valtonen, 2020).

According earlier research, there is a need to consider various processes in order to develop teaching and education sustainably. For example, Hirsto (2013, 2021) suggest that key processes are strategical process, developing teachers’ skills and knowhow, and curriculum process. This perspective resonates with the viewpoints of Barnett & Coate (2005) as well as certain perspectives related to the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), which contributes to connecting teaching with student learning, research and the academic community (Boyer, 1990; Shulman, 1993). There is also evidence that factors related to working environment, such as leadership, institutional support and working relationships are related to teachers’ motivation to teach (e.g. Han & Yin, 2016). Furthermore, according to Pyörälä, Hirsto, Toom, Myyry & Lindblom-Ylänne (2015) awarded teachers seem to consider collaborative and community aspects important for their teaching such as significant relations with colleagues and other teachers, peers in pedagogical courses and pedagogical experts, students, and family members and friends.

The teachers seemed to consider FC as a meaningful experience, which has been important for both their own professional development but also in making the change towards more student-centred teaching. They felt that they were able to connect theory and practice better, and students’ feedback encouraged them to continue. In general, FC had also made them to consider more deeply the degrees and curricula in general.

The aim of this study was to find out, how teachers perceived the different aspects of development during their participation in FC training and implementing it in their teaching. The data were collected with semi-structured, individual interviews during spring 2019 in one multi-disciplinary university. In total 22 university teachers and lecturers from different faculties and various fields of science (e.g. law, humanities, and medicine) participated in the interviews. They had participated in the training and transformed their courses aligned with FC principles in 2017–2018. The participants had 3–20 years’ of teaching experience, and varied pedagogical backgrounds. Participation in the research was voluntary. The interview consisted of several themes related to the training and implementation of FC, and teaching and learning. Analysis in this study focused on the questions referring to the various key processes of pedagogical development (curriculum process, strategic process and development processes of teachers skills and knowhow), and on teachers’ reflections on those in their own teaching context and department. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The data analysis is ongoing and qualitative content analysis is used. The preliminary results related to FC as a tool for development will be discussed in the presentation.

The networks and communities were considered important in developing teaching. The FC community, its seminars, web discussions, and peer meetings were forums for exchanging ideas and seeking support. Also, pedagogical teams in departments and other colleagues were considered important, because of mutual work related to curriculum process. Some teachers mentioned that FC had gained interest in their departments and more teachers had started trying it out. However, some teachers told that they worked mostly alone and helped colleagues or gave presentations if needed. The support that teachers received varied. While the attitude of department heads was generally supportive, not all the teachers received support or resources for the development work. Transforming the course was generally considered time-consuming. While some teachers received relief from teaching duties for planning, most did it on their own time. Software or devices were needed, they were acquired if deemed useful. Decision-making and support on faculty-level was not mentioned. The common theme in teachers’ responses was the appreciation of teaching. Teachers acknowledge the demand for high-quality teaching, the meaning of latest research, and consider it important from students’ point of view. However, currently performance is mostly measured based on research, funding and publications. Development of teaching would require more time and resources, but also rethinking the balance between teaching and research. On the university level spaces should be improved and transformed. If the aim is to improve teaching and learning. Change from lectures to other teaching methods would need spaces that are adaptable for different teaching and learning methods. In addition, organizational culture should be more open and inclusive; so that students would feel they are part of the academic community and would get the support and guidance they need during their studies.

Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Han, J., & Yin, H. (2016). Teacher motivation: Definition, research, development and implications for teachers. Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1217819. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2016.1217819 Hirsto, L. (2013). Palautepohjainen opetuksen kehittäminen ja laatu [Feedback-based educational development and quality]. In J. Hakala & K. Kiviniemi (Eds.), Vuorovaikutuksen jännitteitä ja oppimisen säröjä. Aikuispedagogiikan haasteiden äärellä (pp. 147–162). Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/48383/978-951-39-5376-8.pdf?sequence=1 Hirsto, L. (2021). Transforming university learning environments - key processes of educational development. Higher Education in Russia and Beyond 1/2021. Hyypiä, M., Sointu, E., Hirsto, L., & Valtonen, T. (2020). Key Components of Learning Environments in Creating a Positive Flipped Classroom Course Experience. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(1), 61–86. doi: 10.26803/ijlter.19.1.4 Pyörälä, E., Hirsto, L., Toom, A., Myyry, L., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2015). Significant networks and meaningful conversations observed in the first-round applicants for the Teachers’ Academy at a research-intensive university. International Journal for Academic Development, 20(2), 150–162. doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2015.1029484 Shulman, L. (1993). Forum: Teaching as community property. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 25(6), 6–7.