LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 1

The Impact of the Flipped Classroom on Mathematics Concept Learning in

High School

First Name M.I. Surname1, First Name M.I. Surname2 , First

Name M.I. Surname3, First Name M.I. Surname4, and
First Name M.I. Surname5

(Submitted February 2, 2019)

Abstract
The present study aimed to examine the effectiveness of the flipped classroom

learning environment on learner’s learning achievement and motivation, as well as

to investigate the effects of flipped classrooms on learners with different

achievement levels in learning mathematics concepts. The learning achievement

and motivation were measured by Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT) and Course

Interest Survey (CIS) respectively. A pretest posttest quasi-experimental design was

employed for this study. A total of 82 high-school students participated in this study

and divided into experimental and control groups. The experimental group (41) was

taught trigonometry using the flipped classroom method while the control group

(41) was taught utilizing traditional teaching methods. The researchers employed

independent sample t-test, analysis of co- variance (ANCOVA), and multivariate

analysis of variance (MANOVA) to analyze the data obtained. Findings indicated a

significant difference in the learning achievement and motivation between the two

groups with students performed better using the flipped classroom. Further analysis
 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 2

showed a significant difference in the performance of low achievers in the

experimental and control groups.

Issues and Research Questions

Two conclusions can be drawn from the above review of studies. First, although

research in the flipped classroom has been growing significantly in recent years,

there is still a lack of studies conducted in high-school mathematics classroom

settings. Second, we have not found any study that investigated its effect on

student’s mathematics performance based on different achievement levels.

Therefore, we have made an attempt to examine the impact of the flipped classroom

in learning mathematics at high-school. Three research questions that guided this

study are:

1. Is there any significant difference in the learner’s achievement scores between

the experimental and control groups?

2. Is there any significant difference in learner’s motivation between the experimental

and control groups?

3. Are there any significant differences in learner’s performance for students of

different achievement levels between the experimental and control groups?

Hypothesis

The following null hypotheses were in this study:

 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 3

There is no significant difference in the learner’s achievement scores between

the experimental and control groups.

There is no significant difference in learner’s motivation between

experimental and control group.

There is no significant difference in learner’s performance for students of

different achievement levels between the experimental and control group.

Methodology

Research Design and Sample

The present study used a pre-test posttest quasi-experimental design. A

total of 82 high-school students, aged between 14-15 years old participated in the

study. The composition of the experimental group was 41 (Males = 28, Females =

13) and control group was 41 (Males = 24, Females = 17). Based on the participant’s

previous summative scores in mathematics; they were categorized into high,

average, and low achievers in each group. Students who obtained scores 75-100

were categorized as high achievers, 60-74 as average achievers, and below 60

as low achievers. The experimental group underwent a lesson on “trigonometry”

with the flipped classroom, while the control group followed a similar lesson using

the conventional learning method. Both groups were given a pretest and posttest.

Instruments

Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT)

 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 4

MAT was administered to measure the student’s performance. The content of

the pretest and posttest was same, but the orders of the test items were interchanged

in order to avoid the same set response effect. The test items comprised of 15

multiple-choice questions on the concept of “trigonometry.” Thirty-five minutes was

allotted for MAT. Content validity of the instrument was determined quantitatively by

a panel of five experts. For this purpose, the necessity of the items was assessed

using a 3-point rating scale: E indicated essential; U, useful but not essential; and

N, not necessary. Finally, Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and Content Validity Index

(CVI) were calculated. The CVR was calculated for each item based on the formula

given by Lawshe (1975):

where ne = the number of experts who rated an item as

“essential.” N = the total number of experts.

The CVI is the mean CVR of all retained items. For a panel of five experts,

the minimum value of CVR for an item needs to be at least 0.99 to be accepted

(Lawshe, 1975). All the 15 items showed acceptable values of CVR. The

calculated CVI was greater than 0.80 which is also acceptable (Polit, Beck, & Owen,

2007). Finally, the Cronbach’α of the instrument was 0.723 which is acceptable

(Barrett, 2001). This showed the validity of the instrument.

Course Interest Survey (CIS)

Keller (2010) designed Course Interest Survey (CIS) to measure students’

motivational reactions to the instructor- led-instruction. Attention, relevance,

 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 5

confidence, and satisfaction are the four factors of CIS. It contains 34 items with

5-point Likert-scale items. The CIS is considered a valid instrument with a

documented reliability co-efficient of 0.95 (Keller, 2010). The survey was translated

into a Chinese version before administration by a language expert. Cronbach’s α

coefficient was calculated to verify the instrument’s internal validity. The four factors

of the questionnaire had an adequate reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.80, 0.82, 0.79,

0.84 for attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction, respectively).

Procedure

The duration of this study was 6 weeks. Two weeks before the intervention,

both experimental and control group underwent a pretest. The authors selected

three teaching modules based on the concept of “trigonometry” for this study:

Introduction to Trigonometry, Trigonometric ratios and Trigonometric Identities. In

the control group, instruction was provided in the classroom. Students were asked

to attend the classroom-based lectures and complete their homework before the

next on their own. Thirty to forty minutes of the total class duration (50 minutes)

was devoted to lecture and discussion. The remaining time was utilized for

problem solving. Homework consisted of textbook problems. On the other hand,

in the experimental group, pre-recorded video lessons were uploaded in the

Dropbox before one week of the class. The average duration of each lesson was

15-20 minutes. Students were asked to watch the video lesson before coming to the

class. During classroom time, students involved in the activities based on video
 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 6

lessons. Students were divided into groups to discuss the textbook problems. In the

meanwhile, the students who need remedial assistance were given a face to face

support. At the end of the intervention, both groups were given posttest and CIS

to collect scores for learning achievement and motivation respectively.

Data Analysis

Frequency and percentage were used for descriptive statistics. The data were

also presented graphically to highlights the similarities and differences in the

results. With respect to the learning achievement, a one-way analysis of

covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted with group as a between subject variable,

pre-test scores as a covariate, and post-test scores as a dependent variable. To

prevent the effect of sampling error ANCOVA was employed. Independent sample

t-test was conducted to determine the effects of the flipped classroom on learners

with different achievement levels. With respect to the motivation, one-way multiple

analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted with group as a between subject

variable and attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction as dependent

variables. All analyses were conducted using Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences version 21 (SPSS 21). The statistical significance level was set at p < .05.

Results

1. Is there any significant difference in the learner’s achievement scores

between the experimental and control groups?

 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 7

Table 1 shows the total number of students with different achievement levels

in mathematics for both groups. It can be observed that the distributions of

students for high, average, and low achievers are almost similar. Before

intervention, independent sample t-test was conducted on pre-test scores collected

from the experimental group and control group. Results indicated that there was no

significant difference between the two groups (t value = -1.167, p= .247). This

showed that both the groups were similar in abilities before the intervention was

conducted.

Table 1
Frequency and percentage distribution of participants for different achievement level
Group High Average Low
Experimental 17(41.4%) 16(39.02%) 8(19.5%)
Control 14(34.1%) 19(46.34%) 8(19.5%)
Total 31 35 16

Before employing ANCOVA, Levene’s homogeneity test was conducted. The

result showed the F value was equal to 3.28 (p > .05). This indicated that the

homogeneity test has not achieved statistical significance; therefore, ANCOVA could

be applied. Table 2 summarizes the ANCOVA results in comparing student’s

achievement scores. Students in the experimental group exhibited better

performance than the control group, F(1, 79) = 8.001, p < .05, η2 =.092 which is

considered to be a large effect (Cohen, 1988). Figure 1 displays the graphical

representation of the mean scores, with confidence intervals for the both groups for

pre-test and post-test scores. There was overlapping between control and

experimental group for pre-test scores, but not for posttest scores. This provided
 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 8

sufficient evidence that population means were same for pre-test scores but different

for posttest scores

Table 2
Analysis of co-variance for MAT scores
Source F p Remarks
Pretest .118 .733
.00* There is significant
Group 8.001 difference
Error

2. Is there any significant difference in learner’s motivation between the experimental

and control groups?

Descriptive statistics (shown in Table 4), including means and standard

deviation are provided for dependent variables attention, relevance, confidence,
and satisfaction. The results of MANOVA revealed that there was significant
difference for attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction between the

experimental and control groups, Wilk’s Λ=.68, F=8.90, p<.05, η2=.31. Therefore,
univariate F tests were conducted for attention, relevance, confidence, and
satisfaction. As shown in Table 5, the results of univariate F tests indicated a

significant difference between the groups for attention (p < .05, η2 =.17), relevance

(p < .05, η2 =.15), confidence (p < .05, η2=.10), and satisfaction (p < .05, η2 =.18).

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for CIS motivational questionnaire

Group Mean SD N
CG 2.80 .77 41
Attention EG 3.55 .86 41
CG 3.16 .83 41
Relevance EG 3.84 .73 41
CG 3.16 .69 41
Confidence EG 3.64 .72 41
 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 9

CG 2.96 .74 41
Satisfaction EG 3.66 .74 41

Table 4. Summary of one-way MANOVA results for CIS motivational questionnaire

DV SV F Partial η2 Remarks
Attention Group 17.16* 0.17 There is significant difference
Relevance 15.12* 0.15 There is significant difference
Confidence 9.20* 0.10 There is significant difference
Satisfaction 17.76* 0.18 There is significant difference

3. Are there any significant differences in learner’s performance for students of

different achievement levels between the experimental and control groups?

Table 3 shows the results of learning achievement of the participants based

on the different achievement level for pre-test and posttest for both groups. As we

can find, there was no significant differences in the students’ learning achievement

between the groups for all levels except for average achievers. The mean scores

of the pre-test of the high achievers (M = 13.11, SD = 1.45) and low achievers (M

= 5.25, SD = 2.12) in the experimental group are not significantly different from the

control group (M = 12.57, SD = 1.55; M = 5.75, SD = 1.38, respectively). However,

a significant difference is found in the posttest for all levels except for high

achievers. The results show the mean scores of the average achievers (M = 10.75,

SD = 2.40) and low achievers (M = 9.18, SD = 2.71) in the experimental group are

significantly different than the control group (M = 8.94, SD = 1.71; M = 7.62, SD =

2.26).
 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 10

Table 5

Independent Sample t-test for Pre-test and Posttest Between the Groups Based on
the Achievement Level

Achievement Group Mean Standard T- P- Remarks

Level Deviation value value
Pre-test High EG 13.11 1.45 1.62 0.10 No
significant
difference
CG 12.57 1.55
Average EG 10.12 2.15 2.96 0.00 There is
significant
difference
CG 9.05 0.84
Low EG 5.25 2.12 1.26 0.20 No
significant
difference
CG 5.75 1.38
Posttest High EG 10 2.54 0.25 0.20 No
significant
difference
CG 9.87 2.03
Average EG 10.75 2.40 3.93 0.00 There is
significant
difference
CG 8.94 1.71
Low EG 9.18 2.71 2.83 0.00 There is
significant
difference
CG 7.62 2.26

This provided sufficient evidence that population means were same for pre-

test scores for high and low achievers. However, there was no overlapping

between control and experimental group for average and low achievers. This

provided sufficient evidence that population means were different for posttest for

average and low achievers.

 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 11

THESE TWO PAGES ARE NOTICE PAPERS AND NOT INLCUDED IN YOUR PAPER
This is a note in “RESULTS”
READ THIS!
Note:

1. Words highlighted in green must be changed with research questions found in your
article.
2. The arrangement of research questions in the results will be based on the
arrangement of statement of the problem found in the “Issues and research
questions”.
3. For the tables, those are just copied. Look at the table below. That must be the
format in all groups, if possible. Why? There are other numerical results which are
not helpful in interpreting data. Those are not important in the table.

THESE TABLES ARE USED FOR “SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE”

Table version 1 – F-value is used from Analysis of Variance or ANOVA

Grade Level Standard
Mean F-Value P-Value Decision Remark
Handled Deviation

Grade 7 3.7 0.19

No significant
Grade 8 3.78 0.26 0.202 0.821 Accept H0
difference
Grade 9 3.77 0.09

Table version 2 – T-value came from using t-test

Gender Mean Standard T-Value P-Value Decision Remark

Deviation
Male 3.73 0.17 Accept
No
0.101 0.758
significant
Female 3.77 0.21 H0
difference

Those statistical tools mentioned above will be discussed after several days.
 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 12

THIS TABLE WILL BE USED FOR “SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP”

Table version 3 – r is a symbol for Pearson Product Moment of Correlation

Scores on r Interpretation P-Value Decision Remark

english test
and Low positive Accept No significant
0.403 0.219
mathematics correlation H0 Relationship
test

The table above is limited on pearson’s r or pearson product moment of correlation.

If there are other statistical tools used for relationship such as pearson’s chi-square, please

notify me.
 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 13

Discussion and Conclusion

The present study compared the flipped classroom with the conventional

method of teaching, a mathematical concept “trigonometry,” in order to examine its

learning effectiveness. Both interventions were designed to deliver the same

learning content by the same instructor. The statistical results of this study indicated

that students in the experimental group outperformed in the posttest than the

control group. This suggests that the flipped classroom environment improved

learning achievement of the students in the experimental group. This result is

consistent with previous studies (Davies et al., 2013; Mason et al., 2013; Missildine

et al., 2013). Moreover, CTML theory was adopted in the flipped classroom

environment because students were asked to watch uploaded video lessons.

Students accessed the videos at their convenience time and also re-watched the

lessons which were not possible in the conventional method of teaching. In addition,

we found that students were highly satisfied and positivity towards the flipped

classroom. This resulted in greater learning motivation. Previous studies (Davies

et al., 2013; Mason et al., 2013) have also provided the similar results.

The findings also revealed that low achievers in the experimental group

performed better than the control group, but the performance of the high and

average achievers remains same; this outcome supports the previous study by

Bidwell (2014). In the flipped classroom mode, low achievers got more attention

from the teachers, and they discussed the problems to understand the
 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 14

mathematical concept. Therefore, the flipped classroom mode may help low

achievers to improve their performance in mathematics.

It is known that a considerable part of high-school students belong to the

category of low achievers. Thus, it is necessary to develop teaching methods to

help low achievers towards the understanding of mathematical concepts. The

present study has contributed to mathematics education by providing the empirical

evidence of the potential of the flipped classroom to support teaching and learning

in mathematics. The findings of this study support that a student-centered

approach, in the flipped classroom, is better than the teacher-centered approach in

the conventional method of teaching. This study has also shown that the flipped

classroom benefits lower achievers more than the high and average achievers.

To conclude, with the advancement of technology and the adoption of the flipped

classroom, teaching as well as learning of mathematics can be made more enjoyable

and effective.

Limitations and Prospects for Further Work

The duration of this study was limited to 6 weeks; this is one of the limitations

of this study. Future studies should cover at least one module for 2-3 months for

more concrete scientific findings. Another limitation of this study was that students

were not able to ask their questions immediately while watching the lesson videos.
 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 15

Future studies may provide an online discussion forum for giving opportunity and

motivating the students for pondering questions to develop critical thinking and

engagement. Interactive video lessons are also recommended for further studies in

the flipped classroom to make learning more meaningful.

References

Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped

classroom: definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research

& Development, 34(1), 1-14. doi:10.1080/07294360.2014.934336

Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559.

Barrett, P. (2001). Assessing the reliability of rating data. Retrieved from

http://www.pbarrett.net/presentations/rater.pdf

Bergmann, J., Overmyer, J., & Wilie, B. (2013, July 9). The Flipped class: Myths

versus reality [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/the-

flipped-class-conversation-689.php

Rajghatta, C. (2014, August). Math teaching in India is robotic, make it creative:

Manjul Bhargava. The Times of India. Retrieved from

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-times/deep-focus/Math-teaching-in-

India-is-robotic-make-it- creative-Manjul-Bhargava/articleshow/40321279.cms
 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 16

Bidwell, A. (2014, August). Flipped classroom may help weaker

STEM students, US News. Retrieved from

http://www.usnews.com/news/stem-solutions/articles/2014/08/05/taking-a-page-

from-humanities-college-engineering-gets- flipped

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction.

Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.

Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Kinshuk, & Chen, N. S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? or should we

use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers and Education, 79, 16-27.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.004

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional

technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 61, 563-580.

doi:10.1007/s11423- 013-9305-6

Fautch, J. M. (2015). The Flipped classroom for teaching organic chemistry in small

classes: Is it effective? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(1), 179-

186. doi:10.1039/c4rp00230j

Hughes, H. (2012). Introduction to flipping the college classroom. In T. Amiel & B.

Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational

 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 17

Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 2434-2438). Chesapeake,

VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved

from http://www.editlib.org/p/41097

Hung, H.-T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster

active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81-96.

doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.967701

Keller, J. (2010). Tools to support motivational design. In Motivational Design for

Learning and Performance (pp. 267-295). doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3_11

Kong, S. C. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills

through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An Experience of

practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers and Education, 78, 160-173.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.009

Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A Quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel

Psychology, 28(4), 563-575. doi:10.1111/j.1744- 6570.1975.tb01393.x

Lazakidou, G., & Retalis, S. (2010). Using computer supported collaborative learning

strategies for helping students acquire self- regulated problem-solving skills in

mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(1), 3-13.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.020

Mason, G. S., Shuman, T. R., & Cook, K. E. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness

of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering

 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 18

course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 430-435.

doi:10.1109/TE.2013.2249066

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Missildine, K., Fountain, R., Summers, L., & Gosselin, K. (2013). Flipping the

classroom to improve student performance and satisfaction. Journal of Nursing

Education, 52(10), 597-599. doi:10.3928/01484834-20130919-03

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2006). Principles and

standards for school mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/standards/

Offer, J., & Bos, B. (2009). The Design and application of technology-based courses

in the mathematics classroom. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1133-1137.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.020

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A Dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of

content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health,

30(4), 459-467. doi:10.1002/nur.20199

Schultz, D., Duffield, S., Rasmuseen, S. C., & Wageman, J. (2014). Effects of the

flipped classroom model on student performance for advanced placement high

school chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(9), 1334-1339.

doi:10.1021/ed400868x
 LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL 19

Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation,

innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193.

Tan, C.-K., & Tan, C.-P. (2015). Effects of the handheld technology instructional

approach on performances of students of different achievement levels. Computers

& Education, 82, 306-314. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.011

Wilkins, J. L. M., & Ma, X. (2003). Modeling change in student attitude toward and

beliefs about mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 52-63.

doi:10.1080/00220670309596628

Wilson, S. G. (2013). The Flipped class: A Method to address the challenges of an

undergraduate statistics course. Teaching of Psychology, 40(3), 193-199.

doi:10.1177/0098628313487461

Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational

Psychologist, 24(4), 345-376.