CLASSROOM-BASED
ACTION RESEARCH
PURPOSE: To improve student learning.
HOW: Another issue, concern and problem that affects students’ performance is Mathematics is the
actual time of solving problems during class hour. The researcher wants to prove if a specific
teaching strategy called flipped classroom is effective or not in the progress of learners in the said
subject.
I. THE PROBLEM
One of the most prevalent issues in my classroom that affects the learning of my students is they
always find it hard to finish their assigned activity for the day even if the items are just five. They are
always asking for an extra time in accomplishing their work especially when the topic is difficult or
hard, because of this they are not able to finish their work to show their skills, wisdom or intellect.
Mathematics is considered as one of the most difficult but important subjects because of its
integration in real life applications and as the curriculum requires each learner to pass the said
subject to be able to move up in the next grade level or to graduate, more importantly for learners
who dream of professions or jobs that need skills and knowledge in Mathematics.
The K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum aims to help learners understand that Mathematics is
involved in the daily life process which responds to and reflects changing social conditions. It is also
inextricably involved with disciplines, beliefs and ways of living about the learners and the world
people dwell. The curriculum aims that learners are given an opportunity to be included to build upon
their prior knowledge while utilizing their own skills, interests, styles, and talents.
However, teachers find difficulties in teaching students with different intellectual capacities, talent or
skills, interest, and learning styles especially in a regular classroom setting. This situation calls for
teachers to create lessons that use technology that is accessible to all students based upon their
readiness, resources, interests, and background knowledge.
The flipped classroom is a form of education in which students learn new content during out-of-classtime instead of the traditional review exercises that are normally given, which opens up class time for
activities, problem solving, and other forms of instruction. During this study, a flipped classroom will
be implemented in a high school mathematics course particularly in my advisory class. My result
wants to prove some potential benefits of the flipped classroom make it a form of education that
teachers should consider.
As an educator, the teacher-researcher was motivated to conduct this action research on the
effectiveness of flipped classroom or inverted classroom in teaching Mathematics on secondary
students for a two-week long lesson. He wanted to know the effect of this teaching strategy on the
academic performance of the students from results of the diagnostic and achievement test.
II. RELATED LITERATURES
The strategies/interventions used before to solve this issue are the following:
Utilization of the flipped or inverted classroom has the potential to be an effective and beneficial
method of education. Replacing direct instruction from the class time with video lectures observed
outside of the classroom allows for more class-time to be used for active learning. Constructivist
learning takes place when students gain knowledge through direct personal experiences such as
activities, projects, and discussions. (Ultanir, 2016). Active learning can include activities, discussion,
student-created content, independent problem solving, inquiry-based learning, and project-based
learning (Bergmann, Overmyer, & Wilie, 2016).
This use of class-time can create a classroom environment which uses collaborative and
constructivist learning; blending with the direct instruction used outside the classroom (Tucker 2012).
The frequency of these personal experiences can be increased in a flipped classroom through the
use of activities, creating students who are active learners (learning by engaging in analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation), rather than passive learners (learning by the absorption of information
from hearing, seeing, and reading) (Minhas, Ghosh, & Swanzy, 2012; Sams, 2013). The passive
learning of a flipped classroom happens during the video lectures outside of class, freeing up in class
time for active learning (Tucker, 2012). Active learning has been found to produce better grades than
passive learning (Minhas, Ghosh, & Swanzy, 2014). Collaborative learning takes place when two or
more people learn something together, holding one another accountable for their learning (Roberts,
2014).
Collaborative learning can create students who are more invested in their own learning, desiring to
succeed in order to meet the expectations of one’s peers (Roberts, 2014). Through group activities,
discussion a group of five problem solving, a flipped classroom can achieve a high level of
collaborative learning. The flipped classroom also involves a transformation of the teacher’s role. In a
traditional class, the teacher can be described as the “sage on the stage” that presents information in
engaging ways in hopes that students will pay attention and absorb the information (Bergmann,
Overmyer, & Wilie, 2012). The flipped classroom moves away from this idea, placing the teacher in
the role of the “guide on the side” who works with the students to guide them through their individual
learning experiences (Bergmann, Overmyer, & Wilie, 2012). The “guide” role can be illustrated using
Paulo Freire’s idea that education “should not involve one person acting on another, but rather people
working with each other,” (Smith, 2012). There is little research regarding the flipped classroom’s
effects on student learning and overall effectiveness. However, the majority of the research that I
examined involved flipped classrooms at the college level. This differs from middle school or high
school classrooms in difficulty, class size, days and times classes are held, and other factors. One
such study by Strayer 2013, “The effects of the Classroom Flip on the Learning Environment” showed
that students in a flipped classroom environment preferred the method and displayed a higher level of
innovation (being able to solve problems in creative and unique ways) and cooperation (familiarity
with working with others to solve problems and discuss ideas), than students in a traditional
classroom setting. His results also indicate that students in a flipped classroom experience a lower
level of task orientation than students in a traditional classroom (Strayer, 2013).From the results of his
study Strayer gives recommendations for the implementation of the flipped classroom.
One recommendation for implementing a flipped classroom in an introductory course is to provide
step-by-step instructions for classroom activities to create more structure for the students (Strayer,
2013). Another recommendation is to keep open activities short; spending no more than two lessons
on any one activity (Strayer, 2013). According to Strayer, one effect of the flipped classroom is that
students will become more aware of their own learning processes (Strayer, 2008). Because of this
increased awareness, students will need more time to reflect upon their activities to make
connections to the course material (Strayer, 2008).
Another study on the flipped classroom was conducted by Toto and Nguyen. In this flipped
classroom, students watched a 30-minute video lecture prior to going to class. As a result, there was
additional free time in class, which was spent using real-world tools and engaging in practical
applications (Toto & Nguyen, 2009). This classroom was found to have increased student
engagement (Toto & Nguyen, 2009). Furthermore, students had more opportunities to gain a sense
of how the tools and ideas they were leaning are used in the real world (Toto & Nguyen, 2009). The
positive results of this flipped classroom stem from the effective use of class time. To gain a better
understanding of the flipped classroom, I interviewed Dr. Miles Blanton, an instructor in the
department of physics and astronomy at Bowling Green State University. Dr. Blanton has been
implementing a flipped classroom for 2 semesters in his introductory astronomy class and is now my
research advisor. I would describe Dr.Blanton’s flipped classroom as a “flipped-traditional classroom”
since it still resembles the traditional college lecture style classroom in a way. In a flipped classroom,
students watch video lectures as homework and work individually on problems, exercises, and
thought experiments during class time. Dr. Blanton, with the help of two teaching assistants, answers
questions and discusses ideas with students one-on-one or in small groups. Dr. Blanton has collected
data from both his flipped and traditional classrooms (Blanton, 2013).
III. STRATEGY/INTERVENTION
The purpose of this study is to test whether the flipped classroom will be of great help in teaching the
students and for maximum learning experience. The researcher wants to prove its effectiveness not
only for the benefit the students but also for the teachers themselves. The data to be used in this
study will come from the diagnostic test and achievement test to be given before and after the twoweeklong classes of the control and experimental group. The students of section Ravelo of tenth
grade will be the experimental group and another section also from tenth grade will be the controlled
group at Poten and Eliseo Quesada National High School will take part on the study. Both sections
included in the study will be the first two sections in ranking aside from the special science section.
The average number of students in every section is about forty-five. The study is limited in identifying
the pretest and posttest scores of the controlled and experimental group.
This study will determine the effectiveness of flipped classroom to secondary students in Mathematics
subject. Specifically, it will answer the following.
1. What is the performance of the two groups of respondents in the pretest?
1.1 Control group
1.2 Experimental group
2. What is the performance of the two groups of respondents in the posttest?
2.1 Control group
2.2 Experimental group
3. Is there a significant difference between the pretest scores of the control and experimental group?
4. Is there a significant difference between the posttest scores of the control and experimental group?
5. Is there a significant difference between the the pretest and posttest scores of the control and
experimental group?
IV. FINDINGS
The following are the results and the analysis done from the datas.
A. Performance of the Two Groups of Respondents in the Diagnostic Test (Pretest).
The result of the pretest of the two class groups is presented in table 1. Diagnostic test results reveal
that the controlled group has a mean of 7.07 (Sd = 2.32) and the experimental group has a mean of
5.48 (Sd = 1.86) which is a little bit lower.
Table 1
Pretest results of the Controlled and the Experimental Groups Prior to the Experiment
N
Groups
Mean
Standard Deviation
43
Control Group
7.42
2.29
44
Experimental Group
5.52
1.86
The variance results of the 2.29 and 1.86 are not so big which signify that both classes are
heterogeneous; meaning the students were of different level of intelligence. This is indeed a good
baseline since the results suggest that the two sections included in the study are almost the same in
the manner since the scores are scattered. This means that the students grouping are mixed as far
as Mathematical capacity is concern.
B. Performance of the Two Groups of Respondents in the Achievement test Test (Posttest).
The result of the pretest of the two class groups is presented in table 1. Diagnostic test results reveal
that the controlled group has a mean of 13.48 and the experimental group has a mean of 15.41 which
is a little bit lower.
Table 2
Posttest results of the Controlled and the Experimental Groups Prior to the Experiment
N
Groups
Mean
Standard Deviation
43
Control Group
12.88
1.59
44
Experimental Group
15.04
2.22
The variance results of the 1.59 and 2.22 are not so big which signify that both classes are
heterogeneous; meaning the students were of different level of intelligence. This is indeed a good
baseline since the results suggest that the two sections included in the study are almost the same in
the manner since the scores are scattered. This means that the students grouping are mixed as far
as Mathematical capacity is concern.
The results show that the posttest scores of the experimental groups taught with inverted classroom
is better compared to those which were taught using the traditional approach. Observing the standard
deviation, it signifies that the variance of the experimental group was smaller than that of the
controlled group which suggest that the students’ scores were not scattered unlike the pretest result
which means that their scores are almost the same and close to 15. The finding is supported by
Minhas, Ghosh, & Swanzy, (2014) that active learning has been found to produce better grades than
passive learning since the students had more time in hands-on exercises.
C. Classification of students in the controlled and experimental group based on the Pretest and
Posttest Scores Results.
Table 3.1 Classification of Students Before the Inverted Classroom.
Score Range
Classification
f
14 to 20
(+ Sd)
8 to 13
1 to 7
(-1 Sd)
High
Proficiency
Average
Proficiency
Low
Proficiency
TOTAL
DIAGNOSTIC TEST
Control
Experimental
X = 7.07
X = 5.52
%
f
%
0
0
0
0
17
39.53
3
6.98
26
60.47
41
95.35
43
100
44
100
Table 3.1 presents the classification of the students both from the controlled and experimental group
before flipped classroom was implemented. The classification of the students based on the mean and
standard deviation result shows that majority of the learners were on the low proficiency level, others
are in the average proficiency level and none of them reach the high proficiency level, this is evident
for both the controlled and experimental group, however, there is a difference of 14 learners in the
average proficiency level where there are more students in the said level coming from the controlled
group.
Table 3.2 Classification of Students After the Inverted Classroom.
Score Range
Classification
f
14 to 20
(+ Sd)
8 to 13
1 to 7
(-1 Sd)
High
Proficiency
Average
Proficiency
Low
Proficiency
TOTAL
ACHIEVEMENT TEST
Control
Experimental
X = 13.88
X = 15.34
%
f
%
20
46.51
25
56.82
23
53.49
19
43.18
0
0
0
0
43
100
44
100
Table 3.2 presents the classification of the students both from the controlled and experimental group
after flipped classroom was implemented. The classification of the students based on the mean and
standard deviation result shows that majority of the learners from the controlled group were on the
average proficiency level, others are in the high proficiency level and none of them are in the low
proficiency level. The classification of the students based on the mean and standard deviation result
shows that majority of the learners from the experimental group are on the high proficiency level,
others are in the average proficiency level and none of them are in the low proficiency level.
Data suggest that both approach in teaching increased the achievement but remarkable increased
was noted in the experimental group. This improvement in classification of students in both groups
assumes the principle that both groups who are taught by the same teacher with the same lesson
could have a change in intellect if the teacher assigns the students to learn the instruction at home
and allow them to have more time in activities during class hours, that students in a flipped classroom
environment preferred the method and displayed a higher level of innovation (being able to solve
problems in creative and unique ways) and cooperation (familiarity with working with others to solve
problems and discuss ideas) as concluded by Strayer (2013).
D. Results of the significant Difference Between the Pretest Scores of the Controlled and
Experimental Group.
Paired Samples Statistics
Pair 1
Experimental Pretest
Mean
5.5349
N
44
Std. Deviation
1.88160
Std. Error Mean
.28694
Contolled Pretest
7.4186
43
2.29111
.34939
Paired Samples Correlations
Pair 1
Experimental Pretest & Contolled
Pretest
N
43
Correlation
-.175
Sig.
.263
Paired Samples Test
Pair
1
Experimental
Pretest Contolled
Pretest
Mean
-1.8837
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Std.
Interval of the
Std.
Error
Difference
Deviation
Mean
Lower
Upper
3.20869
.48932
-2.8712
-.8962
GROUPS
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Control (pretest)
7.42
2.29
Experimental (pretest)
5.53
1.88
t
-3.85
Sig. (2df tailed)
42 .000
Computed t
Tabular value
at 0.05 level of
Significance
Decision
-3.85
0.000
Ho
Rejected
The tables show a computed t-value of -3.85 at 42 degree of freedom and a p-value of 0.000,
therefore, the hypothesis of no significant diferrence is rejected. There is a significant difference
between the pretest scores of the controlled and experimental group where the controlled group had
a higher mean difference of 1.89, meaning that the controlled group performed better than the
experimental group in the pretest.
The result is good since the chosen controlled group must be a good performer to help prove if
flipped classroom setting is an effective teaching strategy.
D. Results of the significant Difference Between the Posttest Scores of the Controlled and
Experimental Group .
Paired Samples Statistics
Pair 1
Mean
15.0698
12.8837
Experimental Posttest
Controlled Posttest
Pair 1
N
43
43
Std. Deviation
2.24027
1.59178
Paired Samples Correlations
N
Experimental Posttest & Controlled
43
Posttest
Std. Error Mean
.34164
.24274
Correlation
-.104
Sig.
.505
Paired Samples Test
Mean
Pair Experimental
1
Posttest Controlled
Posttest
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Std.
Interval of the
Std.
Error
Difference
Deviation
Mean
Lower
Upper
2.18605
2.88061
43929
GROUPS
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Control (posttest)
Experimental
(posttest)
12.88
1.56
15.07
2.24
1.29953
3.07257
t
Sig. (2df tailed)
4.976 42
.000
Computed t
Tabular value
at 0.05 level of
Significance
Decision
4.98
0.000
Ho
Rejected
The tables show a computed t-value of 4.98 at 42 degree of freedom and a p-value of 0.000,
therefore, the hypothesis of no significant difference is rejected. There is a significant difference
between the posttest scores of the controlled and experimental group where the experimental group
had a higher mean difference of 2.19, meaning that the experimental group performed better than the
controlled group in the posttest
The result is great since the experimental group perform a remarkable mean score of 15.07
compared to the mean score of the controlled group of 12.88 which is 2.99 higher meaning that the
students who went under inverted classroom setting gained a lot as far as intellectual capacity is
concern.
G. Significant Difference Between the Pre-test and Post-test Scores of the Controlled and
Experimental Group.
Paired Samples Statistics
Pair 1
Experimental Pretest
Mean
5.5227
N
44
Std. Deviation
1.86134
Std. Error Mean
.28061
Experimental Posttest
15.0455
44
2.21994
.33467
Paired Samples Correlations
Pair 1
Experimental Pretest & Experimental
Posttest
N
44
Correlation
.534
Sig.
.000
Paired Samples Test
Pair Experimental
Pretest 1
Experimental
Posttest
Mean
9.5227
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Std.
Interval of the
Std.
Error
Difference
Deviation
Mean
Lower
Upper
1.994
.30061 -10.1289 -8.9164
t
-31.68
Sig. (2df tailed)
43 .000
Ho rejected
The tables show a computed t-value of -31.68 at 43 degree of freedom and a p-value of 0.000,
therefore, the hypothesis of no significant difference is rejected. There is a significant
difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the experimental group where the
experimental group had a remarkable mean difference of 9.5227.
Paired Sample Statistics
Pair 1
Contolled Pretest
Controlled Posttest
Mean
7.4186
12.8837
N
43
43
Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
2.29111
.34939
1.59178
.24274
Paired Samples Correlations
Pair 1
Contolled Pretest & Controlled
Posttest
N
Correlation
Sig.
43
.392
.009
Paired Samples Test
Pair Control
Pretest 1
Control
Posttest
Mean
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Std.
Interval of the
Std.
Error
Difference
Deviation
Mean
Lower
Upper
-5.465
2.21842
.33831
-6.148
-4.782
t
df
Sig. (2tailed)
-16.15
42
.000
Ho rejected
The tables show a computed t-value of -16.15 at 42 degree of freedom and a p-value of 0.000,
therefore, the hypothesis of no significant difference is rejected. There is a significant difference
between the pretest and posttest scores of the controlled group where the controlled group had a
remarkable mean difference of 5.465.
Although both the controlled and experimental group made their posttest significantly higher, the
experimental group who practiced inverted classroom setting made its mean higher by 9.5227
compared to the 5.465 mean increase made by the controlled group.
The following are the findings of this action research.
1. The mean scores of both control (7.4186, SD = 2.29111) and the experimental (5.5227, SD =
1.86134) with computed t of -3.850 at 42 degree of freedom in the pretest significantly differ based on
the p-value of 0.000.
2. The mean score of both the control (12.8837, SD = 1.59178) and the experimental (15.0455, SD =
2.21994) with computed of 4.976 at 42 degree offreedom in the posttest significantly differ based on
the p-value of 0.000.
3. The mean score of the control group (7.4186, SD = 2.29111) in the pretest and (12.8837, SD =
1.59178) in the posttest with computed t of -16.154 at 42 degree of freedom significantly differ based
on the p-value of 0.000.
4. The mean score of the experimental group (5.5227, SD = 1.86134) in the pretest and (15.0455, SD
= 2.21994) in the posttest with computed t of -31.678 at 43 degree of freedom significantly differ
based on the p-value of 0.000.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings, the following conclusions are made:
1. The pretest scores of both the control and experimental group significantly differ.
2. The posttest scores of both the control and experimental group significantly differ.
3. The pretest score and the posttest score of the control group significantly differ.
4. The pretest score and the posttest score of the experimental group significantly differ with a
remarkable increase in mean scores.
5. The use of flipped classroom is an effective teaching strategy base of the remarkable progress of
the experimental group compared to the control group.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Flipped classroom should be used as one of the effective teaching strategies in educating the
students because it improved their performance.
2. Teachers should be given freedom to use gadgets and access to the internet once in a while to
utilize effective and modern teaching strategies in mentoring the students.
3. Although majority of the students in public school are in the poverty line, they should be given the
chance to make use of modern ways in educational progress at home or in internet shops outside the
school so that they will have more time to do more activities during class hours.
4. This action research should be continued.
REFERENCES
Matthew R. Bell (2015) An Investigation of the Impact of a Flipped Classroom Instructional Approach
on High School Students' Content Knowledge and Atttudes Toward the Learning Environment.
K to 12 Curriculum Guide, www.deped.gov.ph
(Ultanir, 2016) Constructivist Learning.
Strayer (2013) The effects of the Classroom Flip on the Learning Environment.
Zamzami Zainuddin and Siti Hajar Halili (2016) Flipped Classroom Research and Trends from
Different Fields of Study, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2274/3699
Jacqueline O'FlahertyaCraigPhillipsb(2015)The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A
scoping review, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751615000056
Mary Beth Gilboy, PhD, RDN et. al (2014) Enhancing Student Engagement Using the Flipped
Classroom, https://www.jneb.org/article/S1499-4046(14)00638-1/abstract
MK Kim, SM Kim, O Khera, J Getman (2014) The Internet and Higher Education, 2014
- Elsevier The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: an
exploration of design principles
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751614000219
NB Milman (2012) The flipped classroom strategy: What is it and how can it best be
used?

Randall S. Davies et.al (2014) Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a
college-level information systems spreadsheet course,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6
V. DECISION
I will continue using the strategy/approach because more than half of my students have shown very
high scores in sequences after two weeks of implementing flipped classroom on the experimental
group.
The approach/intervention I used worked well because of the help of technology specifically the
internet, smartphones or tablets used by the experimental group to watch the videos, the enough time
to conduct the research and with the help of God.
Presented by:
MARLON A. MACAWILI
Mathematics Teacher
Presented to:
SOLOMON B. KAHULUGAN
District Supervisor