Flipped Classroom (FC) has been gaining prominence in recent years and multiple articles have appeared that highlight its ability to increase the academic performance of the students who use it. This research asks how students' academic outcomes vary when using FC compared to traditional class based on their learning style. The sample used to carry out the research were two groups of 3rd level of Secondary Education who took math classes using FC during a quarter. The methodology used has been quantitative, at the beginning of the quarter all students took a questionnaire to determine their learning style (CHAEA questionnaire) and also, before and after each topic, conducted evaluation tests. The results show that students improve their academic performance by using FC compared to the traditional class; however, this improvement is not statistically significant. When we focus on the different learning styles, different results appear depending on the block of mathematical content treated and the active style is the one that gets the best results. The main contribution of this research lies in the study of the correlation between academic results and the learning style of each student.
The FC is a pedagogical model that is based on the investment of time and the role
of students and the teacher [
On the other hand, learning styles in education is one of the most studied fields, but
there is no universal definition of this concept [
Students are a source of basic information to assess the quality, relevance and
fairness of their training, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the learning
process [
The objective of this research is to analyze the results of students' assessments based on the learning style.
This research raises the following hypotheses:
H1- The academic results of students with active learning style when using the FC get better results than students who follow the traditional class.
H2- Students' learning style conditions their academic performance when using FC compared to traditional class.
The FC began to become known from 2007, when two teachers Jonathan Bergman
and Aarom Sams professors of chemistry at Woodland Park High School in Colorado,
video-posted Power Point presentations from their classes and published them online,
for students who could not attend class. His surprise was that his videos went viral
and many students began to watch them [
Regarding the academic performance, you get from using FC instead of the
traditional class in the ESO math area, most research supports that they increase. An
example of this is the research of [
In relation to learning styles, there have been many attempts by researchers to
define them [
[
A study conducted by [
A quantitative approach has been used in this research. The scope of the research is correlational, in claiming to know the relationship between the learning style of the students and their academic performance when using the FC.
The participants in this research have been two groups of 3rd Compulsory Secondary Education (ESO) of the Ermengol IV Institute of the town of Bellcaire d'Urgell in Spain. The class A of 3rd level of secondary school A had 19 students and the class B with 18 students, of which 62% were girls and 38% were boys. The components of the classes did not vary throughout the research, and were already created at the start and were homogeneous. Students used FC throughout the first trimester of the course in math classes.
The instruments used have been a questionnaire and evaluation tests. On the one hand, the Honey-Alonso Learning Styles Questionnaire (CHAEA) consisting of 80 questions (20 items for each of the four learning styles) to which it responds dichotomy way by expressing whether you agree or disagree. The maximum score in each style (Active, Reflective, Theoretical and Pragmatic) is 20. At the start of the quarter, all students took the CHAEA questionnaire to determine their learning style.
In 1988 Honey and Mumford created the LSQ (Learning Styles Questionnaire),
detecting four learning styles: Active, Reflective, Theoretical and Pragmatic. This
four styles were took it by CHAEA (Honey-Alonso Questionnaire on Learning
Styles) [
On the other hand, the evaluation tests consisted of ten questions related to the knowledge acquired by students on the subject to be addressed at one point each. A pre-evaluation (Pretest) and a final evaluation (Postest) were performed on each topic. The evidence contained the same questions only varied the figures contained in the advertised ones. Also after 4 months of carrying out the final evaluation of item 1 they were again asked to perform the same test, to see how their knowledge of topic 1 had varied over time. In this case we had a pretest, pre-evaluation and two postest, final evaluation and evaluation after 4 months.
Three topics were made from different blocks of the math subject. Item 1: Fractions, belonging to the numbering and calculation block; topic 2: Geometric places, block space and shapes and theme 3: Polynomials, block changes and relationships.
In topic 1 the students of 3rd ESO A used the master class and those of 3rd ESO B the FC methodology. In the next topic, they changed and the students of 3rd ESO A were the ones who used the FC and the 3rd ESO B master class.
Before each class, students of FC group had to watch at home a video of a maximum of 10 minutes, made by the teacher and with content of the subject. The videos were available in Moodle and were posted on the Edpuzzle page, which allowed the videos to contain questions and not be advanced.
Once in class they had to ask questions and doubts that had arisen from the video seen at home. After students were placed in groups of four (the members changed in each new topic) and carried out activities related to the contents seen at home. After every activity, a volunteer exhibited his solution on the board and the teacher corrected it and commented for all students.
Below are the academic results obtained by students according to their learning style. To achieve this, students have previously been divided among the four styles from their responses to the CHAEA questionnaire. All 37 students answered the questionnaires, of which 62% were girls and 38% were boys.
Increase +2,98 (+59,24%) +3,65 (+85,08%) +3,15 (+59,32%) +2,68 (+49,17%) +2,21 (+37,58%) +2,29 (+37,47%) TOTAL 4,68 4,76 5,16 5,09 7,95 8,01 8,10 8,11 +3,27 (+69,87%) +3,25 (+68,27%) +2,93 (+56,97 %) +3,02 (+59,33 %)
The first two columns in Table 3 correspond to the T-Students test for separate samples and all their values are p>0.05, so the results of the two groups do not differ either in the pretest or postest. This implies that, by not differing in prestest, they are comparable groups. However, not differing in postest means that the differences in results obtained by experimental or control groups are not statistically significant. Still, it is true that those who used FC get a bigger increase.
If you look at the results obtained by the students in each of the different types of learning (table 2), we can see that the active students are the ones who get the most increase when using the FC. They start on average 4.29 and reach 7.94 increasing by 3.65 points (85.08%), while the control group is on average 5.03 and reaches 8.01, an increase of 2.98 points (59.24%). The active type group when using the FC achieves an increment of 0.67, on average, higher than the control group.
In theoretical and pragmatic students the difference in results between the control and experimental group is very small, does not exceed 1%; in these cases, the use of the FC has given the same result as the traditional class. Finally, in reflexive types it has been the control group that has obtained the best results, 0.47 points of higher average in the increase than the experimental group.
The last two columns in Table 3 show the results of the T-Students test for related samples. In all cases the results have been p<0.05, this implies that the difference in notes between the pretest and postest obtained are not the result of chance, they are statistically significant. Therefore, the improvement of the notes is due to the use of the FC and of the traditional class, in each case. Active Style
All and this difference of more than one point, the results of the T-Students test (table 5) tell us that the differences in results obtained are not statistically significant. As in topic 1 the T-Students in the pretest and postest is p>0.05 and the differences in notes between the pretest and postest obtained are statistically significant.
In Table 3 we can see that the active, theoretical and pragmatic types, which used the FC, double the average obtained in the previous evaluation. Moreover, in the case of the reflective type they get 1.62 points more increase from the control group, that is, their grade improves by 42.33% compared to what increases that of the control group.
Thus, in the topic of geometric places belonging to the space and shape block, all styles except the asset surpass the control group, highlighting the reflective style students who get the most increase from the control group. Active Style When performing the T-Students test for separate samples and related samples (table 7) we get the same results as in the previous topics. That is, the valuations of the control and experimental group do not differ between them in both prestest and postest and the difference in notes between the pretest and postest obtained by each group are statistically significant. Reflective Style Theoretical Style Pragmatic Style
TOTAL 6,89 6,51 6,84 7,18 7,30 8,27 6,84 7,28 6,95 7,23
pre-evaluation +1,86 (+36,97 %) +2,21 (+51,74 %) +1,53 (+28,81 %) +1,73 (+31,74 %) +1,43 (+24,14 %) +2,16 (+35,35 %) +2,16 (+46,15 %) +2,52 (+52,94 %) +1,79 (+34,68 %) +2,14 (+42,04 %) final evaluation -1,11 (-13,98 %) -1,43 (-18,01 %) -1,63 (-19,14 %) -0,96 (-11,68 %) -0,79 (-9,76 %) -0,13 (-1,54 %) -1,11 (-13,96 %) -0,73 (-9,11 %) -1,15 (-14,19 %) -0,87 (-10,85 %)
Table 8 shows the results of the evaluation of item 1 made after 4 months of final evaluation. Students who used FC in topic 1 (3rd level A) with respect to the previous assessment have increased by 2.14 points (42.04%) and in contrast those of the control group by 1.79 (34.68%), obtaining a 7.36% increase in the experimental group. In relation to the final evaluation, the students in the control group decreased by 1.15 points (14.19%) and the DSs lost an average of 0.87 points (10.85%), 3.34% less loss. Thus, we can say that the assessments of the knowledge of the students who used the FC in topic 1 after 4 months are better than those of the control group.
The results obtained by FC students are better than those obtained by the control group, when compared with results of the previous evaluation. Highlighting those of an active type with an increase of 14.77% more than that obtained by the control group. In relation to the final evaluation, all styles in the sense of the asset have a smaller difference in the FC than in the traditional class. The most significant is the case of the theoretical type that only decreases by 0.13 points (1.54 %) what was achieved in the final evaluation. When performing the T-Students test for separate samples and related samples (table 9) we get the same results as in the previous topics. Pragmatic Style TOTAL
The results show that students using the FC have a greater increase in the
evaluation, of prestest with respect to postest, than those using the traditional
methodology. These results in the evaluation are consistent with those obtained in
different researches of the FC and the mathematics carried out by [
On the other hand, we find that the results show that these differences in the
academic performance of the students who used the FC or the traditional
methodology are not statistically significant. Therefore, we cannot categorically
affirm that they are the result of the use of FC, all and appear in the different topics
and in the two groups. It should be noted that the control group and the experimental
group has been changing in each topic, and in all cases, the experimental group has
obtained better academic results. These results can also be found in other researches
such as that conducted by [
Two hypotheses had been raised in this research, the first saying that the academic results of students with active learning style when using the FC get better results than students who follow the traditional class.
Indeed, the results have shown that in the different topics of mathematics the students who have used the FC have obtained better results in the postest and a greater increase from the pretest than the students who used the traditional class. In addition, the ones that have been the most active learning style students. In item 2 (Geometric Places) is where this difference was greatest, the control group averaged 6.84 and the experimental group by 7.55, which means a difference of 0.77 points on average (10.38% increase). Also in this topic 2 the increase experienced by the experimental group between the prestest and postets was +3.96 points (+100.30 %) +2.92 points (+74.93%) that the students of the control group obtained on average, thus improving by 25.37% more.
It was also found that the use of the FC provides greater assimilation of long-term content. Since in the postest of topic 1 performed 4 months after finishing topic 1, students who used FC obtained a higher average grade and a greater increase from the first test pretest than the students in the control group as shown in the results.
The second hypothesis was that students' learning style conditions their academic performance when using FC compared to traditional class.
As seen in the results, students' academic performance has varied according to their learning style. In topic 1 (Fractions) the postest results were very similar, but not so the increase experienced between the pretest and the postest. Active students using the FC achieved a 25.84% increase than those in the master class. In contrast, in the item 2, (Geometric Places) students who used reflexive type FC scored an average of 18.65% more score than those in the control group, and a 42.33% increase between pretest and postest. In topic 3 (polynomials) again active-style FC students are the ones who achieved the best results, obtaining 26.46% more average postest score than those of the master class of the same style. Finally, in the postest of topic 1, conducted 4 months later, the FC students of theoretical style were the ones who made the most difference from those of the traditional class with an increase of 13.28% more.
We can see that active-style students are the ones who, when using the FC, improve their academic performance more than those who use the master class. In addition, that those of theoretical style when using the FC are the ones that best retain knowledge over time.
The results obtained in this research will allow teachers to have an approximate idea of which type of students get the best academic performance when using FC. Helping to make the decision to use the FC, with a certain group of students, in the event that you are considering it. For example, if an active learning style predominates in your class, you will get better academic performance when using FC than if reflective-style students predominate.
The research has limitations related to the sample size; the class of 3rd level A had 19 students and the 3rd level B 18 students. In addition, the time students have been using the FC has been reduced, one quarter. That is why it would be interesting to replicate research with more students and for longer. A post-test was also planned after 4 months under topics 2 and 3, but the 2020 pandemic situation prevented it.