, Volume 62, Issue 2, pp 176–183 | Cite as

Performance and Motivation in a Middle School Flipped Learning Course

  • Joshua W. Winter
Original Paper


Flipped learning is a teaching approach that promotes collaboration by using technology to ‘flip’ traditional instruction. Content is delivered outside of class in the individual space (online) and the group space (classroom) is used to engage in collaborative activities. Flipped learning shifts the teacher’s role toward facilitation. Research on flipped learning is limited, in that studies are mostly conducted in postsecondary classrooms. My study investigated a middle school classroom – focusing on a 6th grade social studies course at a K-12 private school in Hawai’i. My purpose was to identify the relationship between student motivation and performance in a flipped learning course. Following an eight-week unit of study, performance data was collected and a Likert-type survey was administered. Significant differences in survey responses between performance levels revealed that the technology-based content in flipped learning may lead to increased motivation and improved performance. Also, my findings suggest flipped learning benefits average achieving students through differentiated instruction. My study was designed to influence middle school practice but can apply to other educational levels. Practical implications include designing learning spaces to maximize student engagement and incorporating learner-appropriate strategies with flipped learning. Future research should focus on learning space design in different K-12 environments.


Flipped learning Middle school Motivation 


  1. Amaral, M. (2013). You wanna talk about flipping classrooms? Retrieved from
  2. Association for Middle Level Education. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville: Association for Middle Level Education.Google Scholar
  3. Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227–236. Scholar
  4. Baker J. W. (2000). The “classroom flip”: Using web course management tools to become the guide by the side. In Chambers J. A. (Ed.), Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on College Teaching and Learning (11th, Jacksonville, Florida, April 12-15, 2000) (pp. 9–17). Jacksonville, FL: Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning.Google Scholar
  5. Barak, M., & Asad, K. (2012). Teaching image-processing concepts in junior high school: Boys’ and girls’ achievements and attitudes towards technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(1), 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belland, B. R. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: the impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(3), 285–309. Scholar
  7. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, Oregon: International Society for Technology in Education; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  8. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2016). Flipped learning for elementary instruction. Eugene, Oregon: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  9. Berrett, D. (2012). How “flipping” the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. Education Digest, 78(1), 36–41.Google Scholar
  10. Biesta, G., & Burbules, N. C. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  11. Bishop, J., & Verleger, M. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In Presented at the 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Atlanta: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
  12. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. Washington: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.Google Scholar
  13. Borrmann, J. (2014). Affordances of flipped learning and its effects on student engagement and achievement. (Masters Thesis), University of Northern Iowa.Google Scholar
  14. Boster, F. J., Meyer, G. S., Roberto, A. J., Inge, C., & Strom, R. (2006). Some effects of video streaming on educational achievement. Communication Education, 55(1), 46–62. Scholar
  15. Boster, F. J., Meyer, G. S., Roberto, A. J., Lindsey, L., Smith, R., Inge, C., & Strom, R. E. (2007). The impact of video streaming on mathematics performance. Communication Education, 56(2), 134–144. Scholar
  16. Bouwmeester, R. A. M., Kleijn, R. A. M., Cate, O. T. J., Rijen, H. V. M., & Westerveld, H. E. (2015). How do medical students prepare for flipped classrooms? Medical Science Educator, 26(1), 53–60. Scholar
  17. Brodhagen, B., & Gorud, S. (2012). Multiple learning approaches: Educators use multiple learning and teaching approaches. In This we believe in action: Implementing successful middle level schools (pp. 47–62). Westerville: Association for Middle Level Education.Google Scholar
  18. Chipps, J. (2013). The effectiveness of using online instructional videos with group problem solving to flip the calculus classroom. (Master’s thesis), California State University, Northridge. Retrieved from
  19. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning by viewing versus learning by doing: Evidence-based guidelines for principled learning environments. Performance Improvement, 47(9), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Day, J. A., & Foley, J. D. (2006). Evaluating a web lecture intervention in a human-computer interaction course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(4), 420–431. Scholar
  21. DeSantis, J., Van Curen, R., Putsch, J., & Metzger, J. (2015). Do students learn more from a flip? An exploration of the efficacy of flipped and traditional lessons. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 26(1), 39–63.Google Scholar
  22. Devereux, F. L. (1933). The educational talking picture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Downes, J. M., & Bishop, P. A. (2015). The intersection between 1:1 laptop implementation and the characteristics of effective middle level schools. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 38(7). Retrieved from
  24. Flanagan, S., Bouck, E. C., & Richardson, J. (2013). Middle school special education teachers’ perceptions and use of assistive technology in literacy instruction. Assistive Technology: The Official Journal of RESNA, 25(1), 24–30. Scholar
  25. Fleetwood, A. (2013). Determining effective instructional strategies for attitudes and achievement of middle school social studies students (Order No. 3565653). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1413325853).Google Scholar
  26. Flipped Learning Network. (2014). The four pillars of F-L-I-P. Retrieved from
  27. Foertsch, J., Moses, G., Strikwerda, J., & Litzkow, M. (2002). Reversing the lecture/homework paradigm using eTEACH web-based streaming video software. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(3), 267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Foss, E., Guha, M. L., Papadatos, P., Clegg, T., Yip, J., & Walsh, G. (2013). Cooperative inquiry extended: Creating technology with middle school students with learning differences. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28(3), 33–46. Scholar
  29. Godzicki, L., Godzicki, N., Krofel, M., & Michaels, R. (2013). Increasing motivation and engagement in elementary and middle school students through technology-supported learning environments. (Master’s thesis), Saint Xavier University, Chicago. Retrieved from
  30. Gough, E., Dejong, D., Grundmeyer, T., & Baron, M. (2017). K-12 teacher perceptions regarding the flipped classroom model for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 45(3), 390–423. Scholar
  31. Hao, Y. (2016). Middle school students’ flipped learning readiness in foreign language classrooms: Exploring its relationship with personal characteristics and individual circumstances. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 295–303. Scholar
  32. Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520. Scholar
  33. Housand, B. C., & Housand, A. M. (2012). The role of technology in gifted students’ motivation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 706–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jacobs, G. E. (2013). Rethinking common assumptions about adolescents’ motivation to use technology in and out of school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(4), 271–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., & Godoy, P. D. d. M. (2015). Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(1), ar5.
  36. Kay, R. (2013). Evaluating the instructional architecture of web-based learning tools (WBLTs): Direct instruction vs. constructivism revisited. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 24(1), 33–51.Google Scholar
  37. Kim, C., Park, S. W., Cozart, J., & Lee, H. (2015). From motivation to engagement: The role of effort regulation of virtual high school students in mathematics courses. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 261–272.Google Scholar
  38. Kirvan, R., Rakes, C. R., & Zamora, R. (2015). Flipping an algebra classroom: analyzing, modeling, and solving systems of linear equations. Computers in the Schools, 32(3–4), 201–223. Scholar
  39. Kostaris, C., Sergis, S., Sampson, D. G., Giannakos, M. Ν., & Pelliccione, L. (2017). Investigating the potential of the flipped classroom model in K-12 ICT teaching and learning: an action research study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 261–273.Google Scholar
  40. Koutropoulos, A. (2011). Digital natives: Ten years after. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 525–538.Google Scholar
  41. Kulo, V., & Bodzin, A. (2013). The impact of a geospatial technology-supported energy curriculum on middle school students’ science achievement. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(1), 25–36. Scholar
  42. Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leutner, D. (2014). Motivation and emotion as mediators in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 174–175. Scholar
  44. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mayer, R. E. (2011). Towards a science of motivated learning in technology-supported environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 59(2), 301–308. Scholar
  46. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Incorporating motivation into multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 171–173. Scholar
  47. Mazur, E. (1991). Can we teach computers to teach? Computers in Physics, 5(January/February), 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McTigue, E. M. (2009). Does multimedia learning theory extend to middle-school students? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moreno, R. (2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(3), 149–158. Scholar
  50. National Council for the Social Studies. (2010). National curriculum standards for social studies: a framework for teaching, learning and assessment. Silver Spring: National Council for the Social Studies.Google Scholar
  51. O’Flaherty, J., Phillips, C., Karanicolas, S., Snelling, C., & Winning, T. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95. Scholar
  52. Pattison, E., Grodsky, E., & Muller, C. (2013). Is the sky falling? grade inflation and the signaling power of grades. Educational Researcher, 42(5), 259–265. Scholar
  53. Potter, N. W., Kasdon, L. M., & Rayson, A. (2003). History of the Hawaiian kingdom. Honolulu: Bess Press.Google Scholar
  54. Pursel, B., & Fang, H.-N. (2012). Lecture capture: Current research and future directions. The schreyer institute for teaching excellence, The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from
  55. Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57–67. Scholar
  56. Ross, E. W. (2014). The social studies curriculum: purposes, problems, and possibilities (475th ed.). SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  57. Saettler, L. P. (1967). A history of instructional technology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  58. Sfard, A. (2009). Moving between discourses: From learning-as-acquisition to learning-as-participation. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1179(1), 55–58. Scholar
  59. Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. R. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  60. Wang, S.-K., Hsu, H.-Y., Campbell, T., Coster, D. C., & Longhurst, M. (2014). An investigation of middle school science teachers and students use of technology inside and outside of classrooms: Considering whether digital natives are more technology savvy than their teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(6), 637–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wormeli, R. (2006). Fair isn’t always equal assessing & grading in the differentiated classroom. Portland: Stenhouse; National Middle School Assoc. Retrieved from
  62. Yoshida, H. (2016). Perceived usefulness of “flipped learning” on instructional design for elementary and secondary education: with focus on pre-service teacher education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(6), 430–434. Scholar
  63. Youngbauer, V. W. (2013). Application of media literacy and cultural studies in K–12 social studies curricula. The Social Studies, 104(5), 183–189. Scholar
  64. Zainuddin, Z., & Halili, S. H. (2016). Flipped classroom research and trends from different fields of study. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 313–340.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Hawai’i at MānoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations