Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 149–171 | Cite as

The affordances of using a flipped classroom approach in the teaching of mathematics: a case study of a grade 10 mathematics class

  • Tracey MuirEmail author
  • Vince Geiger
Original Article


Teaching secondary mathematics has a number of challenges, including the expectations that teachers cover the prescribed curriculum, help students learn difficult concepts, prepare students for future studies, and, increasingly, that they do so incorporating digital technologies. This study investigates a teacher’s, and his students’, perceptions of the benefits or otherwise of a flipped classroom approach in meeting these challenges, within a prescribed curriculum context. Data collection instruments included a survey designed to investigate the nature of students’ engagement with the flipped approach and semi-structured student and teacher interviews. Analysis of these data indicated that the teacher and students were positive about their experiences with a flipped classroom approach and that students were motivated to engage with the teacher-created online mathematics resources. The study adds to the limited research literature related to student and teacher perceptions of the affordances of the flipped classroom approach and has implications for secondary mathematics teachers who face the challenge of the twin demands of covering the prescribed curriculum and catering for a range of students’ learning needs.


Digital technologies Flipped classroom Technology Adolescents Engagement Mathematics 


Compliance with ethical standards

The students indicated at the end of the survey that they would be willing to participate in an interview, and all had received written parental consent to do so. Ethical approval was granted for the research.


  1. Abeyseker, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attard, C., & Curry, C. (2012). Exploring the use of iPads to engage young students with mathematics. In J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics education: Expanding horizons (Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 75–82). Singapore: MERGA.Google Scholar
  3. Bergman, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class everyday. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  4. Bergman, J., Overmyer, J., & Wilie, B. (2013). The flipped class: What it is and what it is not. Retrieved from Scholar
  5. Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research methods (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Civil, M. (2006). Working towards equity in mathematics education: a focus on learners, teachers, and parents. In S. Alatorre, J. L. Cortina, M. Sáiz, & A. Méndez (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty Eighth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, 30-50). Mérida, Mexico: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.Google Scholar
  7. Cole, M., Field, H., & Harris, S. (2004). Student learning motivation and psychological hardiness: interactive effects on students’ reactions to a management class. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(1), 64–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Drijvers, P., & Weigand, H. (2010). The role of handheld technology in the mathematics classroom. ZDM, 42(7), 665–666. doi: 10.1007/s11858-010-0285-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferrara, F., Pratt, D., & Robutta, O. (2006). The role and uses of technologies for the teaching of algebra and calculus. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: past, present and future (pp. 237–273). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Flipped Learning Network (FLN). (2014). The four pillars of F-L-I-P. Retrieved from
  13. Flipped Learning Network (FLN). (2015). Speak up national research project findings. Retrieved from
  14. Fredericks, J. A., Blumfield, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: flip your classroom to improve student learning. In Learning & Leading With Technology (June/July 2012) (pp. 12–17).Google Scholar
  16. Gadanidis, G., & Geiger, V. (2010). A social perspective on technology enhanced mathematical learning – from collaboration to performance. ZDM – The International Journal in Mathematics Education, 42(1), 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geiger, V. (2011). Factors affecting teachers’ adoption of innovative practices with technology and mathematical modelling. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in the teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 305–314). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geiger, V., Faragher, R., & Goos, M. (2010). CAS-enabled technologies as ‘agents provocateurs’ in teaching and learning mathematical modelling in secondary school classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(2), 48–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geiger, V., Forgasz, H., Calder, N., Tan, H., & Hill, J. (2012). Technology in mathematics education. In R. Perry & T. Lowrie (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2008-2011 (pp. 111–142). Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geiger, V., Goos, M., & Dole, S. (2015). The role of digital technologies in numeracy teaching and learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 1115–1137. doi: 10.1007/s10763-014-9530-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goos, M., & Geiger, V. (2012). Connecting social perspectives on mathematics teacher education in online environments. ZDM – The International Journal in Mathematics Education, 44(6), 705–715. doi: 10.1007/s11858-012-0441-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., & Geiger, V. (2000). Re-shaping teacher and student roles in technology enriched classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12, 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenwood, D., Woolley, S., Vaughan, J., & Goodman, J. (2014). Essential mathematics for the Australian curriculum year 10 and 10A. Cambridge: Port Melbourne, Vic.Google Scholar
  24. Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K. (2013). A review of flipped learning. Retrieved from Scholar
  25. Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62–66.Google Scholar
  26. Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J.-B. (2010). Introduction. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain (pp. 1–11). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2003). What can digital technologies take from and bring to research in mathematics education? In A. J. Bishop (Ed.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 323–349). Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kieran, C., & Guzma’n, J. (2005). Five steps to zero: students developing elementary number theory concepts when using calculators. In W. J. Masalski & P. C. Elliott (Eds.), Technology-supported mathematics learning environments (pp. 35–50). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  29. Laborde, C., Kynigos, C., Hollebrands, K., & Straesser, R. (2006). Teaching and learning geometry with technology. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 275–304). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Larkin, K., & Jorgensen, R. (2015). ‘I hate maths: Why do we need to do maths?’ Using iPad video diaries to investigate attitudes and emotions towards mathematics in Year 3 and Year 6 students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-20. doi:  10.1007/s10763-015-9621-x
  31. Lesh, R., & English, L. (2005). Trends in the evolution of models and modeling perspectives on mathematical learning and problem solving. ZDM Mathematics Education, 37(6), 487–489. doi: 10.1007/bf02655857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Muir, T. (2014). Google, Mathletics and Khan Academy: students’ self-initiated use of online mathematical resources. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(4), 833–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Muir, T. (2015). Student and parent perspectives on flipping the mathematics classroom. In M. Marshman, V. Geiger, & A. Bennison (Eds.), Mathematics education in the margins (Proceedings of the 38 th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 445–452). Sunshine Coast: MERGA.Google Scholar
  34. Muir, T., & Chick, H. (2014). Flipping the classroom: a case study of a mathematics methods class. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Curriculum in focus: Research guided practice (Proceedings of the 37 th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 485–492). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  35. O’Leary, Z. (2010). The essential guide to doing your research project. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Pearson Inc. (2013). Pearson, Inc. 2013 Flipped learning model increases student engagement and performance. Retrieved from http/ Scholar
  37. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Srivastava, P. (2009). A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 76–84.Google Scholar
  41. Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environmental Research, 15, 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Xu, J., & Wu, H. (2013). Self-regulation of homework behaviour: Homework management at the secondary school level. The Journal of Educational Research, 106, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yarbro, J., Arfstrom, K. M., McKnight, K., & McKnight, P. (2014). Extension of a review of flipped learning.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of TasmaniaLauncestonAustralia
  2. 2.Australian Catholic UniversityBanyoAustralia

Personalised recommendations