Flipped Classroom Implementation and Student Engagement in Secondary School Biology Instruction in Nigeria: A Quasi-Experimental Study

The traditional method of delivering lectures in secondary-level biology remains associated with low learner engagement, particularly when the curriculum is heavy, making active learning difficult. The flipped classroom strategy, which uses digital media to deliver instruction before class while class time is allocated to investigation activities, has been adopted as one of the most preferred educational reform strategies. The study used a quasi-experimental, non-equivalent pre-test-post-test control group design, involving 94 students (48 in the experimental group and 46 in the control group) over 12 weeks from two intact secondary school classes. Results of an independent-samples t-test showed statistically significant differences in favor of the flipped classroom on all measures of engagement, including behavioral engagement (t(92) = 6.04, p < .001, d = 1.25), emotional engagement (t(92) = 4.43, p < .001, d = 0.91), and cognitive engagement (t(92) = 4.13, p < .001, d = 0.85). Biology achievement gains were also significantly greater among participants in the experimental condition (t(92) = 5.34, p < .001, d = 1.10). ANCOVA also showed significant between-group differences on all outcomes while controlling for pre-test scores. Qualitative data revealed that learners appreciated autonomy, cooperative problem-solving, and quick feedback; however, they initially experienced some technology anxiety. The flipped classroom model can positively impact student engagement and academic success in secondary biology classes. Thus, implementing constructivist pedagogies with technology in secondary science education can be supported if the proper infrastructure is in place.

Education

1. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges.Computers & Education, 126, 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Beyene, A. D., & Deneke, D. T. (2023). Impact of guided inquiry-based laboratory experiments enriched instruction on secondary school students' attitudes toward biology. BMC Psychology, 11(1), Article 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01089-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bhagat, K. K., Chang, C.-N., & Chang, C.-Y. (2016). The impact of the flipped classroom on mathematics concept learning in high school. Educational Technology and Society, 19(3), 134–142. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. Proceedings of the 120th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 1–18. American Society for Engineering Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Bond, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through the flipped learning approach in K-12: A systematic review.Computers & Education, 151, 103819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103819 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Bozdağ, H. C., Türkoğuz, S., & Gökler, İ. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of studies on the Flipped Classroom Model in biology teaching. Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia, 7(3), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v7i3.16540 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Deneke, D. T., & Beyene, A. D. (2026). Effect of guided inquiry with the 5E model on students' engagement in biology at secondary schools in Mattu town, Southwest Ethiopia. Discover Education, 5(1), Article 42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-01249-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Egbosimba, C. I., Olusegun, A. O., Amanda, W. M.,(2025). Curriculum Reforms for Quality and Career Readiness: A Pathway to Transforming Nigerian Higher Education. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, ISSN: 2456-6470, (9-6), pp.743-752, https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd97510.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Erbil, D. G. (2020). A review of flipped classroom and cooperative learning method within the context of Vygotsky theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1157. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01157 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2018). Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: A meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education, 18, Article 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1144-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Jong, M. S.-Y., Chen, G., Tam, V., Hue, M.-T., & Chen, M. (2022). Design-based research on teacher facilitation in a pedagogic integration of flipped learning and social enquiry learning. Sustainability, 14(2), Article 996. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020996 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Lee, S. M., & Patel, R. (2024). Peer instruction in secondary and postsecondary STEM: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 61(4), 845–876. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21912 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Lundin, M., Rensfeldt, A. B., Hillman, T., Lantz-Andersson, A., & Peterson, L. (2018). Higher education dominance and siloed knowledge: A systematic review of flipped classroom research. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, Article 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0101-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Malto, G. A. O., Dalida, C. S., & Lagunzad, C. G. B. (2018). Flipped classroom approach in teaching biology: Assessing students' academic achievement and attitude towards Biology. KnE Social Sciences, 3(6), 540–554. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i6.2403 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Malto, G. A. O., Dalida, C. S., & Lagunzad, C. G. B. (2018). Flipped classroom approach in teaching biology: Assessing students' academic achievement and attitude towards Biology. KnE Social Sciences, 3(6), 540–554. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i6.2403 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.). (2022). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning(3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2022). Cognitive load theory: Implications for teaching and learning. In R. E. Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 37–53). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students' engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Reeve, J., Cheon, S. H., & Jang, H. (2020). A unified investigation of the direct and indirect effects of teacher enthusiasm on student engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101857 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2019). Brick by brick: The origins, development, and future of self-determination theory. Advances in Motivation Science, 6, 111–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2019.01.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory: Advances in research on worked examples, animations, and cognitive load measurement. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 611–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09558-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintrón, D. L., Cooper, J. D., Dunster, G., Grummer, J. A., Hennessey, K., Hsiao, J., Iranon, N., Jones, L., Jordt, H., Keller, M., Lacey, M. E., Littlefield, C. E., ... Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion, 44(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Waldrop, T. B., Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., & McGough, K. (2019). The development and validation of a brief version of the Student Engagement Instrument for secondary students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(3), 428–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164418813582 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.10.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Waxman, J. B., & Goldie, S. J. (2023). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning: Perspectives from the CHDS Media Hub. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Wright, G. W. (2022). The effects of flipped classrooms on K-16 students' science and math achievement: A systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 58(1), 95–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.2015342 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Xuan, X., Yao, Y., & Tang, Y. (2022). The influence of formative assessment on academic performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1020459. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1020459 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Zulyetti. (2023). The impact of flipped classroom strategy on secondary school students' achievement in biology. Discover Education, 4(1), Article 42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00942-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study