Influence of Flipped Learning Approach on Students’ Mathematical Skills in Statistics Versus Teacher-Centered Approach

Influence of Flipped Learning Approach on Students’ Mathematical Skills in Statistics Versus Teacher-Centered Approach

Mohammad Nasrollah R. Abubacar^1*, Arnel James O. Bandala², Melchor D. Toylo, MAEd³, Najeb B. Aloyod, MAEd⁴, Ethel Theresa O. Alvia, PhD⁵

^1,2College of Education, Mindanao State University – Lanao del Norte Agricultural College, Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Philippines

^3,4Faculty, College of Education, Mindanao State University – Lanao del Norte Agricultural College, Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Philippines

⁵Faculty, Mathematics Department, College of Education, Mindanao State University – Lanao del Norte Agricultural College, Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Philippines

^*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000316

Received: 04 September 2025; Accepted: 14 September 2025; Published: 09 October 2025

ABSTRACT

This study employed a combination of experimental and descriptive research designs to investigate the effectiveness of the Flipped Learning Approach compared to the traditional Teacher-Centered Approach in enhancing students’ mathematical skills in Statistics. The participants were purposively selected from second- and third-year Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSEd) Mathematics students at Mindanao State University – Lanao del Norte Agricultural College. Data were analyzed using frequency and percentage distribution, weighted mean, and t-test to evaluate demographic profiles, performance outcomes, and learning experiences. The study revealed that most respondents were female, approximately 20 years old, and had a general weighted average (GPA) of 1.5. Results showed that both teaching approaches positively influenced students’ performance in Statistics, with improvements observed in engagement, motivation, and comprehension. However, the Flipped Learning Approach demonstrated slightly higher effectiveness. Respondents exposed to the flipped model recorded grand weighted means of 4.50 for engagement, 4.19 for motivation, and 4.37 for comprehension—interpreted as a high level of agreement. Meanwhile, those under the teacher-centered method recorded means of 4.06, 4.19, and 4.08, respectively. Furthermore, the perceived strengths of the Flipped Learning Approach were rated at a mean of 4.27, while its weaknesses, such as difficulties in self-directed learning, were rated at 3.62. These findings suggest that while flipped learning enhances student performance, it requires adequate support structures to address learners’ varying levels of independence and preparedness. Overall, the study concludes that the Flipped Learning Approach significantly improves students’ mathematical skills, engagement, and interest in learning Statistics. It is therefore recommended for integration into higher-level mathematics instruction to promote active participation, critical thinking, and deeper understanding.

Keywords: flipped learning approach; teacher-centered approach; mathematical skills; statistics education

INTRODUCTION

In the ever-evolving landscape of education, innovative teaching methodologies continuously emerge, aiming to enhance student learning and engagement. One such approach that has gained significant attention is the Flipped Learning Approach—a pedagogical model that inverts the traditional classroom by introducing instructional content outside of class and using in-class time for active learning. This model stands in contrast to the Teacher-Centered Approach, which relies heavily on direct instruction, with the teacher serving as the primary source of knowledge and authority in the classroom.

Amidst these evolving pedagogies, statistical literacy has become increasingly vital in equipping students with the analytical tools needed to navigate a data-driven world. Statistics, a key branch of applied mathematics, is widely used in various disciplines—from the physical and social sciences to business, government, and beyond. It not only enables informed decision-making but also fosters critical thinking and problem-solving skills essential for 21st-century learners.

In traditional classrooms, however, students often assume passive roles, which may limit their engagement and depth of understanding—particularly in complex subjects such as Statistics. Flipped learning, by contrast, encourages active participation, peer collaboration, and the practical application of concepts—fostering a learning environment more conducive to meaningful comprehension and higher-order thinking.

This research seeks to examine and compare the effectiveness of the Flipped Learning Approach and the Teacher-Centered Approach in developing the mathematical skills of BSEd Mathematics students in the context of Statistics education at MSU–LNAC. It aims to determine whether flipped learning leads to improved academic performance, greater engagement, and enhanced motivation compared to traditional instruction.

By investigating the impact of these two pedagogical approaches, this study not only contributes to the academic discourse on instructional strategies but also provides evidence-based insights for educators, curriculum developers, and policymakers aiming to improve mathematics instruction. Ultimately, this research aspires to inform best practices in teaching Statistics and support the academic success of future mathematics educators.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study employed a mixed-method approach, combining descriptive and experimental research designs. The descriptive design was used to gather the respondents’ demographic profile and assess the impact of the two teaching approaches—Flipped Learning and Teacher-Centered—on students’ engagement, motivation, comprehension, and overall performance in Statistics. Meanwhile, the experimental design was applied through actual classroom demonstrations, comparing the effectiveness of both pedagogies using pre-test and post-test evaluations.

Research Locale

The study was conducted at Mindanao State University – Lanao del Norte Agricultural College (MSU-LNAC), located in Barangay Ramain, Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte. The institution serves a diverse student body across Junior High School, Senior High School, and College programs. The research specifically involved students under the College of Education, focusing on the BSEd-Mathematics program.

Research Participants

A total of 32 respondents participated—16 first-year and 16 second-year BSEd-Mathematics students. The purposive sampling method was used to ensure a balanced distribution based on academic performance. Students were grouped so that each experimental group had a mix of high- and low-performing students, distributed equally.

Research Instrument

The study utilized the following instruments:

• Lesson Plans: Ten lesson plans were used—five for Flipped Learning and five for Teacher-Centered Approach.
• Pre-test and Post-test: Both consisted of 50 items sourced from standard Statistics textbooks and online platforms. These were validated by academic experts.
• Research Questionnaire: Assessed students’ motivation, engagement, and comprehension. It used a 5-point Likert Scale and was adopted from validated studies.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers asked permission to conduct the study through a permission letter asking for approval from the dean of instruction, college chairperson, department coordinator, and thesis adviser. After the approval of the request, the researchers endorsed the approved permission letter to the class adviser to ensure the full cooperation of the respondents. Furthermore, the researchers then administered the pre-test. After the pre-test, the researcher then administered an actual teaching for five days using Teacher-Centered Approach and Flipped Learning Approach. After the five days of actual teaching using both pedagogies, the researcher then administered the post-test together with the research questionnaire. Thus, the directions for answering the test and questionnaire were explicitly stated in order to guide the respondents. The questionnaires were collected immediately after they had been administered. The data gathered were tabulated and analyzed.

Ethical Considerations

Voluntary Participation. Participation in this research study will be voluntarily, no one will be forced to be a respondent. Participants have the right to choose whether to participate, even if they already agreed from the start but still, they can refuse to take part in this study. The data to be gathered is confidential and will not affect the respondents in any way.

Reimbursements. Since the study will only take place within the school ground (MSU-LNAC), In this case, the researchers will provide snacks for the respondents right after the researchers conclude their study.

Right to Refuse or Withdraw. Participating in this study is voluntarily, without forcing anybody to participate. Participants have the right to refuse or withdraw at any time to ensure their peace of mind and ease.

Risks. In view of the anonymity, confidentiality and voluntariness of participation in this study, respondents’ well-being and security are consequently protected and of primary consideration. From the data collection o data analysis and presentation, and until the completion of this undertaking, as manifested in this Protocol, respondents’ safety is protected.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Demographic Profile of the Respondents

The relationship between the demographic profile of students and their performance in mathematics is complex and influenced by a range of factors. These factors include age, GPA (Grade Point Average), and gender.

Age of the Respondents in Flipped Learning Approach

Table 3.1.1.1 shows the age of the respondents in flipped learning approach. As seen in Table 3.1.1.1, the highest frequency is seven (7) or 43.75% of the respondents are twenty (20) years old, and the lowest frequency is three (3) age or 18.75% of the respondents in flipped learning approach are twenty-one (21) years old. This suggests that most respondents in the flipped learning approach were 20 years old.

Manu (2019) found significant links between age and statistics anxiety, highlighting how age-related experiences can influence learning behaviors. Similarly, Long (2018) observed that younger students might encounter unique challenges when adapting to certain learning methods. The higher proportion of 20-year-olds in this study could indicate their adaptability to the self-directed aspects of flipped learning. This underscores the importance of considering age when designing effective teaching strategies for Statistics education.

Table 3.1.1.1. Age of the Respondents in Flipped Learning Approach (N=16).

Age of the Respondents in Teacher-Centered Approach

Table 3.1.2.1 shows the age of the respondents in teacher-centered approach. As seen in Table 3.1.2.1, the highest frequency is seven (7) or 43.8% of the respondents are 20 years old, and the two lowest frequencies, which are 6.25% for each age group, correspond to one 18-year-old and one 22-year-old. This indicates that in Table 4.1.2.1 most of the respondents in teacher-centered approach belonged to the age level of 20 years old.

Manu’s (2019) study highlights a significant connection between age and statistics anxiety, suggesting that age may influence students’ preferences and performance across different teaching methods. Similarly, Long’s (2018) research on developmental readiness points out that younger student might struggle to adapt to certain teaching approaches, which could explain the lower presence of 18-year-olds in this teacher-centered approach. The predominance of 20-year-olds may indicate their developmental compatibility with the structured nature of teacher-centered learning, which emphasizes direct instruction and guidance. These findings highlight the importance of considering age demographics when designing teaching strategies to support optimal learning outcomes.

Table 3.1.2.1. Age of the Respondents in Teacher-Centered Approach (N=16).

Grade Point Average of the Respondents in Flipped Learning    Approach

Table 3.1.3.1 shows the grade point average of the respondents in flipped learning approach. As seen in Table 3.1.3.1, the highest frequency is six (6) or 37.5% of the respondents in flipped learning approach have a GPA of 1.5, and two lowest frequencies which is five (5) or 31.25% of the respondents in flipped learning approach have a GPA of 1.75 and 2.0. This implies that most of the respondents in flipped learning approach have a GPA of 1.5.

Emmanuel et al. (2021) emphasizes the strong connection between a high GPA and consistent academic success, highlighting the importance of adopting strategies to maintain or improve GPA for on-time graduation. The similar GPA distributions observed across the two approaches suggest that both can foster academic success. However, as Daka (2020) points out, identifying and addressing the factors contributing to lower GPAs and higher dropout rates is essential for improving educational outcomes. Gonzalez et al. (2020) further stress the importance of GPA as a key indicator of mathematical achievement, calling for more research to understand how each approach uniquely influences GPA. Such insights can help develop strategies tailored to diverse student needs, ensuring better academic performance.

Table 3.1.3.1. Grade Point Average of the Respondents in Flipped Learning Approach (N=16).

Grade Point Average of the Respondents in Teacher-Centered Approach

Table 3.1.4.1 shows the grade point average of the respondents in teacher-centered approach. As seen in Table 3.1.4.1, the highest frequency is six (6) or 37.5% of the respondents in teacher-centered approach have a GPA of 1.5, and two lowest frequencies which is five (5) or 31.25% of the respondents in teacher-centered approach have a GPA of 1.75 and 2.0. This implies that most of the respondents in teacher-centered approach have a GPA of 1.5.

Emmanuel et al. (2021) emphasizes the strong connection between a high GPA and consistent academic success, highlighting the importance of adopting strategies to maintain or improve GPA for on-time graduation. The similar GPA distributions observed across the two approaches suggest that both can foster academic success. However, as Daka (2020) points out, identifying and addressing the factors contributing to lower GPAs and higher dropout rates is essential for improving educational outcomes. Gonzalez et al. (2020) further stress the importance of GPA as a key indicator of mathematical achievement, calling for more research to understand how each approach uniquely influences GPA. Such insights can help develop strategies tailored to diverse student needs, ensuring better academic performance.

Table 3.1.4.1. Grade Point Average of the Respondents in Teacher-Centered Approach (N=16).

Gender of the Respondents in Flipped Learning Approach

Table 3.1.5.1 shows the gender of the respondents in flipped learning approach. As seen in Table 3.1.5.1, three (3) or 18.8% of the respondents in flipped learning approach are male, and thirteen (13) or 81.2% of the respondents in flipped learning approach are female. This implies that most of the respondents in flipped learning approach are female.

This aligns with the article’s discussion of gender-related dynamics in Mathematics and Statistics education, where Kahl et al. (2021) noted that female students often exhibit higher levels of anxiety toward Mathematics, even when performance differences are not evident. Ayebale et al. (2020) further emphasized that societal perception of Mathematics as a male domain, coupled with lower self-confidence among girls, can influence their attitudes and participation in the subject. The predominance of female respondents in this study underscores the need to explore whether these pedagogical approaches address gender-specific challenges, such as anxiety and confidence, and support equitable learning opportunities. These findings also highlight the importance of further research to understand the factors driving gender disparities and to develop inclusive strategies that enhance learning outcomes for all students.

Table 3.1.5.1. Gender of the Respondents in Flipped Learning Approach (N=16).

Gender of the Respondents in Teacher-Centered Approach

Table 3.1.6.1 shows the gender of the respondents in teacher-centered approach. As seen in Table 3.1.6.1, three (3) or 18.8% of the respondents in teacher-centered approach are male, and thirteen (13) or 81.2% of the respondents in teacher-centered approach are female. This implies that most of the respondents in teacher-centered approach are female.

This aligns with the article’s discussion of gender-related dynamics in Mathematics and Statistics education, where Kahl et al. (2021) noted that female students often exhibit higher levels of anxiety toward Mathematics, even when performance differences are not evident. Ayebale et al. (2020) further emphasized that societal perception of Mathematics as a male domain, coupled with lower self-confidence among girls, can influence their attitudes and participation in the subject. The predominance of female respondents in this study underscores the need to explore whether these pedagogical approaches address gender-specific challenges, such as anxiety and confidence, and support equitable learning opportunities. These findings also highlight the importance of further research to understand the factors driving gender disparities and to develop inclusive strategies that enhance learning outcomes for all students.

Table 3.1.6.1 Gender of the Respondents in Teacher-Centered Approach (N=16).

Respondents’ Performance in Statistics

Respondents’ Pre-test Performance in Statistics using Flipped Learning Approach

Table 3.2.1.7 shows the respondents’ pre-test performance in Statistics using flipped learning approach. As seen in Table 3.2.1.7, ten (10) or 62.5% of the respondents in flipped learning approach got the scores of 25-34 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of good, and 37.5% or six (6) of the respondents got the scores of 15-24 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of satisfactory. This implies that in the respondents’ pre-test performance using flipped learning approach; most of the respondents got the scores of 25-34 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of good.

Research by Khan and Watson (2018) and Nielsen (2018) demonstrates that flipped learning fosters better academic performance and conceptual understanding, suggesting its potential to improve outcomes even at the pre-test stage. However, the pre-test scores reveal room for improvement, indicating that neither pedagogy fully addressed students’ initial knowledge gaps. This suggests that factors such as prior preparation, engagement, and teaching strategies may influence pre-test outcomes, highlighting the need to explore interventions, such as regular quizzes (Farmus et al., 2020), to support students’ foundational understanding.

Table 3.2.1.7. Respondents’ Pre-test Performance in Statistics on Flipped Learning Approach (N=16).

Respondents’ Pre-test Performance in Statistics using Teacher-Centered Approach   

Table 3.2.2.8 shows the respondents’ pre-test performance in Statistics using teacher-centered approach. As seen in Table 3.2.2.8, ten (10) or 62.5% of the respondents in teacher-centered approach got the scores of 25-34 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of good, and 37.5% or six (6) of the respondents got the scores of 15-24 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of satisfactory. This implies that in the respondents’ pre-test performance using teacher-centered approach; most of the respondents got the scores of 25-34 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of good.

This aligns with Ahmed et al. (2022), who emphasize the positive impact of the teacher-centered approach on students’ academic attitudes and performance. However, the pre-test scores reveal room for improvement, indicating that neither pedagogy fully addressed students’ initial knowledge gaps. This suggests that factors such as prior preparation, engagement, and teaching strategies may influence pre-test outcomes, highlighting the need to explore interventions, such as regular quizzes (Farmus et al., 2020), to support students’ foundational understanding.

Table 3.2.2.8. Respondents’ Pre-test Performance in Statistics using Teacher-Centered Approach (N=16).

Respondents’ Post-test Performance in Statistics using Flipped Learning Approach

Table 3.2.3.9 shows the respondents’ post-test performance in Statistics using flipped learning approach. As seen in Table 3.2.3.9, all sixteen (16) or 100% of the respondents in flipped learning approach got the scores of 45-50 with the highest corresponding verbal interpretation of excellent. This implies that in the respondents’ pre-test performance using flipped learning approach can improve the respondents’ performance in Statistics.

This finding demonstrates the effectiveness of this pedagogical approach in enhancing students’ understanding and performance in Statistics. The improvement is consistent with studies by Khan and Watson (2018) and Nielsen (2018), who observed significant academic gains and positive attitudes among students in flipped classrooms. The success in this learning approach indicates that each method has strengths in promoting learning when implemented effectively. However, the article also emphasizes research gaps, such as the need for further exploration of instructional strategies within flipped classrooms (Farmus et al., 2020) and the long-term effects of both approaches on knowledge retention and critical thinking. Addressing these gaps could help refine these pedagogies for even greater effectiveness in diverse educational contexts.

Table 3.2.3.9. Respondents’ Post-test Performance in Statistics using Flipped Learning Approach (N=16).

Respondents’ Post-test Performance in Statistics using Teacher-Centered Approach

Table 3.2.4.10 shows the respondents’ post-test performance in Statistics using teacher-centered approach. As seen in Table 3.2.4.10, all sixteen (16) or 100% of the respondents in teacher-centered approach got the scores of 45-50 with the highest corresponding verbal interpretation of excellent. This implies that in the respondents’ pre-test performance using teacher-centered approach can improve the respondents’ performance in Statistics.

This finding demonstrates the effectiveness of both pedagogical approaches in enhancing students’ understanding and performance in Statistics. Ahmed et al. (2022) highlights the teacher-centered approach’s ability to positively influence student outcomes at the university level. The uniform success across both approaches indicates that each method has strengths in promoting learning when implemented effectively. Addressing these gaps could help refine these pedagogies for even greater effectiveness in diverse educational contexts.

Table 3.2.4.10. Respondents’ Post-test Performance in Statistics using Teacher-Centered Approach (N=16).

Impact on Respondents’ Engagement, Motivation, and Comprehension in Statistics

Impact on the Respondents’ Engagement using Flipped Learning Approach

As reflected in Table 3.3.1.11, result show that most of the statements on the impact on the respondents’ engagement using flipped learning approach are interpreted as agree.  The statement with the highest weighted mean is “I feel more active and involved in my learning process with flipped learning.” this statement has a weighted mean of 4.69 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of strongly agree. On the other hand, the statement with the lowest weighted mean is “The flipped learning approach has increased my engagement during class sessions.” this statement has a weighted mean of 4.31 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree.

The impact on the respondents’ engagement using flipped learning approach has a grand weighted mean of 4.50 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree. This implies that flipped learning approach has a positive impact towards the respondents’ engagement in Statistics.

The results in Table 3.3.1.11, which show that the respondents generally agreed on the positive impact of the flipped learning approach on their engagement in Statistics, align with existing research emphasizing its potential benefits. The highest-rated statement, “I feel more active and involved in my learning process with flipped learning.” reflects findings by Cevikbas (2022), who highlighted that flipped learning fosters behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement by promoting active participation and social interaction. The grand weighted mean of 4.50, corresponding to “agree,” underscores the overall positive impact of flipped learning on student engagement, consistent with Lo and Hew’s (2020) observation that peer interactions and in-class engagement play a crucial role in enhancing academic performance. However, the lower-rated statement, “The flipped learning approach has increased my engagement during class sessions” suggests potential challenges, such as students’ perceptions or pre-class task completion, as noted by Cevikbas (2022). While the flipped learning approach positively influenced engagement, Zhao et al. (2021) and Harrison (2023) emphasize the importance of refining instructional design, incorporating structured activities, and addressing motivational challenges to maximize its effectiveness. These findings advocate for the careful integration of flipped learning methodologies to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes.

Table 3.3.1.11. Impact on the Respondents’ Engagement in Statistics on Flipped Learning Approach.

Impact on the Respondents’ Motivation using Flipped Learning Approach

As reflected in Table 3.3.2.12, result show that most of the statements on the impact on the respondents’ motivation using flipped learning approach are interpreted as agree.  The statement with the highest weighted mean is “Flipped learning has made the subject matter more interesting and engaging for me” this statement has a weighted mean of 4.37 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree. On the other hand, the statement with the lowest weighted mean is “The flipped learning approach has motivated me to prepare more effectively for classes.” this statement has a weighted mean of 4.06 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree.

The impact on the respondents’ motivation using flipped learning approach has a grand weighted mean of 4.19 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree. This implies that flipped learning approach has a positive impact towards the respondents’ motivation in Statistics.

The results in Table 3.3.2.12, which indicate that the flipped learning approach positively impacts respondents’ motivation in Statistics, align with the findings of several studies on flipped learning pedagogy. The highest-rated statement, “Flipped learning has made the subject matter more interesting and engaging for me,” reflects Cevikbas (2022) and Zhao et al. (2021), who highlighted that flipped learning enhances conceptual understanding and engages students cognitively and emotionally. The grand weighted mean of 4.19, interpreted as “agree,” supports the notion that flipped learning fosters motivation by making learning more interactive and relevant, as also noted by Lo and Hew (2020). However, the lower-rated statement, “The flipped learning approach has motivated me to prepare more effectively for classes,” suggests that while students generally find flipped learning motivating, pre-class preparation may still pose a challenge, as observed by Cevikbas (2022) in cases where students had negative perceptions or did not complete preparatory tasks. This underscores the importance of refining instructional design, incorporating engaging pre-class materials, and addressing student perceptions to maximize the motivational benefits of flipped learning, as recommended by Harrison (2023) and Zhao et al. (2021).

Table 3.3.2.12. Impact on the Respondents’ Motivation in Statistics on Flipped Learning Approach.

Impact on the Respondents’ Comprehension using Flipped Learning Approach

As reflected in Table 3.3.3.13, result show that most of the statements on the impact on the respondents’ comprehension using flipped learning approach are interpreted as agree. The statement with the highest weighted mean is “I find it easier to retain information learned through the flipped learning method.” this statement has a weighted mean of 4.44 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree. On the other hand, the statement with the lowest weighted mean is “I have a better understanding of the course material through the flipped learning approach.” this statement has a weighted mean of 4.13 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree.

The impact on the respondents’ comprehension using flipped learning approach has a grand weighted mean of 4.37 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree. This implies that flipped learning approach has a positive impact towards the respondents’ comprehension in Statistics.

The results in Table 3.3.3.13 highlight the positive effects of the flipped learning approach on respondents’ comprehension of Statistics, aligning with previous studies that emphasize the benefits of this teaching method. The highest-rated statement, “I find it easier to retain information learned through the flipped learning method,” received a weighted mean of 4.44, consistent with Zhao et al. (2021), who found that flipped learning enhances students’ conceptual understanding through its structured combination of pre-class and in-class activities. Similarly, the overall weighted mean of 4.37 reinforces the idea that flipped learning significantly improves comprehension by promoting deeper engagement with course material, as noted by Cevikbas (2022). However, the slightly lower rating for the statement, “I have a better understanding of the course material through the flipped learning approach,” points to potential challenges, such as ensuring students are adequately prepared for class. This preparation is critical for maximizing the benefits of flipped learning, as highlighted by both Cevikbas (2022) and Harrison (2023). These findings underscore the importance of integrating interactive and well-designed pre-class tasks while promoting peer interactions, as recommended by Lo and Hew (2020), to further enhance comprehension in flipped classroom settings.

Table 3.3.3.13. Impact on the Respondents’ Comprehension in Statistics on Flipped Learning Approach.

Impact on the Respondents’ Engagement in Teacher-Centered Approach

As reflected in Table 3.3.4.14, result shows that most of the statements on the impact on the respondents’ engagement using teacher-centered approach are interpreted as agree.  The statement with the highest weighted mean is “I find it easy to follow along with the teacher’s instruction in a teacher-centered environment.” this statement has a weighted mean of 4.19 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree. On the other hand, the statement with the lowest weighted mean is “I am consistently engaged during class sessions in the teacher-centered approach” this statement has a weighted mean of 3.94 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree.

The impact on the respondents’ engagement using teacher-centered approach has a grand weighted mean of 4.06 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree. This implies that flipped learning approach has a positive impact towards the respondents’ engagement in Statistics.

The results in Table 3.3.4.14, showing a positive impact of the teacher-centered approach on respondents’ engagement in Statistics, align with research emphasizing the benefits of structured instruction. The highest-rated statement, “I find it easy to follow along with the teacher’s instruction in a teacher-centered environment” with a weighted mean of 4.19, highlights the clarity provided by teacher-centered methods, as noted by Muganga and Ssenkusu (2019). However, the lower rating for “I am consistently engaged during class sessions in the teacher-centered approach” with weighted mean of 3.94, reflects a limitation in maintaining sustained engagement, which Murphy et al. (2021) attribute to a lack of interactive elements. While the grand weighted mean of 4.06 supports the overall effectiveness of this approach, integrating strategies such as guided discussions and questioning, as suggested by Kiernan and Lotter (2019), could enhance engagement further by fostering higher-order thinking and collaboration.

Table 3.3.4.14. Impact on the Respondents’ Engagement in Statistics on Teacher-Centered Approach.

Impact on the Respondents’ Motivation in Teacher-Centered Approach

As reflected in Table 3.3.5.15, result shows that most of the statements on the impact on the respondents’ motivation using teacher-centered approach are interpreted as agree.  The statement with the highest weighted mean is “The teacher-centered approach encourages me to perform well academically.” this statement has a weighted mean of 4.37 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree. On the other hand, the statement with the lowest weighted mean is “The teacher-centered approach motivates me to attend classes regularly.” this statement has a weighted mean of 4.06 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree.

The impact on the respondents’ motivation using teacher-centered approach has a grand weighted mean of 4.19 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree. This implies that flipped learning approach has a positive impact towards the respondents’ motivation in Statistics.

The results in Table 3.3.5.15 indicate that the teacher-centered approach positively impacts respondents’ motivations in Statistics, as reflected by the grand weighted mean of 4.19, interpreted as agree. The highest-rated statement, “The teacher-centered approach encourages me to perform well academically” with a weighted mean of 4.37, aligns with Muganga and Ssenkusu’s (2019) findings that structured teacher-centered methods, such as lectures and guided instruction, promote academic performance by providing clear and focused content delivery. However, the lower rating for “The teacher-centered approach motivates me to attend classes regularly” with a weighted mean of 4.06, suggests room for improvement in fostering consistent class attendance. Murphy et al. (2021) highlight the potential for integrating interactive components, such as questioning and discussion, to enhance student engagement and intrinsic motivation, indicating that blending teacher-centered strategies with active, student-centered elements could further bolster motivation.

Table 3.3.5.15. Impact on the Respondents’ Motivation in Statistics on Teacher-Centered Approach.

Impact on the Respondents’ Comprehension in Teacher-Centered Approach

As reflected in Table 3.3.6.16, result shows that most of the statements on the impact on the respondents’ comprehension using teacher-centered approach are interpreted as agree. There are two (2) statements with the highest weighted mean; “I have a strong understanding of the course material when it is presented through the teacher-centered approach.” and “The teacher-centered approach helps me grasp complex concepts effectively.” these statements has a weighted mean of 4.13 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree. On the other hand, the statement with the lowest weighted mean is “I am confident in my ability to retain information learned through teacher-led instruction.” this statement has a weighted mean of 4.0 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree.

The impact on the respondents’ comprehension using teacher-centered approach has a grand weighted mean of 4.08 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree. This implies that flipped learning approach has a positive impact towards the respondents’ comprehension in Statistics.

The results in Table 3.3.6.16 reveal that the teacher-centered approach positively impacts respondents’ comprehensions in Statistics, with a grand weighted mean of 4.08, interpreted as agree. The highest-rated statements, “I have a strong understanding of the course material when it is presented through the teacher-centered approach” and “The teacher-centered approach helps me grasp complex concepts effectively” both with a weighted mean of 4.13, align with Muganga and Ssenkusu’s (2019) assertion that teacher-centered methods, such as structured lectures and guided instruction, provide clarity and facilitate understanding of complex topics. The slightly lower rating for “I am confident in my ability to retain information learned through teacher-led instruction” with a weighted mean of 4.0, suggests that retention confidence might benefit from integrating active learning components. Murphy et al. (2021) emphasize the value of instructional strategies, including discussions and interactive questioning, to foster higher-order thinking and comprehension. Thus, blending teacher-centered approaches with elements that encourage student engagement and reflection may further enhance comprehension outcomes.

Table 3.3.6.16. Impact on the Respondents’ Comprehension in Statistics on Teacher-Centered Approach.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Flipped Learning Approach in Teaching Statistics

Strengths of Flipped Learning Approach in Teaching Statistics

As reflected in Table 3.4.1.17, result show that most of the statements in the strengths of flipped learning approach in teaching statistics are interpreted as agree. The statement with the highest weighted mean is “The flipped learning approach gives me more opportunities for active learning.” this statement has a weighted mean of 4.44 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree. On the other hand, there are two (2) statements with the lowest weighted mean; “The flipped learning approach allows me to learn at my own pace.” and “I appreciate the ability to review course materials before class through the flipped learning method.” both of the statements have a weighted mean of 4.19 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree.

The strengths of flipped learning approach in teaching statistics have a grand weighted mean of 4.27 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree. This implies that flipped learning approach is an effective method in teaching Statistics.

The findings in Table 3.4.1.17 reveal that the flipped learning approach is widely perceived as an effective method for teaching Statistics, with a grand weighted mean of 4.27, indicating overall agreement. The highest-rated statement, “The flipped learning approach gives me more opportunities for active learning,” with a weighted mean of 4.44, supports Yorganci’s (2020) conclusion that this method fosters greater engagement and active participation. Similarly, Farmus et al. (2020) emphasize the flipped approach’s potential to enhance learning outcomes in Statistics. Although the two lowest-rated statements; “The flipped learning approach allows me to learn at my own pace” and “I appreciate the ability to review course materials before class through the flipped learning method”, received slightly lower scores of 4.19, they still highlight the flexibility and preparatory benefits of this approach. This aligns with Hung et al.’s (2020) observation that advancements in asynchronous and synchronous tools enhance accessibility and adaptability in flipped classrooms. Overall, these findings underscore the effectiveness of flipped learning in creating a more interactive, student-centered, and flexible learning experience in Statistics.

Table 3.4.1.17. Strengths of Flipped Learning Approach in Teaching Statistics.

Weaknesses of Flipped Learning Approach in Teaching Statistics

As reflected in Table 3.4.2.18, result show that most of the statements in the weaknesses of flipped learning approach in teaching statistics are interpreted as neutral. The statement with the highest weighted mean is “The flipped learning approach requires too much self-discipline for me to stay on track.” this statement has a weighted mean of 3.94 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree. On the other hand, the statement with the lowest weighted mean is “I find it difficult to keep up with the preparation required before class in the flipped learning approach.” this statement has a weighted mean of 3.44 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of neutral.

The weaknesses of flipped learning approach in teaching statistics have a grand weighted mean of 3.62 with a corresponding verbal interpretation of agree. This implies that some students struggle with self-directed learning.

The findings in Table 3.4.2.18 highlight the challenges associated with the flipped learning approach in teaching Statistics, with a grand weighted mean of 3.62, interpreted as “agree.” This suggests that some students struggle with the demands of self-directed learning. The highest-rated statement, “The flipped learning approach requires too much self-discipline for me to stay on track,” with a weighted mean of 3.94, aligns with Hung et al.’s (2020) observation that asynchronous learning demands strong self-regulation, as students must independently manage their preparation and pacing. Meanwhile, the lowest-rated statement, “I find it difficult to keep up with the preparation required before class in the flipped learning approach,” with a weighted mean of 3.44, reflects the difficulty of balancing pre-class preparation with other responsibilities, highlighting the need for more structured support. While Yorganci (2020) and Farmus et al. (2020) emphasize the potential of flipped learning to improve educational outcomes, these findings suggest that additional support mechanisms such as synchronous interactions, regular feedback, or guided preparation may be necessary to overcome the challenges of self-directed learning and promote equitable engagement for all students.

Table 3.4.2.18. Weaknesses of Flipped Learning Approach in Teaching Statistics.

Difference between the pre-test and post-test scores in Flipped Learning Approach

As seen in Table 3.5.19, the computed p-value is less than the 0.05 level of significance. This implies that there is a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores of the students in terms of flipped learning approach.

The findings in Table 3.5.19, which reveal a significant improvement in students’ post-test scores compared to their pre-test scores when using the flipped learning approach, align with the studies of Makruf et al. (2021) and Putri et al. (2019). Makruf et al. found that students in flipped classrooms significantly outperformed those in traditional settings, while Putri et al. reported notable gains in post-test performance. These results highlight the effectiveness of the flipped learning approach in boosting student performance, likely due to its emphasis on active learning and opportunities for self-paced preparation. Similarly, the present study confirms that the flipped learning method promotes substantial academic improvement, reinforcing its value in teaching Statistics and other subjects.

Table 3.5.19. Difference between the pre-test and post-test scores in Flipped Learning Approach.

Difference between the pre-test and post-test scores in Teacher-Centered Approach

As seen in Table 3.6.20, the computed p-value is less than the 0.05 level of significance. This implies that there is a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores of the students in terms of teacher-centered approach.

The results in Table 3.6.20, which reveal a significant improvement in students’ post-test scores compared to their pre-test scores under the teacher-centered approach, align with Ashworth’s (2021) study, where a low p-value indicated meaningful differences in learning outcomes between groups. This suggests that the teacher-centered approach had a positive impact on students’ performance, echoing Ashworth’s findings of significant improvements in the treatment group. Similarly, Dejene (2020) observed a preference for teacher-dominated methods among participants, highlighting the continued effectiveness of traditional teaching approaches. The present findings confirm that teacher-centered methods can yield measurable academic gains, demonstrating their ability to improve comprehension and performance, even amid discussions about the engagement benefits of alternative teaching strategies.

Table 3.6.20. Difference between the pre-test and post-test scores in Teacher-Centered Approach.

Difference between the post-test scores in Flipped Learning Approach and Teacher-Centered Approach

As seen in Table 3.7.21, the computed p-value is less than the 0.05 level of significance. This implies that there is a significant difference between the post-test scores in Flipped Learning Approach and Teacher-Centered Approach.

The significant difference in post-test scores between the Flipped Learning Approach and the Teacher-Centered Approach, as shown in Table 3.7.21, aligns with findings by Dervić et al. (2018) and Busa et al. (2024). Dervić et al. observed that the teacher-centered approach was more effective in fostering conceptual understanding, while the flipped learning approach excelled in solving quantitative problems, highlighting the unique strengths of each method. Similarly, Busa et al. reported significant post-test improvements for both approaches, with the flipped learning approach demonstrating more consistent gains. These findings suggest that while each method has distinct advantages, combining elements of both could better address diverse learning needs and maximize student achievement.

Table 3.7.21. Difference between the post-test scores in Flipped Learning Approach and Teacher-Centered Approach.

CONCLUSION

The study found a significant and large improvement in students’ mathematical skills in Statistics using either Flipped Learning Approach or Teacher-Centered Approach. The improvement is most apparent on Statistics lesson namely; measures of central tendency, variability: quartiles, standard deviation, probability, permutation, and combination.

These positive findings of this study on Flipped Learning Approach are hoped to provide teachers in Mindanao State University – Lanao del Norte Agricultural College an alternative approach in teaching Statistics and gives the opportunity to broaden and enhance their pedagogy skills. The innovative quality in Flipped Learning Approach could be helpful in improving the students’ mathematical skills regardless of the type and level of learners, as most students in the study showed an improvement and positive experience with this method than the Teacher-Centered Approach.

Therefore, Flipped Learning Approach can help teachers maximize student learning by accommodating diverse needs and preferences, allowing for more personalized and interactive learning experiences.

Contributions of Authors

Mohammad Nasrollah R. Abubacar – Conceptualization, Writing, Editing and Finalization

Arnel James O. Bandala – Literature Review, Data Collection, and Presentation

Melchor D. Toylo, MAEd – Methodology Design, and Data Analysis

Najeb B. Aloyod, MAEd – Data Collection, and Supervising

Ethel Theresa O. Alvia, PhD – Literature Review

Funding

This study is funded by the two researchers who are partners in this study. All the expenses that the researchers used and spent will be shouldered by the researchers with costs or expenses split or divided equally. Each of researchers will contribute funds for the expenses of their study – for the budget and for the necessary resources that may come their way.

Conflict of Interests

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication and conduct of this research study.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

LOVE, TRUST, FAITH! These words compromise the researchers to come up a meaningful and purposeful manuscript. Thus, they would like to give their overwhelming thanks to the people who showed their undying support, love and guidance upon doing their study. These people behind their success are the following:

To the Almighty GOD, creator and savior of all mankind, the Giver of life, thank you for the guidance, strength, wisdom, courage and unconditional love.

To the Campus Superintendent, Indihra B. Dimaporo-Tawantawan, Al-hadja, PhD we express our deepest gratitude for granting us the invaluable opportunity to pursue our education in your prestigious institution. Your dedication to fostering an environment of learning and growth has been instrumental in our academic journey.

To the Dean of Instruction, Eliza E. Redondo, PhD, for helping us manage and set our curriculum despite we’re an irregular student. Your support and guidance made this possible.

To the College Chairperson, Gloria E. Bandala, PhD, for her unwavering support and understanding. As irregular students pursuing the Bachelor of Secondary Education major in Mathematics (BSEd-Math) program, completing a four-year course despite starting outside this institution posed unique challenges. Your guidance and open-hearted leadership provided us the assurance and support we needed to navigate this journey.

To their thesis adviser Melchor D. Toylo, MAEd, and panel members: Ethel Theresa O. Alvia, PhD and Najeb B. Aloyod, MAEd, for the endless effort and sacrifices, for giving momentous time in checking their manuscript, for the words of encouragement, and especially, for the pieces of advice they have given to the researchers as they go through their journey to success. All of these would not be made possible without their help.

To their dear respondents, 2nd year and 3rd year BSEd Mathematics students of the Mindanao State University-Lanao del Norte Agricultural College in S.Y. 2024-2025, thank you so much for cooperating with the researchers since the first day they conducted their study. You willingly give your time for the sake of their study.

To their inspiration, their ever-loving parents, Mr. Sirad B. Abubacar and Mrs. Elsie R. Abubacar, and Mr. Arnold L. Bandala, Sr. and Mrs. Melchora O. Bandala, no words can express how much thankful they are that you were always with them. For giving them their financial needs, eternal support, unconditional love, and for all the sacrifices you had showered to them, they truly appreciated it from the bottom of their hearts.

May GOD BLESS EVERYBODY!

REFERENCES

1. Abdullahi, H. L. (2013). Effects of teaching methods, gender and school location on the performance of secondary school students in mathematic: In Kano State. OER Udusok. http://oer.udusok.edu.ng/xmlui/handle/123456789/589
2. Admin. (2022). Statistics definitions, types, formulas & applications. BYJU’S. https://byjus.com/maths/statistics/
3. 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
4. Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/
5. Ashworth, J. (2021). Basic inference: Comparing pretest scores with posttest scores introduction. University of Massachusetts. https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.umassd.edu/dist/5/1049/files/2021/04/MTH-332-Project-4-Paper-1.pdf
6. Ates, H. (2024). Designing a self-regulated flipped learning approach to promote students’ science learning performance. Educational Technology & Society, 27(1), 65-83. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48754842
7. Bhat, A. (2023). Experimental research: What it is + types of designs. QuestionPro. https://www.questionpro.com/blog/experimental-research/
8. Bloom’s taxonomy. University of Central Florida. https://fctl.ucf.edu/teaching-resources/course-design/blooms-taxonomy/
9. Busa, J., & Chung, S. (2024). The effects of teacher-centered and student-centered approaches in TOEIC reading instruction. Education Sciences, 14(2), 181. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020181
10. Çevikbaş, M., & Kaiser, G. (2020). Flipped classroom as a reform-oriented approach to teaching mathematics. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 52(7), 1291–1305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01191-5
11. Çevikbaş, M., & Kaiser, G. (2021). Student engagement in a flipped secondary mathematics classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(7), 1455–1480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10213-x
12. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. Cambridge University Press Ebooks, 39–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840975.004
13. Chappelow, J. (2024). Statistics in math: Definition, types, and importance. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/statistics.asp
14. Cohen, L. E., & Waite-Stupiansky, S. (2022). Theories of early childhood education: Developmental, behaviorist, and critical. Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=18cvEAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT8
15. Dejene, W. (2020). Conceptions of teaching & learning and teaching approach preference: Their change through preservice teacher education program. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1833812. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1833812
16. Dervić, D., Glamočić, D. S., Busuladžić, A. G., & Mešić, V. (2018). Teaching physics with simulations: Teacher-centered versus student-centered approaches. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(2), 288–299. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=966985
17. Doolittle, P. E. (1995). Understanding cooperative learning through Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED384575
18. Dovetail Editorial Team. (2023). Descriptive research: Design, methods, examples, and FAQs. Dovetail Research. https://dovetail.com/research/descriptive-research/
19. Flipped learning. Advance HE. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/flipped-learning
20. Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology, 41(4), 47-56. https://www.d41.org/cms/lib/IL01904672/ Centricity/ Domain/ 422/BloomsTaxonomy.pdf
21. Harrison, J. D. (n.d.). The effects of problem-based learning on mathematics motivation in a flipped classroom instructional environment. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED636136
22. Khan, R. N., & Watson, R. (n.d.). The flipped classroom with tutor support: An experience in a level one statistics unit. Research Online. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol15/iss3/3/
23. Lai, C., & Hwang, G. (2016). A self-regulated flipped classroom approach to improving students’ learning performance in a mathematics course. Computers & Education, 100, 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.006
24. Le, N. T., & Nguyen, D. T. (n.d.). Student satisfaction with EMI courses: The role of motivation and engagement. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1372811
25. Macnamara, D., & Penner, K. (n.d.). First-year math students: Using study skills and motivation to predict academic success. CiteSeerX. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1 &type=pdf&doi=9fdA35e44ce1f3a8f86f1b157e8da275bfe85953
26. Mahanta, D. (n.d.). Achievement in mathematics: Effect of gender and positive/negative attitude of students. CiteSeerX. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type= pdf&doi= 8aa43da7f457ba952e3405e749d92572169cb20c
27. Main, P. (2023). Skinner’s theories. Structural Learning. https://www.structurallearning.com/post/skinners-theories
28. Makruf, I., Putra, P. H. R., Choiriyah, S., & Nugroho, A. (2021). Flipped learning and communicative competence: An experimental study of English learners. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 9(4), 571–584. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1319807
29. McCombes, S. (2023). Descriptive research | Definition, types, methods & examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/descriptive-research/
30. Mingorance Estrada, Á. C., Vera, J. G., Ruiz, G. R., & Arrebola, I. A. (2019). Flipped classroom to improve university student centered learning and academic performance. Social Sciences, 8(11), 315. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8110315
31. Muganga, L., & Ssenkusu, P. (2019). Teacher-centered vs. student-centered: An examination of student teachers’ perceptions about pedagogical practices at Uganda’s Makerere University. Cultural and Pedagogical Inquiry, 11(2), 16-40. https://doi.org/10.18733/cpi29481
32. Muhajirah, M. (2020). Basic of learning theory: (Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and humanism). International Journal of Asian Education, 1(1), 37-42. https://ijae.journal-asia.education/index.php/data/article/view/23
33. Pal, S. (2023). History of statistics. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/history-statistics-drsubhabahapal
34. Playfoot, D. (n.d.). Flipped classrooms in undergraduate statistics: Online works just fine. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1381547
35. Putri, M. D., Rusdiana, D., & Rochintaniawati, D. (2019). Students’ conceptual understanding in modified flipped classroom approach: An experimental study in junior high school science learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157, 022046. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/2/022046
36. Rodriguez, A. I. (n.d.). Impact of chronological age differences on the academic performance of students in a first-grade classroom. Knowledge Exchange. https://knowledge.e.southern.edu/jiur/vol8/iss1/2/
37. Samadi, F., Jafarigohar, M., Saeedi, M., Ganji, M., & Khodabandeh, F. (n.d.). Impact of flipped classroom on EFL learners’ self-regulated learning and higher-order thinking skills during the COVID-19 pandemic. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1407847
38. Saunders, L., & Wong, M. A. (2020). Learning theories: Understanding how people learn. Pressbooks. https://iopn.library.illinois.edu/pressbooks/instructioninlibraries/chapter/learning-theories-understanding-how-people-learn/
39. Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: Instructional implications and teachers’ professional development. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 237-248. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1081990
40. Shabatura, J. (n.d.). Using Bloom’s taxonomy to write effective learning outcomes. University of Arkansas. https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/
41. Simply Psychology. (2024). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development & scaffolding theory in psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/zone-of-proximal-development.html
42. Swaim, E. E. (1972). B.F. Skinner and Carl R. Rogers on behavior and education. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED098087
43. Teacher-centered versus learner-centered teaching style. ProQuest. https://www.proquest.com/openview/cf1884e9203c3cfc877c34a0de33dc8b/1.pdf
44. Team, S. P. (2023). Introduction to descriptive design research. SurveyPoint. https://surveypoint.ai/blog/2023/09/04/introduction-to-descriptive-design-research/
45. Ünal, A. (2019). The impact of relative age effect on mathematics achievement. International Education Studies, 12(6), 39. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n6p39
46. Weegar, M. A., & Pacis, D. (2012). A comparison of two theories of learning—behaviorism and constructivism as applied to face-to-face and online learning. Proceedings E-Leader Conference, Manila. https://www.academia.edu/download/34484829/Compare_of_Two_Theory.pdf
47. What is the behavioral learning theory? (2022). Western Governors University. https://www.wgu.edu/blog/what-behavioral-learning-theory2005.html
48. Zhou, M., & Brown, D. (2015). Educational learning theories. https://sadil.ws/bitstream/handle/123456789/433/ALG%20educational%20learning%20theories.pdf
49. Zone of proximal development: An affirmative perspective in teaching ELLs. WestEd. https://www.wested.org/resources/zone-of-proximal-development/