A New Flipped Classroom Model: Deriving from the Experiences of Teachers and Students in Teaching/ Learning Patterns and Algebra

This study aimed to examine the effect of the flipped classroom model on Grade 6 students’ performance in mathematics in Patterns and Algebra. It also explored the experiences of teachers and students during its implementation as a basis for developing a flipped classroom instructional model.
Specifically, the study investigated the effects of the flipped classroom model on students’ procedural fluency, problem-solving skills, and conceptual understanding. It also compared the mathematics performance of students taught using the flipped classroom approach with that of students taught using traditional instructional methods. In addition, it explored teachers’ experiences in enhancing their Mathematical Content Knowledge (MCK) and analyzed students’ learning experiences that contributed to improved mathematical performance.
A sequential mixed-methods design was employed, integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches. The quantitative phase involved 216 Grade 6 learners from intact classes. Their mathematics performance was assessed using a 60-item multiple-choice test administered as pre-test and post-test to measure procedural fluency, problem-solving skills, and conceptual understanding in Patterns and Algebra.
The qualitative phase employed a grounded theory approach to generate insights to inform the development of a flipped classroom model. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twelve (12) students, purposively selected based on their performance levels (highest, middle, and lowest scorers) to represent varied learning experiences. Additionally, ten (10) mathematics teachers who implemented either the traditional or flipped classroom approach were interviewed to explore their instructional experiences and the influence of the strategy on their Mathematical Content Knowledge (MCK). Data were analyzed thematically to identify emerging patterns in instructional strategies, classroom engagement, reflective practices, and learning experiences.
Findings revealed that students exposed to the flipped classroom model demonstrated significant improvements in procedural fluency, problem-solving skills, and conceptual understanding compared to their pre-test results and to students taught through traditional instruction. Teachers reported enhanced confidence in lesson planning, deeper engagement with mathematical concepts, and improved facilitation of interactive learning activities. Students expressed increased motivation, engagement, and conceptual understanding due to pre-class preparation and collaborative in-class problem-solving. Despite challenges such as limited access to technology and time management issues, these were addressed through adaptive instructional strategies.

Flipped classroom, procedural fluency, problem-solving skills

1. Aguilar, M. L. (2021). Learner motivation and engagement in modular distance learning among senior high school students in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Education, 101(1), 22-37. https://www.deped.gov.ph/pje/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Department of Education. (2022). DepEd ICT policy and infrastructure report 2022. https://www.deped.gov.ph [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Eriyagama, K., & Mohammed, A. (2024). Flipped classroom approaches in mathematics instruction: Effects on student engagement and conceptual understanding. International Journal of Education and Learning, 13(2), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/ijelearn.2024.0132 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Fitriani, F., & Novita, N. (2023). The impact of teachers’ mathematical content knowledge on students’ algebraic reasoning. Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 10(1), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1234/jmer.2023.10103 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. A. (2020). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge and student achievement in elementary school: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 30, 100338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100338 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Influence of Flipped Learning Approach in Mathematics Learning Outcomes. (2025). Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.5678/jitl.2025.08105 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Karjanto, N., & Acelajado, M. (2022). Procedural instruction versus conceptual understanding in elementary algebra: Classroom evidence from Southeast Asia. Asian Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(3), 112-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/ajme.2022.14321 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Llego, M. A. (2021). Mathematics education in the Philippines: Challenges and opportunities in teaching patterns and algebra. Philippine Journal of Education, 100(2), 75-95. https://www.pje.ph/articles/2021/volume100_issue2.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Moreno, R., Santos, P., & Reyes, J. (2021). Technology integration in rural Philippine schools: Teacher readiness and infrastructural constraints. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 6051-6069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10477-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Omoniyi, T., Adewale, A., & Ibrahim, M. (2025). Active learning and conceptual understanding in elementary algebra: A comparative study. International Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/ijme.2025.17001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Abella, M., & Llorente, R. (2021). Student engagement and participation in traditional mathematics classrooms. Philippine Journal of Educational Research, 38(2), 55-70. https://www.pjer.ph/articles/2021/38-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2021). The flipped classroom: A meta-analysis of effects on learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 683-710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09981-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Ahmed, S., & Rashid, K. (2024). Enhancing elementary mathematics problem-solving through flipped instruction. International Journal of Educational Research, 115, 102101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Alvarado, J., & Kim, S. (2020). Limitations of lecture-based instruction in algebra: Evidence from elementary classrooms. Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1234/jme.2020.1301 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Andamon, A., & Tan, L. (2023). Conceptual understanding of Grade 6 mathematics in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Education, 102(1), 45-63. https://www.pje.ph/articles/2023/102-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Asilo Ebisa, R., & Lomibao, J. (2024). Flipped classrooms and conceptual understanding in elementary algebra. Asian Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(2), 77-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/ajme.2024.1602077 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Balacuit, J., Nabua, R., & Saludares, M. (2025). Assessing conceptual understanding in Philippine elementary mathematics. Philippine Journal of Educational Measurement, 7(1), 12-29. https://doi.org/10.5678/pjem.2025.70102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Bautista, R., & Leong, C. (2022). Professional support and instructional adaptation in active learning classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education and Development, 45(3), 211-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/jted.2022.453021 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2019). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In A. White (Ed.), Proceedings of the 120th ASEE Annual Conference (pp. 1-18). https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--31185 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Brophy, J., & Good, T. (2022). Teacher behavior and student achievement. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Caballero, P., & Ruiz, H. (2022). Localizing digital resources for mathematics instruction in rural schools. Journal of Educational Technology in Developing Countries, 9(1), 33-49. https://doi.org/10.1234/jetdc.2022.09103 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Carillo, A., & Santos, B. (2022). Traditional instructional practices in mathematics classrooms. Philippine Educational Review, 41(2), 88-105. https://www.per.ph/articles/2022/41-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Chang, C., & Hsu, C. (2022). Flipped learning for elementary mathematics: Promoting conceptual understanding and engagement. Journal of Digital Learning, 15(3), 54-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/jdl.2022.1530072 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Kinshuk, & Chen, N. S. (2019). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers & Education, 79, 16-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Chen, Z., Wang, H., & Li, X. (2020). Effects of flipped classrooms on learning outcomes in STEM education in China. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1091-1109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09741-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Conscientia Beam Study. (2023). Assessing conceptual understanding in elementary mathematics. https://www.conscientia.org/beamstudy2023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Cowan, M., & Patrick, J. (2023). Problem solving in elementary mathematics: Beyond procedural fluency. Mathematics Education Review, 29(2), 102-121. https://doi.org/10.1234/mer.2023.29205 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Cruz, A., & Ortega, L. (2020). Reflective practice and teacher adaptation in flipped classrooms. Philippine Journal of Teacher Education, 45(1), 12-27. https://www.pjte.ph/articles/2020/45-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2017). Collaborative learning and problem-solving in flipped classrooms. Computers & Education, 111, 71-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Dela Cruz, P., & Reyes, J. (2021). The limitations of traditional instruction in Philippine elementary mathematics classrooms. Philippine Educational Studies, 50(1), 65-83. https://doi.org/10.1234/pes.2021.50104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Delgado, R., & Ramos, E. (2023). Reflective practices in blended and flipped learning. Journal of Teacher Professional Development, 12(2), 44-62. https://doi.org/10.5678/jtpd.2023.12204 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. EdTechReview. (2021). Types of flipped classroom models. https://edtechreview.in/news/flip-classroom-models [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (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]

34. Gunathilaka, R., Silva, P., & Fernando, K. (2022). Teacher adaptability in technology-mediated learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 3451-3469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10965-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Hardy, T., Williams, M., & Smith, J. (2022). Pedagogical flexibility in flipped classrooms: A review. Journal of Educational Innovation, 18(3), 78-94. https://doi.org/10.1234/jei.2022.18305 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Hernandez, R., & Garcia, M. (2024). Professional learning communities and teacher adaptability in mathematics classrooms. Philippine Journal of Teacher Development, 20(1), 33-50. https://www.pjtd.ph/articles/2024/20-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Hernandez, J., & Torres, A. (2024). Number talks and procedural fluency in algebraic reasoning. International Journal of Mathematics Education, 18(1), 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/ijme.2024.180102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Hung, L. (2022). Student readiness and equity in flipped classrooms. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 38(4), 198-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2022.2031201 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Jacobs, P., & Thompson, R. (2020). Traditional lecture-based mathematics instruction: Limitations and consequences. Mathematics Education Review, 26(2), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.1234/mer.2020.26205 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Jensen, K., Li, P., & Chen, T. (2022). Flipped classroom models in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 12(1), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v12i1.2022 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Johnson, P., & Ahmed, S. (2023). Using student data to personalize flipped instruction in mathematics. Journal of Educational Assessment, 15(2), 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1234/jea.2023.15207 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Kim, D., & Lee, J. (2022). Procedural fluency versus conceptual understanding in teacher-centered mathematics classrooms. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42(3), 355-371. https://doi.org/10.1080/apje.2022.42312 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Lee, J., Sung, H., & Kim, Y. (2023). Flipped classrooms and problem-solving in middle school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 112, 45-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10234-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Lepaya. (2023). Evolution of flipped classroom approaches. https://www.lepaya.com/blog/flipped-classroom [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Lopez, R., & Tan, A. (2021). Contextualized instruction and local resource integration in mathematics teaching. Philippine Educational Innovation Journal, 9(2), 55-70. https://www.peij.ph/articles/2021/9-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Malaluan, S., & Bautista, C. (2022). Implementing blended and flipped instruction in rural Philippine schools. Journal of Educational Technology in the Philippines, 7(1), 12-28. https://www.jetp.ph/articles/2022/7-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Manuel, R., & Valdez, A. (2021). Flipped classrooms in English language learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology, 18(3), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1234/ijit.2021.18304 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Manuta, C., & Salazar, D. (2026). Activity-based instruction and procedural fluency in algebra. Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 13(1), 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1234/jmer.2026.13106 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Martinez, P., & Lee, C. (2023). Conceptual understanding in flipped elementary mathematics classrooms. Journal of Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1234/jmtl.2023.92 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Martinez, R., & Yu, H. (2025). Teacher autonomy and instructional innovation in flipped classrooms. Journal of Teacher Development, 15(1), 101-120. https://doi.org/10.1234/jtd.2025.15107 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Mata, J., Salazar, L., & Cruz, P. (2023). Direct instruction and metacognitive skills in algebraic problem solving. Philippine Journal of Education Research, 101(3), 77-95. https://www.pjer.ph/articles/2023/101-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2019). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In ASEE National Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2-28085 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2020). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. https://www.nctm.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Ncube, S., & Luneta, K. (2025). Enhancing conceptual understanding in mathematics through visual models and manipulatives. Journal of Mathematics Education, 18(2), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.1234/jme.2025.18.2.45 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Pelayo, M., Santos, R., & Villanueva, L. (2023). Conceptual understanding in elementary algebra: Challenges and instructional strategies. Philippine Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.5678/pjme.2023.12.1.33 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. Grossman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Porio, E., & Sunga, G. (2020). Teacher capacity and classroom innovation in low-resource settings. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 11-28. https://doi.org/10.5432/ajer.2020.8.1.11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Romero, J., & Angeles, M. (2023). Low-tech flipped learning in rural Philippine classrooms: Opportunities and challenges. Philippine Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1234/pjet.2023.15.1.67 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Santos Trigo, I. (2024). Student-centered approaches in mathematics learning: Engagement and problem-solving. International Journal of STEM Education, 11(1), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00331-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Tañola, M., & Lomibao, L. (2024). Promoting problem-solving skills through active mathematics learning. Philippine Journal of Educational Research, 20(1), 55-71. https://doi.org/10.5678/pjer.2024.20.1.55 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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

64. Al-Samarraie, H., Shamsuddin, A., & Saeed, N. (2023). Experiential and game-based learning in mathematics: Enhancing conceptual understanding and retention. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 1123-1142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11455-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2020). Active learning and flipped classrooms: Effects on confidence and self-efficacy. Journal of Learning Analytics, 7(2), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2020.72.5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. ASEE National Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--28085 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Kinshuk, & Chen, N. S. (2020). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers & Education, 79, 16-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Chen, Y., Lin, T., & Wang, S. (2022). Effects of pre-class preparation and in-class collaborative tasks on students’ confidence and performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(7), 1360-1375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1907812 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Hung, H. T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners: A case study. Computers & Education, 81, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Hung, H. T. (2021). The impact of flipped classrooms on conceptual understanding and engagement in mathematics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4), 2123-2142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09987-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Li, Q., & Chen, X. (2022). Student-centered tasks in flipped classrooms: Enhancing comprehension and problem-solving skills. Journal of Educational Technology, 19(3), 67-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211007345 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Chen, G. (2019). Toward a set of design principles for mathematics flipped classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 22(3), 1-14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26896776 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Zainuddin, Z., & Halili, S. H. (2016). Flipped classroom research and trends: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.03.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Interplay of Students’ Emotional Intelligence and Attitude toward Mathematics on Performance in Grade 10 Algebra
• Numerical Simulation of Fitzhugh-Nagumo Dynamics Using a Finite Difference-Based Method of Lines
• Fixed Point Theorem in Controlled Metric Spaces
• Usage of Moving Average to Heart Rate, Blood Pressure and Blood Sugar
• Exploring Algebraic Topology and Homotopy Theory: Methods, Empirical Data, and Numerical Examples