Effectiveness of Flipped Classroom in
Teaching Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement to Grade 10 Students
of a National High School in Alaminos, Laguna, Philippines

Jo-mar E. Gregorio1, Evelie P. Serrano2

1 Teacher, Department of Education, Division of Laguna, Ibayiw Integrated National High School
2 Associate Professor, College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the Philippines Los Baños

コロナ禍で対面授業の機会が減ったのを機に、オンラインで生徒が授業内容を予習し、対面授業では教師が生徒からの質問に個別対応する「反転授業」の効果をフィリピンの高校で探った。

Abstract

Also known as “inverted classroom” by education practitioners, the flipped classroom holds much promise as
schools embrace a “new normal” of teaching and learning amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The flipped classroom
reverses the usual activities in the classroom where learning materials are provided online so students can study
the materials before coming to class. Classroom time can thus be utilized for problem solving and analysis.
This study determines the difference between knowledge gained by the students in flipped classroom and in traditional approach; compare students’ level of engagement in traditional and flipped classroom; and evaluate students’
perceptions on flipped classroom in teaching grammar. Data were gathered from two groups: the experimental andthe controlled. The experimental made use of flipped classroom, while the controlled had the traditional approach.
Pre-test and Post-test on Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement were given to the two groups. They were also asked toanswer the questionnaire on student engagement. Focus group discussion was conducted to support students’
perception.
Results show that students in the experimental group performed higher than those in the controlled. Throught-test, significant difference between the mean scores of the two groups was identified. In terms of students’
engagement, students in the flipped classroom strongly agreed that they were intellectually, emotionally, andactively engaged than those in the traditional approach. Through Mann Whitney U test, there was a significant difference in terms of students’ engagement between the two groups. Students perceived that flipped classroom iseffective in teaching Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement.
Keywords

Flipped Classroom, Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement, Student Engagement

Introduction

The process of teaching learners effectively and efficiently will always be a main concern that Philippine
schools continue to address, especially during this timeof global health crisis. This quest becomes a major issue
especially since 21st century learners have different
learning styles that are influenced by factors outside thelearning environment, including the use of technology.
According to Hogue (2011), the 21st century learners
are those learners who emerged after the realization of

personal computers. They were born after 1980 and canbe called the “the net generation” or “digital natives.”
Hogue further elaborated that this group can be generalized as the lifelong learners who can adapt to the rapid
pace of change and have increased ability to multi-task
and possess an increased aptitude for the utilization oftechnology. In addition, 21st century students are characterized by performing learning tasks independently
while working with the rest of the class and navigatingmachines towards the accomplishment of the assigned025

Jo-mar E. Gregorio, et al.

task (McCoog, 2008).
To cater to the needs of these learners, Boholano(2017) suggested that school systems be ready with
Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
resources and a curriculum to promote collaborative
learner-centered environment that will require learners
to relate and respond.
In addition, Alias (2010) claimed that learning exists
anywhere and anytime even without confining thelearners in a classroom. This is further supported by astudy conducted by Pudin (2017) emphasizing that students learn more effectively when the delivery of lectures is blended with the use of technology and can belearned at flexible hours.
Baker (2000) introduced the “flipped classroom”
approach which is also known as an “inverted classroom” (Lage, Platt, & Treglia, 2000). This is an approachthat can be used to actively engage students in theirlearning. This is done explicitly by bringing active student engagement with the material (such as problem-solving, case studies usually in collaboration withother students) directly into the classroom while performing activities passively like reading notes and books
and watching lecture videos outside the classroom.
Furthermore, flipped classroom is an approach thatmakes use of online videos and activities (Pudin, 2017).
It caters the student-centered learning environment (Ali
& Saberg, 2016). Alias (2010) pointed out that flippedclassroom can be beneficial to be applied in a grammarclassroom because it presents more effective active
learning since the function of the teacher is reinforced,
efficient use of time is observed, a more face to facetime interaction is practiced, peer learning is enhanced,
greater control of content delivery is evident, integrationof knowledge can be observed, and students can learn
on demand.
The study conducted by Barraquio (2015) revealed
that Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement is one of the areasin grammar where college students received a rating of“Needs Improvement.”
In addition, as we face the new normal in education,
the delivery of instruction has been a challenge to all
educational institutions. Some have chosen to conduct026

modular distance learning; some opted to deliver online
using different learning management system (LMS).
The sudden switch to online learning remains to posenumerous challenges to schools, teachers, students, andparents. Smith (2020) recommends an online instruction
method that individualizes student learning and demonstrates the teacher’s value of collaborative synchronous
learning time through a flipped learning model.
Based on these various positive claims on flippedclassroom and the emergence of this global pandemic,
there is an implied need to analyze the effectiveness offlipped classroom when utilized in teaching a grammar
lesson.
Thus, this study aimed to: (1) compare the knowledge
gained in flipped classroom and traditional approach;(2) compare the level of students’ intellectual, emotional, and participatory engagement between flippedclassroom and traditional approach; and (3) evaluate
students’ perceptions of using a flipped classroom inteaching Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement.

Methodology

Locale and Respondents of the Study
The Grade 10 students of a national high school in
Alaminos, Laguna served as the respondents of thestudy. This national high school offers junior and seniorhigh school.
There were 170 Grade 10 students during the school
year 2018-2019. These 170 students were sheltered into
five sections: Mt. Apo, Mt. Banahaw, Mt. Makiling, Mt.
Mayon, and Mt. Taal. Each section had a class size
which ranged from 30 to 36 students. The characteristicof each section is heterogeneous in nature because students were assigned to their respective sections basedon their general average from the previous school year.
The researcher utilized fishbowl technique to assign
sections to be part of the experimental and control
group. Based on the result of the fishbowl technique, Mt.
Apo and Mt. Mayon were chosen to be part of the control group. Mt. Taal and Mt. Banahaw comprised theexperimental group. On the other hand, Mt. Makiling
was picked to be the section where the pre-test was pilot
tested.

6th AFC Best Papers

Data Collection
Prior to the conduct of the study, the researcherssought permission from the school head of the national
high school and it was followed by the issuance of parental consent to all the parents of the Grade 10 students
who were tapped to participate in the study.
The topic to be learned by the students in this study
was on Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement. Based on the
Department of Education (DepEd) Curriculum Guide
for English 10, under the grammar awareness domain,
Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement is one of the underlying topics to be covered in the Third Quarter.
The pre-test was administered to both the experimental and control groups. Prior to the conduct of the
pre-test to the two groups, the pilot testing of the pretest to Mt. Makiling was administered and Item Analysis
was conducted right after.
Through the assistance of the ICT Coordinator of theschool, students in the experimental group were invited
to the computer laboratory to watch the flipped content
during their free time. This supports the definition of
Flipped model presented in the study of Moore & Chung(2016) that students in the flipped classroom learn newcontent by watching web-based instructional video lectures outside of the classroom (at home, at a friend’s
house, at the library, on mobile devices). Furthermore,
flipped content was sent to the official group chat of thestudents in the experimental group.
Students in the experimental group were informedthat they will be taught about the topic using flippedclassroom. This means that teacher will no longer spendclassroom time on lectures and discussion instead therole of the teacher is to guide them how to accomplish
various learning tasks, to employ differentiated instruction, and to establish an environment that permits themfor further face to face interaction (Ali & Saberg, 2016).
On the other hand, a lecture, using a powerpoint presentation was given to the control group and various
group tasks were also utilized in the discussion.
A post-test was given to the students from the control
and experimental groups at the end of every session.
They were also asked to answer a Student Engagement
Questionnaire (SEQ) which was adapted and modified

from the study of Cronhjort, Filipsson, & Weurlander(2018). This questionnaire is comprised of 11 items
which are categorized into three parts: (1) cognitive
engagement, (2) emotional engagement, and (3) active
participation.
On the other hand, students in the experimentalgroup were asked to answer another set of questionnaireon their perception on the use of flipped classroom. The
Student Perception Questionnaire (SPQ) was adapted
and modified from the study of Johnson (2013). It has 11
items which are classified intro three themes: (1) generalperception of flipped learning, (2) roles of videos andsocial media, and (3) time.
Furthermore, the ICT Coordinator was tapped to
conduct a focus group discussion (FGD) among 18 students from the experimental group. Six were top performing students, six were average performing students,and six were low performing students.
Research Design
The study utilized an experimental research design
to analyze the effectiveness of flipped classroom to students’ knowledge, engagement, and perception in learning Pronoun-Antecedent.
The following hypotheses were tested:
Ho: There is no significant difference in terms of themean knowledge gained between the traditional approachand the flipped classroom. The use of flipped classroom
and the traditional approach in teaching grammar arebasically the same in terms of effectiveness.
Ha1: There is a significant difference in terms of themean knowledge gained between the traditional approachand the flipped classroom. The use of flipped classroom
in teaching grammar is more effective than the traditional teaching method.
Ha2: There is a significant difference in terms of themean knowledge gained between the traditional approachand the flipped classroom. The use of traditional
approach in teaching grammar is more effective than027

Jo-mar E. Gregorio, et al.

the flipped classroom
Data Analysis
The following were the statistical treatments
employed in the study.
First, mean was used to determine the scores of thestudents in English grammar in the pre-test and posttest. Second, the weighted mean was utilized to determine the level of students’ engagement between the
flipped classroom and Traditional approach. This was
also used to determine the students’ perceptions of aflipped classroom to grammar input. Third, an independent t-test was done to determine the significant difference between the knowledge gained by the students inflipped classroom and Traditional approach. Lastly,
Mann Whitney U-test was utilized to determine the significant difference on the level of students’ engagement
between the flipped classroom and traditional approach.

Research Findings

This section presents major findings of the study.

Difference between Students’ Knowledge Gained in
Flipped Classroom and Traditional Approach
Students’ Mean Scores in the Pre-test
Table 1 shows the performance of the students in
English grammar from experimental and control groups
obtained mean scores of 9.81 and 8.47, respectively. It
can be observed that both groups obtained mean scores
below half of the total score which is 10. This implies
that both groups failed the English grammar test. This
also indicates that both groups of students have insufficient knowledge in English grammar.
Table 1. Students’ mean scores in the pre-test
Group
SectionExperimental Taal
Banahaw
Weighted Mean
Controlled
Apo
Mayon
Weighted Mean
Composite Mean

028

Mean
10.5
9.04
9.81
8.36
8.57
8.47
9.15

n
29
28
57
25
30
55
112

Std.
Deviation
3.51
2.81
3.25
3.15
3.16
3.13
3.24

Students’ Mean Scores in the Post-test
Table 2 reveals the results of the students’ performance in English grammar from experimental and controlled groups. The experimental group obtained meanscores of 14.9 and 11.1 for the controlled group. It can benoted that students’ mean scores from experimentalgroup is higher than those students from controlledgroup. This could mean that the students’ performancein English grammar is higher than those students fromthe controlled group.
This implies that students found flipped classroom
more effective in teaching Pronoun-Antecedent
Agreement than the traditional approach. The different
group activities employed in the flipped classroom
helped them to perform and understand better the lesson.
Table 2. Students’ mean scores in the post-test
Group
SectionExperimental Taal
Banahaw
Weighted Mean
Controlled
Apo
Mayon
Weighted Mean
Composite Mean

Mean
15.0
14.7
14.9
11.8
10.5
11.1
13.0

N
29
28
57
25
30
55
112

Std.
Deviation
3.93
4.76
4.32
4.26
3.62
3.94
4.53

Comparison of Knowledge Gained in Flipped
Classroom and Traditional Approach
Table 3 shows that the knowledge gained by the students in flipped classroom and Traditional based on
their post-test scores obtained mean scores of 14.9 and
11.1, respectively with a mean difference of 3.75. The
mean scores obtained a computed t-value of 4.794 withcorresponding p-value which is less than 5 percent levelof significance that led to reject the null hypothesis.
Therefore, there is a significant difference on the knowledge gained by the students in flipped classroom andTraditional classroom (tfn=112, df =100) =4.794, p<0.00).
It can be noted that the mean scores of the students from
Experimental classroom is higher than those students
from Traditional classroom. This implies that the knowledge of the students in English grammar using flipped6th AFC Best Papers

classroom is higher than those students taught using
Traditional approach. According to Carini, Kuh, andKlein (2006), students in a flipped classroom may haveachieved more compared to those in a traditional setting
because of higher engagement in a flipped classroom.

to accomplish. In addition, students learn better by
relating the lesson to real world examples or scenarios.
Table 4. Students’ level of Intellectual Engagement
Experimental

Controlled

WM VI

R

WM VI

R

Overall
WM VI

R

Table 3. Students’ Knowledge Gained in Flipped Classroom
and Traditional Approach

1. The lesson waschallenging ina positive way.

4.02

A

3

3.80

A

1.5 3.91

A

3

Mean Computed p- Decision
VerbalPost-test Mean Difference t-values values on Ho Interpretation
Experimental 14.9
3.75
4.794
0.000 Reject
Significant
Controlled 11.1

2. During thediscussion,
I worked hard tolearn what wasdifficult.

3.82

A

4

3.55

A

4

3.69

A

4

3. In understanding
the lesson, tried tounderstand how
things areconnected

4.32 SA

1

3.80

A

1.5 4.06

A1

4. Related the lesson
to real world
examples.

4.25 SA

2

3.73

A

3

3.99

A

2

Composite Mean

4.10

3.72

A

3.91

A

Students’ Engagement
Students’ Intellectual Engagement
Table 4 shows the difference in the level of students’intellectual engagement between the experimental andcontrolled groups. In the experimental group, the thirdand fourth statements (“In understanding the lesson, I
tried to understand how things are connected”) and(“Related the lesson to real word examples”), ranked
first and second with a weighted mean of 4.32 and 4.25
respectively.
Consequently, Mt Banahaw and Mt. Taal agreed thatthe lesson was challenging in a positive way. This statement placed third in rank with 4.02 weighted mean.
Likewise, students agreed that they worked hard to learn
what was difficult during the discussion. This statement
got a weighted mean of 3.82 that made this statement
ranked last.
On the other hand, in the controlled group, Mt. Apo
and Mt. Mayon gave a weighted mean of 3.80 to the first
and third statements (“The lesson was challenging in apositive way”) and (“In understanding the lesson, tried
to understand how things are connected”) which ranked
first. The third in rank is the fourth statement (“Related
the lesson to real world examples”) with a weighted
mean of 3.73. The statement (“During the discussion, I
worked hard to learn what was difficult”) got a weighted
mean of 3.55 that placed this statement last in rank.
The result implies that there is a need for the students
to understand how things are connected with one
another before they are given a particular learning task

A

Legend: WM-Weighted Mean
VI-Verbal Interpretation
R-RankSA-Strongly Agree
A -AgreeStudents’ Emotional Engagement
In terms of students’ emotional engagement between
the experimental and controlled groups, the table presents that the students in the experimental group strongly
agreed to all the statements in this category. First in
rank is the second statement (“The teacher appeared tocare what the students should learn and understand”)
with a weighted mean of 4.60. Second in rank is thethird statement (“Students’ questions and feedback
appeared to be taken seriously”) with a weighted meanof 4.40. The last in rank is the first statement (“Motivated
to really learn to understand the lesson”) with a weighted
mean of 4.28.
In contrast, students from Mt. Apo and Mt. Mayon,
the controlled group, strongly agreed that the teacher
appeared to care to what the students should learn andunderstand with a weighted mean of 4.24. The firststatement (“Motivated to really learn to understand thelesson”) ranked second with a weighted mean of 4.00.
The third statement (“Students’ questions and feedback
appeared to be taken seriously”) ranked third with a029

Jo-mar E. Gregorio, et al.

weighted mean of 3.60.
In general, students from experimental group strongly
agreed that they were more emotionally engaged than
the students from the controlled group. The experimental group had a higher composite mean than the controlled group. Jamaludin et al. (2014) emphasized thatstudents fail to learn about a specific topic or a learningmaterial when no feedback is given in class or on discussion boards. In addition, students are motivated toaccomplish the learning task and will assume responsibility to one another when they are emotionally engaged(Jones, 2012).
Table 5. Students’ level of Emotional Engagement
Experimental

Controlled

Overall

WM VI

R

WM VI

R

WM VI

R

5. Motivated to reallylearn to understand 4.28 SA
the lesson

3

4.00

A

2

4.14

A

2

6. The teachers
appeared to carewhat the students
should learn andunderstand.

4.60 SA

1

4.24 SA

1

4.42 SA1

7. Students’ questions
and feedback
4.40 SAappeared to betaken seriously

2

3.60

A

3

4.01

A

3

3.95

A

4.19

A

Composite Mean

4.43 SA

Legend: WM-Weighted Mean
VI-Verbal Interpretation
R-RankSA-Strongly Agree
A-Agree

Students’ Engagement in terms of Participation
Table 6 shows the difference on the students’ level ofengagement in terms of participation between the twogroups. The ratings the experimental group, Mt.
Banahaw and Mt. Taal gave ranged from 4.23 to 4.51
with a verbal interpretation of Strongly Agree. The
fourth statement (“Active participation in the teaching”)
ranked first with a weighted mean of 4.51. This is supported by the advantages gathered in FGD where cooperation and sharing knowledge among group members
were present. Second in rank is the second statement(“Ability to get support from the teacher, if needed”) witha weighted mean of 4.40. The third statement (“Asking
peers or teachers when didn’t understand”) ranked third030

with a weighted mean of 4.32. The first statement(“Learning by working together and discussing withothers”) ranked fourth with a weighted mean of 4.23.
This ranking is supported by the responses the researcher
acquired from the administration of FGD.
According to a student from Mt. Banahaw, “Ourteacher guided our group and was approaching eachgroup to supervise us while we do the group activities.”
Another student from Mt. Taal said, “Our teacher monitored each group as we did brainstorming among ourgroup members the correct answer for the learning
tasks.”On the contrary, students from the controlled group,
Mt. Apo and Mt. Mayon, strongly agreed that the fourthstatement (“Active participation in teaching”) ranked
first with a weighted mean of 4.40. Statement numbers
1, 2, and 3 had weighted means that ranged from 3.96 to
3.76. These ratings mean that the students agreed thatthey learned by working together and discussing withothers. They likewise agreed that they were able to get
support from the teacher, if needed. Similarly, theyagreed that they can ask their peers or teachers whenclarification is needed. These statements got a weighted
mean of 3.96, 3.82, and 3.76 respectively.
The notable composite mean in the participatory
engagement supports the findings of Wimpenny and
Savin-Baden (2013) who noted that in flipped classroom
where more time is spent on discussions and interactions between peers and between teachers and students,
students feel that the teacher cares about their learningand takes their questions seriously and that they receive
more support. These social interactions help students
feel a sense of belongingness and a connection to theirlearning environment. Thus, a positive link between
student engagement and student learning could beobserved.

6th AFC Best Papers

Table 6. Students’ level of Participation
Experimental

Controlled

Overall

WM VI

R

WM VI

R

WM VI

R

4.23 SA

4

3.96

A

2

4.10

A

3

9. Ability to get
support from4.40 SA
teachers, if needed

2

3 .82

A

3

4.12

A

2

10. Asking peers orteachers when
didn’t understand4.32 SA

3

3.76

A

4

4.04

A

4

11. Active
participation in the 4.51 SA
teaching

14.40 SA

1

4.46 SA1

8. Learned byworking together
and discussing
with others

Composite Mean

4.37 SA

3.99

A

4.18

A

Overall Composite
Mean

4.27 SA

3.89

A

4.09

A

Legend: WM-Weighted Mean
VI-Verbal Interpretation
R-RankSA-Strongly Agree
A-AgreeComparison of the Level of Students’ Engagement
Table 7 reveals the students’ level of engagement
between the Flipped classroom and Traditional classroom in terms of intellectual, emotional and participation obtained mean scores of 4.10 and 3.72; 4.43 and3.95; as well as 4.36 and 3.99; respectively. It likewise
obtained corresponding mean ranks of 68.51 and 44.05;
70.11 and 42.40; as well as 67.06 and 45.55. The computed U-values were 833, 792, and 965.5; respectively. It
attained corresponding p-values which are less than 5
percent level significance that led to reject the null
hypothesis. Thus, there is a significant difference on thelevel of engagement of the students between the flippedclassroom and Traditional approach in terms of intellectual, emotional and participation. It can be observed thatthe students’ mean scores from flipped classroom on
intellectual, emotional, and participation are higher thanthose of the mean scores of Traditional classroom. This
could mean that the students from flipped classroom are
more engaged in terms of intellectual, emotional andparticipation that those students from Traditional
approach.
Moreover, the overall students’ level of engagement
between the flipped classroom and traditional classroom
obtained mean scores of 4.27 and 3.89 and mean ranksof 70.85 and 41.63, respectively. It likewise obtained
computed U-value of 749.5. It attained a corresponding
p-value which is less than 5 percent level significancethat led to reject the null hypothesis. Thus, the level ofengagement of the students between the flipped classroom and traditional approach is significantly different(Mann Whitney U (n=112, df=100) =749.5, p < 0.00).
Considering that the students’ mean scores of flippedclassroom are higher than those of the mean scores ofstudents from traditional approach, this indicates thestudents from flipped classroom are more engaged thatthose students from traditional approach.
The significant difference between the level of student engagement in the flipped classroom and traditional
approach is supported by the study conducted by Millard(2012) who claimed that flipped classroom approach
intensifies students’ active engagement in class. This is

Table 7. Significant difference on the level of students’ engagement between flipped classroom and traditional approach
Engagement

Group

Mean

Mean rankIntellectual

Participation

Experimental
Controlled
Experimental
Controlled
Experimental

Overall(Engagement)

Experimental
Controlled

4.10
3.72
4.43
3.95
4.36
3.99
4.27
3.89

68.51
44.05
70.11
42.40
67.06
45.55
70.85
41.63

Emotional

Computed
u-valuep-value

833

0.00

792

0.00

965.5

0.00

749.5

0.00

Decision on
Ho
RejectRejectRejectRejectVerbalInterpretation
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant

031

Jo-mar E. Gregorio, et al.

further supported by the study of McLaughlin et al.
(2014) that students in flipped classroom can participate
and engage in class discussions, and they feel confident
in their ability to apply the knowledge. Tucker (2012)asserts that the most successful function of flippedclassroom is the ability to enhance student’s engagement
in a subject.
Students’ Perception of a Flipped Classroom to
Grammar Input
Table 8 shows the weighted mean of the students’
responses for the 11-item Likert scale on students’ perception of a flipped classroom in teaching a grammar
lesson. The weighted mean for each statement on thegeneral perception towards flipped classroom ranges
from 3.42 to 4.39. Students strongly agreed that flippedclassroom has improved their grammar understanding
got the highest weighted mean which is 4.39. Under thesame theme, students strongly agreed that the flippedclassroom gave them better opportunities to interact

with their classmates with a weighted mean of 4.33.
Moreover, students agreed that they were more motivated to learn grammar through flipped classroom andagreed to recommend the approach to a friend. Thesestatements got a weighted mean of 4.14 and 4.07 respectively. In addition, the statement that flipped classroom
is more engaging than the traditional approach got thelowest weighted mean under the general perception
which is 3.95.
For the second theme which is on the role of videos
and social media, students strongly agreed that they
were able to watch the video assignment before coming
to class. This statement got the highest weighted meanof 4.2. Likewise, statements which state that students
agreed that social media is an important part in theirlearning and they liked watching the lesson on video got
a weighted mean of 3.93 and 3.51 respectively. On thecontrary, students agreed that they would rather havetraditional teacher led the lesson than watching a lesson
video with a weighted mean of 3.42.

Table 8. Students’ perceptions of a flipped classroom to grammar input

Statement
I. Students’ General Perception towards Flipped Classroom
1. The flipped classroom is more engaging than the traditional classroom
2. I would recommend the flipped classroom to a friend
3. The flipped classroom gives me better opportunities to interact with my classmates
4. I feel that the flipped classroom has improved my grammar understanding
5. I am more motivated to learn grammar through the flipped classroom
Composite Mean
II. Students’ Perception on the Roles of Videos and Social Media
6. I like watching the lesson on video
7. Social media is an important part in my learning
8. I watched the video assignment before coming to class
9. I would rather have traditional teacher led lesson than watching a lesson video
Composite Mean
III. Students’ Perception on the Use of Time
10. I am spending less time working on traditional grammar seatwork
11. Flipped classroom gives me less class time to learn grammar
Composite Mean
Overall Composite Mean

032

Experimental
Weighted
VerbalMeanInterpretation
3.95
4.07
4.33
4.39
4.14
4.19

Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Agree

3.51
3.93
4.26
3.42
3.78

Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Agree

4.00
4.04
4.02
4.00

Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree

6th AFC Best Papers

Results of the study have been supported by Talbert(2012) who provided some drawbacks when using
flipped classroom in teaching which include struggle ofstudents to take increased responsibility for learningand culture shock. It became struggle for students
because they felt uncomfortable and abandoned. It has
been a culture shock because there are still learners who
are accustomed to rote, face-to-face Socratic teaching.
Furthermore, Herreid and Schiller (2013) claimed thatlearners who are inclined in traditional education havehigh possibility to resist this new model. This can befurther supported by a response gathered in the FGD.
According to the experimental group, there are still anumber of students who prefer to have a traditional
teacher in learning a lesson.
The perception on time management is the third
theme. Students agreed that flipped classroom gavethem less class time to learn Pronoun-Antecedent
Agreement with a weighted mean of 4.04. This can besupported by a response from FGD that flipped classroom is not time-consuming since students have gained
basic knowledge on the topic before coming to class.
However, some students agreed that they have spent lesstime working on traditional grammar seatwork with aweighted mean of 4.00. This kind of result is supportedby the study conducted by Strayer (2012) who claimed
that learners were less satisfied participating in the
flipped classroom activities because they felt uncomfortable with group learning activities. Also, some students were more comfortable to the traditional methodof doing assignments on their own.
In general, students’ perception on the use of flippedclassroom obtained composite means of 4.19, 3.78, and4.02 for the general perception, roles of videos andsocial media, and the use of time respectively. Moreover,an overall composite mean of 4.00 shows that students
agreed that they perceived flipped classroom as aneffective tool to grammar input. This result can be supported by the findings of the study conducted by Baker(2000) indicating that students had a positive perception
towards flipped classroom because they found out thatlearning in flipped classroom is more personalized, critical thinking skills are being fostered throughcooperative learning groups, and they have control over
the online resources provided by the teacher.
In relation to students’ perception on the use of
Flipped classroom in teaching Pronoun-Antecedent
Agreement, the researcher conducted a Focus Group
Discussion among chosen students from the experimental group. The gathered information focused on theadvantages and disadvantages of using flipped classroom in learning grammar. Participants of FGD wereable to provide suggestions to improve their learning on
a grammar lesson through flipped classroom. Responsesof the FGD participants were summarized in Table 9.
One of the advantages mentioned in the FGD is easy
access. A student claimed “I can access the learning
content anytime and anywhere I want according to mypace.” The student’s opinion coincides with the findingsof Dyck (2013) who said that flipped classroom permits
students to easily review a topic by either rewinding
video or reviewing slides on their own time. In addition,
students are given greater freedom in their learning
choices since it allows them to learn on their own pace
(Brunsell & Horejsi, 2013). Another finding to support
the first response is from the study conducted by Steed(2012) who underscored that this form of learning isparticularly beneficial for slower students who are able toreview material as many times as they like so that they
can increase their understanding on a particular lesson.
Fulton (2013) emphasized that flipped classroom
teachers are given the opportunity to create more specific one-on-one interactions with students who arehaving difficulties. During the FGD, one of the students
said: “Understanding the lesson did not require us toomuch time because teacher was approachable andready to answer our questions.” Another student shared:“Teacher’s guidance and supervision when we do thegroup task were very helpful.”
The third response (“Students who have tendency to
be absent can still catch up to the missed lesson”) is
supported by Fulton (2013) who noted that the flippedclassroom has also demonstrated its flexibility in situations where teachers or students cannot go to class due
to illness or other reason, the scheduled lesson can push033

Jo-mar E. Gregorio, et al.

Table 9. Summary of students’ responses on the use of flipped classroom

Advantages

Disadvantages

Suggestions

Students’ Responses• We can access the learning content anytime and anywhere we want according to our pace.
• Understanding the lesson did not require us too much time because teacher was approachable andready to answer our questions.
• Students who have tendency to be absent can still catch up to the missed lesson.
• Group activities gave us equal chance to share one’s knowledge among group members.
• Teacher’s guidance and supervision when we do the group task was very helpful.
• Cooperation among the group members was present.
• Flipped classroom is different from the traditional approach because we have gained knowledge
before coming to class therefore; it is not time-consuming especially in the discussion.
• Not all of us have high-end gadgets to save the flipped content. In the same way, not all of us haveinternet connection at home.
• There are a number of students who prefer to have a traditional teacher.
• The video was long enough that it is difficult to sustain our attention while watching the video.
• Watching the video may deprive us not to do house hold chores when we go home because we havelecture video to watch.
• Employ more graphics and background music so our attention will be hooked all throughout thetime when we watch the video.
• Slow manner of teacher’s voice in the lecture video• Inject humor so students will enjoy watching the video.
• Consider students who do not have connection at home and do not have high-end phones.
• Hope that other teachers in other subjects will use this kind of approach.

through. This will particularly be of significance during
this time of remote learning in most schools in thePhilippines due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Cooperation among the group members was present” can be clearly illustrated by one of the benefits offlipped classroom: peer-learning (Danker, 2015). In his
study, Danker adapted the definition of Keppel (2006)of peer-learning and described it as a method to encourage meaningful learning and involves students teachingeach other and learning from each other. Boud (2001)
emphasized that this kind of learning involves sharingof ideas, knowledge, and experiences; and emphasizes
interdependent as opposed to independent learning.
Another response from FGD in terms of advantages
is “Flipped classroom is different from the traditional
approach because we have gained knowledge before
coming to class therefore; it is not time-consuming
especially in the discussion.” Martin (2015) claimed thatin flipped classroom efficiency of time usage is observed.
This is because students can come to class the next day
ready to actively engage in the material since students
have viewed the learning material at home. This is034

supported by Bergmann and Sams (2012) who notedthat flipped classroom teachers are allowed to spend
more time on one-on-one interaction with students tocreate more opportunities to check for understanding
and clarify misconceptions from the students.
On the other hand, the findings of the study conductedby Wallace (2014) can be used to support the responsesof the participants in the FGD in terms of disadvantages.
Wallace highlighted that students with an aversion totechnology may find a flipped class to be not useful andtherefore will not motivate them to learn. He further
underscored that although there is a majority of learners
who embrace technology as an effective learning tool, aminority of students who prefer to learn in traditionalclassroom setting should not be disregarded.
Other disadvantages solicited from the participantsof FGD can be supported by some technological issues
presented in the studies conducted by Nielsen andJohnson respectively. Nielsen (2012) stressed the success of the flipped classroom is solely dependent on
having a fully functional smartphone, laptop, tablet orcomputer and if a student does not have one of these (or6th AFC Best Papers

one that is working correctly) they will not be able tostudy. Johnson and Renner (2012) mentioned that astrong Internet connection is also a necessity to participate and those who live in areas with weak connections
may be placed at a disadvantage.
Based on the FGD conducted, the number of
responses in terms of advantages is greater than the disadvantages acquired from the participants. Suggestions
were also raised in the discussion and will be taken seriously to improve the utilization of such intervention in
the teaching process. Hence, it can be inferred that generally, students agreed that flipped classroom is aneffective technique in teaching a grammar lesson.

Conclusion

The difference between the knowledge gained by thestudents in the flipped classroom and in the traditional
approach shows that flipped classroom is more effective
to be used in teaching Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement
than the traditional approach to Grade 10 students. Thismeans that students in flipped classroom performed
better than those in the traditional approach. Moreover,students strongly agreed that in flipped classroom, they
were more engaged intellectually, emotionally, andactively than those in the traditional approach. This concludes that the knowledge gained in the flipped classroom is associated to the students’ level of engagement.
In addition, students perceived that flipped classroom
helped them to understand Pronoun-Antecedent better
than the traditional approach.

Recommendations

Based on the results and conclusions, the following
recommendations are thus endorsed:
For English Teachers
The result of the study shows that flipped classroom
is an effective tool in teaching a lesson on PronounAntecedent Agreement. With this, English teachers may
opt to adapt same teaching model in teaching a different
grammar lesson but need to secure that students haveinternet connection at home. Also, there is no single
method which can be used to address the preferences ofthe learners. Thus, teachers should consider other learning activities that will promote collaborative and active
learning before flipping the class.
For Other Teachers
The Flipped classroom might be a perfect model tobe used in other learning areas by other teachers inteaching a specific lesson. This study presents positive
result in terms of student engagement and knowledge
gained. With this, teachers should be ready with various
group tasks that will strengthen student engagement sothat knowledge gained will be further improved.
For Curriculum Designers
Nowadays, teachers are compelled to integrate ICTin their teaching process. Thus, variations of teaching
methods through the use of the different forms of technology or the current trends in education should bereflected in the curriculum guides since the students wehave today are characterized to be “technologicallysavvy” individuals.
For School HeadIn promoting a student-centered learning environment, variations of teaching strategies should bereflected in the School Improvement Plan (SIP) to provide quality education that caters to the different learning needs of the learners. As part of the Teacher’s
Individual Performance and Commitment Review Form
(IPCRF), the principal could thus monitor teachers’ useof different teaching methods, specifically this kind ofteaching approach.
For Future researchers
Those who plan to pursue the same study may consider using this approach in teaching a particular lesson
with respect to their area of specialization to find further
results that will contradict or agree with the present
study. Future researchers may consider the suggestions
presented in the focus group discussion and may conduct a similar study in a different setting such as in a
private learning institution.

035

Jo-mar E. Gregorio, et al.

References
1) Alias, Abdul Karim. (2010). Flipped classroom: Total classroom
makeover. https://www.openlearning.com/courses/flippedlearning2) Ali, Y., & Säberg, M. (2016). The Effects of ‘Flipping’ a Classroom
with the Focus on Teaching English as a Second Language. https://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1064472/FULLTEXT01.pdf
3) Baker, J. W. (2000). The “classroom flip”: Using web course
management tools to become the guide on the side. In J. A.
Chambers (Ed.), Selected papers from the 11th International
Conference on College Teaching and Learning (pp. 9-17).
Jacksonville, FL: Florida Community College at4) Barraquio, D. T. (2015). Grammar Proficiency of Colegio de San
Juan de Letran Calamba College Students. NEXO, 1(1). http://ejournals.ph/form/cite.php?id=6780
5) Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reachevery student in every class every day. Alexandria, VA:
International Society for Technology in Education; ASCD.
6) Boholano, H. (2017). Smart Social Networking: 21st Century
Teaching and Learning Skills. Research in Pedagogy, Vol. 7.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1149146.
7) Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (Eds.). (2001). Peer Learningin Higher Education: Learning from & with Each Other.
Psychology Press.
8) Brunsell, E. and Horejsi, M. (2013) Using web tools to support
learning. Science 2.0, 8
9) Carini R. M., Kuh G. D., Klein S. P. (2006) Student engagement
and student learning: testing the linkages. Res. High. Educ ., 47,
1–32.
10) Cronhjort M., Filipsson L., Weurlander M. (2018) Can peer
instruction in calculus improve student learning? Proceedings of
the 9th International CDIO Conference.
11) Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied
Sciences, 1–9.Danker, B. (2015). Using flipped classroom approach
to explore deep learning in large classrooms. The IAFOR Journalof Education. Vol.III - Issue I - Winter 2015.

19) Johnson, G. B. (2013). Student’s perceptions of the flipped classroom. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of British
Columbia). https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/
24/items/1.0073641
20) Johnson, L. W., & Renner, J. D. (2012). Effect of the flipped classroom model on a secondary computer applications course:
Student and teacher perceptions, questions and student achievement. Unpublished dissertation, University Louisville, Louisville.
Jones, T. (2012). Community in the classroom: An approach tocurriculum and instruction as a means for the development ofstudent cognitive, social and emotional engagement in a highschool classroom. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1267150757/
fulltextPDF/21) Keppell, M., Au, E., Ma, A., & Chan, C. (2006). Peer Learningand Learning-oriented Assessment in Technology-Enhanced
Environments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
31(4), 453-464
22) Lage, M.J., Platt, G.J. & Treglia, M. (2000) “Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment,”
Journal of Economic Education, vol. 31(1), p. 30-43
23) Martin, M. (2015). Flipped Learning. British Journal Of
Educational Technology. 46(6).E28. doi:10.1111/bjet.12368
24) McCoog, I. (2008). 21st Century Learning and Teaching. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502607.pdf25) McLaughlin, J. E., Roth, M. T., Glatt, D. M., Gharkholonarehe,N., Davidson, C. A.,
26) Millard, E. (2012). 5 reasons flipped classrooms work. University
Business, 26-29.
27) Moore, C. & Chung, C. (2016). Students’ Attitudes, Perceptions,and Engagement within a Flipped classroom model as Related to
Learning Mathematics. http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.
php/jse/article/viewFile/8131/6686
28) Nielsen, L. (2012) Five Reasons I’m Not Flipping Over The
Flipped Classroom. www.techlearning.com
29) Pudin, C. (2017). Exploring a Flipped Learning Approach in
Teaching Grammar for ESL Students. https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/12) Danker, B. (2015). Using flipped classroom approach to explore
deep learning in large classrooms. The IAFOR Journal of
Education. Vol.III - Issue I - Winter 2015.

30) Smith, R. (2020) Flipped Learning During a Global Pandemic:
Empowering Students with Choice. https://www.ojed.org/index.
php/jimphe/article/view/2428/1174

13) Dyck, B.A. (2013) Click Here: Exploring the Flipped Classroom:
It’s a Balancing Act!. Middle Ground, 16(4), 42–43

31) Steed, A. (2012) The Flipped Classroom. Teaching Business andEconomics Autumn 2012, 16 (3), 9–11.

14) Fulton, K.P. (2013) Grassroots Gains Byron’s Flipped Classrooms.
School Administrator, 70(3), 26–28, 30–32.

32) Strayer, J.F., 2012. How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning
Environment Research, 15(2): 171-193

15) Griffin, L. M., & Mumper, R. J. (2014). The flipped classroom: acourse redesign to foster learning and engagement in a healthprofessions school. Academic Medicine, 89(2), 236–243.
16) Hogue, R. (2011). Who is the 21st Century Learner. Retrieved fromhttps://rjh.goingeast.ca/2011/09/21/who-is-the-21st-centurylearner17) Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and theflipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5),62-66.
18) Jamaludin, Rozinah & Md Osman, Siti Zuraidah & md osman,Siti. (2014). The Use of a Flipped Classroom to Enhance
Engagement and Promote Active Learning. 5.

03633) Talbert, R., 2012. Inverted classroom. Colleagues, 9(1): 1-3
34) Tucker, B. (2012). The Flipped Classroom. Education Next, 12,
No. 1.http://educationnext.org/the-flipped-classroom/35) Wallace, A. (2014). Social Learning Platforms and the Flipped
Classroom. International Journal of Information and Education
Technology,4(4),293-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICeLeTE.2013.
664437336) Wimpenny K., Savin-Baden M. (2013) Alienation, agency andauthenticity: A synthesis of the literature on student engagement.
Teach Higher Edu.,18, 311-312