The flipped classroom (FC), a blended learning approach where students engage with lesson content remotely before in-person class, is increasingly recommended in different educational settings. Advancing its integration within genuine physical education (PE) settings, this research explores the effects of an innovative FC model on the learning experiences of secondary school students in gymnastics. This study presents data from 42 students, aged 17.42 ± 0.80 years, divided quasi-randomly between 19 in the flipped classroom (FC) group and 23 in the traditional approach (TA) group. Data were collected before and after a six-week intervention, assessing motor learning through gymnastics floor routines, knowledge acquisition in gymnastics via a custom-designed written test, and both autonomous (AMI) and controlled motivation indexes (CMI) through the “Situational Motivation Scale” (SIMS). During the intervention, physical engagement was quantified through direct observation as the number of gymnastics skill repetitions per session. Results showed that the FC group significantly outperformed the TA group in motor learning and knowledge acquisition, with p < 0.001. The FC group also exhibited a significant increase in AMI (p < 0.001) and a decrease in CMI (p < 0.01), opposite to the TA group. With mean repetitions ranging from 41 to 47.67 compared to TA group's 21.17 to 25.83, the FC model significantly enhanced phsycial engagement in the FC group (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). This research underscores the efficacy of the suggested FC model in boosting motor, cognitive, and affective outcomes in gymnastics. Recommendations for optimal implementation are discussed.
ToppingKJDouglasWRobertsonD, et al.Effectiveness of online and blended learning from schools: a systematic review. Rev Educ2022; 10: e3353.
2.
AlmahaseesZMohsenKAminMO. Faculty’s and Students’ perceptions of online learning during COVID-19. Front Educ2021; 6: 638470.
3.
AshrafMAYangMZhangY, et al.A systematic review of systematic reviews on blended learning: trends, gaps and future directions. Psychol Res Behav Manag2021; 14: 1525–1541.
4.
WangCOmar DevRDSohKG, et al.Blended learning in physical education: a systematic review. Front Public Health2023; 11: 1073423.
5.
CoulterMNí ChróinínD. What is PE?Sport Educ Soc2013; 18: 825–841.
6.
StrelanPOsbornAPalmerE. The flipped classroom: a meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines and education levels. Educ Res Rev2020; 30: 100314.
7.
ØsterlieOSargentJKillianC, et al.Flipped learning in physical education: a scoping review. Eur Phys Educ Rev2023; 29: 125–144.
8.
BouilheresFLeLTVHMcDonaldS, et al.Defining student learning experience through blended learning. Educ Inf Technol2020; 25: 3049–3069.
9.
PiagetJ. Genetic epistemology. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1970.
BloomBSEngelhartMDFurstEJ, et al.Handbook I: cognitive domain. New York: David McKay, 1956.
12.
HeinerichsSPazzagliaGGilboyMB. Using flipped classroom components in blended courses to maximize student learning. Athl Train Educ J2016; 11: 54–57.
13.
DeciELRyanRM, . Conceptualizations of intrinsic motivation and self-determination. In: DeciELRyanRM (eds) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Boston, MA: Springer, 1985, pp.11–40.
14.
NamaziandostEÇakmakF. An account of EFL learners’ self-efficacy and gender in the flipped classroom model. Educ Inf Technol2020; 25: 4041–4055.
15.
Latorre-CosculluelaCSuárezCQuirogaS, et al.Facilitating self-efficacy in university students: an interactive approach with flipped classroom. High Educ Res Dev2022; 41: 1603–1617.
16.
ChiangTH-CYangSJHYinC. Effect of gender differences on 3-on-3 basketball games taught in a mobile flipped classroom. Interact Learn Environ2019; 27: 1093–1105.
17.
Ferriz-ValeroAØsterlieOPenichet-TomasA, et al.The effects of flipped learning on learning and motivation of upper secondary school physical education students. Front Educ2022; 7: 832778.
18.
Ferriz-ValeroAØsterlieOGarcía-MartínezS, et al.Flipped classroom: a good way for lower secondary physical education students to learn volleyball. Educ Sci2022; 12: 26.
19.
BotellaÁGGarcía-MartínezSGarcíaNM, et al.Flipped learning to improve students’ motivation in physical education. Acta Gymn2021; 51: e2021.012.
20.
Campos-GutiérrezLMSellés-PérezSGarcía-JaénM, et al.Flipped learning in physical education: learning, motivation and motor practice time. Rev Int Med Cienc Act Fís Deporte2021; 21: 63–81.
21.
WulfGLewthwaiteR. Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychon Bull Rev2016; 23: 1382–1414.
22.
Hinojo-LucenaFJMingorance-EstradaÁCTrujillo-TorresJM, et al.Incidence of the flipped classroom in the physical education students’ academic performance in university contexts. Sustainability2018; 10: 1334.
23.
WangHChenM. Application of the flipped classroom mode under few-shot learning in the teaching of health physical education in colleges and universities. Comput Intell Neurosci2022; 2022: 1465613.
24.
HuTZhangM-LLiuH, et al.The influence of “small private online course + flipped classroom” teaching on physical education students’ learning motivation from the perspective of self-determination theory. Front Psychol2022; 13: 938426.
25.
HuangJYuD. Application of deep learning in college physical education design under flipped classroom. Comput Intell Neurosci2022; 2022: 7368771.
26.
StreskovaE. Gymnastics in school education and its perspectives. Stud Kinanthropol2008; 9: 173–176.
27.
MurrayAMKaitellE. Educational gymnastics: embodiment of a constraints agility approach. In: An Introduction to primary physical education. London: Routledge, 2022, pp.123–142.
28.
RussellK. Gymnastics challenges—a view from 50 years of coaching and teaching. In: HeinenTBortoletoMACNunomuraM, et al. (eds) High Performance Gymnastics. Berlin: Arete Verlag, 2015, pp.1–18.
29.
Amade-EscotCElandoulsiSVerscheureI. Physical education in Tunisia: teachers’ practical epistemology, students’ positioning and gender issues. Sport Educ Soc2015; 20: 656–675.
30.
TrabelsiOBouchibaMSouissiMA, et al.Technology-mediated physical education teaching practices in Tunisian public schools: a national teacher survey. Sport Educ Soc2022; 27: 878–892.
31.
FaulFErdfelderELangA-G, et al.G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods2007; 39: 175–191.
32.
BERA. Ethical guidelines for educational research. 4th ed. London: British Educational Research Association, 2018.
33.
GuelmamiNBen EzzeddineLHatemG, et al.The Ethical Compass: establishing ethical guidelines for research practices in sports medicine and exercise science. Int J Sport Stud Health2024; 7: 31–46.
34.
de la Mora VelascoEHirumiAChenB. Improving instructional videos with background music and sound effects: a design-based research approach. J Formative Des Learn2021; 5: 1–15.
35.
KacouOK. La gymnastique au sol: Guide d'enseignement de la Sixième à la Terminale. Paris: Editions L'Harmattan, 2015.
36.
RitortoA. Enseignons la gymnastique au sol: chandelle, roulades, ATR, fente avant, ponts. Toulouse: Gymnéo, 2007.
37.
GuayFVallerandRJBlanchardC. On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the situational motivation scale (SIMS). Motiv Emot2000; 24: 175–213.
38.
Schulte-UentropLCronjeJSZöllnerC, et al.Correlation of medical students’ situational motivation and performance of non-technical skills during simulation-based emergency training. BMC Med Educ2020; 20: 351.
39.
CohenJ. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge, 1988.
40.
DayanECohenLG. Neuroplasticity subserving motor skill learning. Neuron2011; 72: 443–454.
41.
SandrinEMorinAJFernetC, et al.Nature, predictor, and outcomes of motivation trajectories during a professional training program. Eur J Work Organ Psychol2022; 31: 226–244.
42.
IzadpanahS. The impact of flipped teaching on EFL students’ academic resilience, self-directed learning, and learners’ autonomy. Front Psychol2022; 13: 981844.
43.
BaigMIYadegaridehkordiE. Flipped classroom in higher education: a systematic literature review and research challenges. Int J Educ Technol High Educ2023; 20: 61.
44.
Kepios. Overview of social media use. 2024. Available from: Global Social Media Statistics — DataReportal – Global Digital Insights.
45.
ButtSMahmoodASaleemS, et al.Students’ performance in online learning environment: the role of task technology fit and actual usage of system during COVID-19. Front Psychol2021; 12: 759227.
46.
XuTGaoQGeX, et al.The relationship between social media and professional learning from the perspective of pre-service teachers: a survey. Educ Inf Technol2024; 29: 2067–2092.
47.
MancaSRanieriM. Is Facebook still a suitable technology-enhanced learning environment? An updated critical review of the literature from 2012 to 2015. J Comput Assist Learn2016; 32: 503–528.
48.
TodorovicMCoyneEGopalanV, et al.Twelve tips for using Facebook as a learning platform. Med Teach2021; 43: 1261–1266.
