University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Approaches to teaching for twenty-first century learners in South Korea: An evaluation study of GSS

(USC Thesis Other)

Approaches to teaching for twenty-first century learners in South Korea: An evaluation study of GSS

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: EVALUATION STUDY OF GSS 1

Approaches to Teaching for Twenty-First Century Learners in South Korea:
An Evaluation Study Of GSS

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2018

Copyright 2018 Jenny Kim
EVALUATION OF GSS 2

DEDICATION

My last schooling was twenty years ago, but my reason for returning to school was
initially sparked by the tragedy of the Sewolho ferry on the 16
th
of April in 2014, where the
innocent lives of 246 high school students were lost at sea in the southwest coast of South Korea.
Not only were these precious lives lost at sea on that day but each day, Korean students continue
to lose their hopes and dreams at school. My hope, in this journey, is to take a small part in
helping students dream again and rediscover the love for learning.
I am forever grateful for my parents who left the comforts of their home and especially
for my dad, who sacrificed his career as an educator in South Korea so that we can have a better
education and a brighter future. I could not have started on this journey three years ago without
the support of my husband and children, who believe in me and give me the strength and courage
I need every day to make a difference. I am grateful for my husband who has been my
cheerleader and believed in my potential (more than myself) and for my children, Abby, Isaac,
and Rachel, who helped around the house, waited with great patience and endured with me in
every way. I am grateful to Dr. Kim and the GSS leadership team for the opportunity and
resources they provided to study their organization and interact with their teachers. But most of
all, I recognize that I could not have begun and finished this journey without my God at my side,
helping me in every way to persevere and see His heart for the youth in South Korea.

EVALUATION OF GSS 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Table of Contents 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice 10
Background of the Problem 10
Importance of Addressing the Problem 12
Organizational Context and Mission 14
Organizational Goal 15
Description of Stakeholder Groups 16
Stakeholder’s Performance Goals 16
Stakeholder Group for the Study 17
Purpose of the Project and Questions 18
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 19
Definitions 19
Organization of the Project 20
Chapter Two: Review of Literature 22
Need for Diverse Teaching Approaches 22
History, Success and Challenges of Korean Education 23
EVALUATION OF GSS 4

High Value of Education 23
Exam Driven (High Pressure) Learning Culture 26
High School Equalization Policy (HSEP) 27
Problems with Shadow Education 30
Standardized National Curriculum 32
Lack of autonomy and diversity 33
High Academic Achievement but Low Level of Interest and Happiness 34
Social Context of The Twenty-First Century Demands 35
Globalization 36
Restructuring the Educational Culture: Recent Reform Efforts 37
Education Reform Policies in Korea 39
Teaching Models for Twenty-First Century Learning 41
Changing Approaches to Teaching for Twenty-First Century Learners 44
Conceptual Framework for the Study 49
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework 53
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational influences 54
Knowledge and Skills 54
Motivation 62
Organizational Influences 67

Conclusion 72

Chapter Three: Methodology 74
EVALUATION OF GSS 5

Research Questions 74
Conceptual Framework 74
Participating Stakeholders 75
Data Collection and Instrumentation 77
Surveys 78
Interviews 79
Documents and Artifacts 81
Data Analysis 81
Validity and Reliability 84
Credibility and Trustworthiness 85
Ethics 87
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 90
Participating Stakeholders 90
Results 92
Findings 93
Knowledge Results 93
Motivation Results 107
Organizational Results 113
Chapter Five: Recommendations 122
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO influences 122
Knowledge Recommendations 122
EVALUATION OF GSS 6

Motivation Recommendations 136
Organization Recommendations 145
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 156
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations 157
Evaluation Tools 168

Data Analysis and Reporting 170

Flipping Instruction Progress 170

Summary 171
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 173
Limitations and Delimitations 174
Future Research 176
Conclusion 177
References 179
Appendix A: Survey Protocol 196
Appendix B: Survey Results 199
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 207
Appendix D: GSS Document (PD Sessions on Flipped Instruction) 209
Appendix E: Sample Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 210
Appendix F: Evaluation Tools 211
Sample Blended Evaluation Items 213

EVALUATION OF GSS 7

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Stakeholder Goal and Knowledge Influence, Type and Assessment for
Knowledge Gap Analysis 61
Table 2: Stakeholder Goal and Motivational Influence and Assessment for Motivation
Gap Analysis 66
Table 3: Organizational Influences of Cultural Model and Setting 72
Table 4: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 123
Table 5: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 137
Table 6: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 147
Table 7: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 158
Table 8: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for New Reviewers 160
Table 9: Required Drivers to Support GSS teachers’ Critical Behaviors 162
Table 10: Components of Learning for the Program. 166
Table 11: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. 168

EVALUATION OF GSS 8

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Comparison of teacher-centered and student-centered learning environments 46
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework Linking Influences to the Organizational Goal 51
Figure 3: Survey Participants from each grade (n=45) 91
Figure 4: Interview Participants’ years of teaching and grade level 91
Figure 5: Survey Q1. I am currently integrating flipped instruction. 92
Figure 6: Frequency of responses to survey Q7. I often find it difficult to integrate
flipped instruction in my classroom. 92
Figure 7: Number of teachers that applied flipped instruction to a subject 104

EVALUATION OF GSS 9

ABSTRACT
Although a nationally centralized education system brought much growth to South Korea
following the Korean war, the challenges facing a global knowledge economy in the twenty-first
century require students to be intellectually competent with skills such as inquiry, creativity,
problem-solving and collaboration. The Korean government is aiming to reform the education
system from a highly test-driven, content learning environment with emphasis on rote memory of
facts, to a more student-centered learning environment where meaningful and experiential
learning is valued. However, teachers continue to face challenges in reforming their pedagogical
practices within individual schools and classrooms, due to the lack of training and resources
teachers need in bringing effective change to their classroom practices. This evaluation study of
GSS adapted the gap analysis framework by Clark and Estes (2008) to evaluate the knowledge,
motivation and organizational needs teachers have in reaching their organizational goal of
integrating flipped instruction into five unit plans within their curriculum. The findings from this
study concurred with prior research that ongoing support for classroom teachers through
education, training, and PLC is crucial for teachers to continue deepening students’ learning
experiences through various pedagogical practices that are effective.

EVALUATION OF GSS 10

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE
The educational system in South Korea has had great success with a nationally
centralized, standardized curriculum and teaching instruction, as well as a government-controlled
university entrance exam (Kim, 2005; Park & Kim, 2014; Sorenson, 1994). Although this system
brought growth and numerous advancements to Korean society through a period of rapid
industrialization and economic growth leading up to the 20th century, past educational practices
need to change. For Korean students to be prepared for the challenges of a global knowledge
economy in the twenty-first century, they need to acquire skills such as intellectual competency,
creativity, and innovation (Cha & Min 2013; Kwon, Lee, & Lee, 2016; Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, 2014; Park & Kim, 2014).
This dissertation addresses the problems that current educational practices in South Korea
impose on student learning through a tightly controlled national curriculum that is heavy in
content and confines learning to rote memory and testing. These practices fail to provide
meaningful and experiential learning experiences, and discourage inquiry and creative thinking,
which are skills necessary to compete in a global society (Estok, 2013; Kim, 2005; Lee & Park,
2014; OECD, 2014; Park & Kim, 2014).
Background of the Problem
Rooted in Confucianism, education in Korea is perceived as the fundamental basis for
social, economic, and political success (Kim, Lee, & Lee, 2005; Kim & Park, 2006; Lee, 2011;
Salili, 1996; Sorensen, 1994). High-quality education is a top priority for many Koreans in the
EVALUATION OF GSS 11

primary and secondary years because the intense competition to enter a prestigious university is
believed to guarantee the success of one’s future. The South Korean government continues to
explore various ways to improve its educational system but with tight control over its policies,
government interests often take priority over those who teach and learn in the classrooms. Kim
(1999) describes the education system in South Korea as an organization that “operates with
rigid restrictions and uniform control” (p. 60) and fails to take into account the diverse needs of
each local school. Furthermore, So and Kang (2014) state, “Under the national curriculum,
teachers must follow detailed prescriptions, and they have little authority to determine the
learning contents for their classes” (p. 798). Such rigid control further stymies teachers by
limiting them to the use of specific textbooks that are approved by the national curriculum
guidelines. As a consequence, local schools and teachers are deprived of autonomy and diversity,
resulting in uniform programs that do not develop or encourage individual differences, interests,
or abilities (Kim, 1999; Lee, 2004).
Despite ranking in the top tier in almost all fields of the assessment conducted by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the Program for
International Students Assessment (PISA), results indicate that South Korean students rank very
low in affective attitudes such as academic motivation and interest (Lee, Son, & No, 2007; Koh
& Shin, 2014; PISA Report, 2009). This research suggests that although Korean students’
academic achievement scores are high, many of them are unhappy with low self-efficacy that has
resulted in low motivation and interest in learning. However, So and Kang (2014) suggest that
happiness is a basic human right, and Korean students’ unhappiness is an important issue Korean
EVALUATION OF GSS 12

educators must face today.
As reported by OECD in 2006, only 44.9% of Korean youth under the age of 25 claimed
they were satisfied with their lives, compared with 81.6% of young people in Finland, who also
showed high academic achievement in PISA (OECD Report, 2006). In the 2011 OECD report,
Korean elementary school graduates’ level of satisfaction with life was lower (4.5 out of 10) than
the OECD average (6.2 out of 10). Accordingly, research conducted by the Korean National
Youth Policy Institute (KNYPI) indicated 60,592 youths dropped out of school in 2010, 63,501
did so in 2011, and the number continued to rise to 68,188 in 2012 (KNYPI 2010-2012 report).
Moreover, one out of five students said they had thought about committing suicide due to stress
from school, pressure from parents, and depression (KNYPI 2013 report).
Korean youth face an overwhelming amount of pressure to perform well in school.
However, factors such as the standards by which they are assessed, the lack of diverse programs,
and teacher-centered classrooms cause some students to underachieve and lose interest in
learning (Kim & Park, 2006; Soenens, Park, Vansteenkiste, & Mouratidis, 2012). Reform efforts,
such as the 2.17 Education Reform, the 7
th
Curriculum, the School-Based Management (SBM),
and the School-Based Curriculum Management (SBCM) have been proposed to change the
current system so that schools can take more of an integrative and holistic approach to teaching
and learning. Nonetheless, greater ramifications are needed to seek accountability for the full
implementation and practice of these policies within individual schools.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
OECD (2014) recommends that schools use multiple approaches to teaching and learning
EVALUATION OF GSS 13

so that students can be better prepared to meet the challenges of a global knowledge economy.
Learning environments should not be rigid and reduced to rote memory or content learning, nor
should they focus on factual recall and high-stakes testing. Instead, lifelong learning attitudes
should be valued with implementations of improved pedagogical practices in the classroom that
promote problem-solving, integrative learning, and collaboration (OECD Report, 2014).
In light of the OECD’s recommendations, education in South Korea needs to be
reevaluated and reform efforts need to continue if the country desires to cultivate top-performing
students who can compete globally. The problems resulting from a nationally centralized
curriculum are important to address because it is rigid and heavy in content, which limits and
discourages teachers from exploring creative and innovative approaches to teaching (Park &
Kim, 2014). It further hinders autonomy and diversity among schools, and prevents students
from becoming healthy, lifelong learners.
Although various studies suggest that teachers’ instructional strategies and learners’
learning strategies impact student learning (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Ku, 2001), education in
South Korea is still largely teacher-centered and teacher-directed (Joo, Seo, Joung, & Lee, 2012;
Roh, 2009). Contrary to the multiple approaches to teaching that promote integrative,
interdisciplinary learning that fosters creativity, problem-solving, and collaboration in students,
Korean teachers focus on transferring content knowledge through the use of textbooks in a
lecture form and assess students on content memory rather than comprehension (Kim, 1999; Ku,
2001). While it is important for students to be engaged in meaningful learning (Carroll,
Houghton, Wood, Unsworth, Hattie, Gordon, & Bower, 2009; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990),
EVALUATION OF GSS 14

Korean teachers lack the knowledge, understanding, and skills to integrate multiple approaches
to teaching (Hans, 2004; Kim & Ha, 2008). Many classrooms still focus on rote learning rather
than meaningful learning, which has resulted in decreased level of academic self-efficacy and
negative affective attitudes about learning among Korean students (Kim & Ha, 2008; Park &
Jeon, 2007; Schunk, 1991). Hence, Korean students learn for the sake of testing rather than
engage in meaningful learning. Unless the Korean government and institutional leaders make an
intentional effort to change the current system, the suicide rate will continue to rise in Korea, and
the level of self-efficacy and affective attitudes towards learning will continue to decline among
students in South Korea (Schunk, 1991; Kim & Ha, 2008; Park & Jeon, 2007).
Organizational Context and Mission
Located in South Korea, Gyung-gi Suwon School (GSS) established its Kindergarten in
1978 with current enrollment of approximately 200 children from ages five to seven, followed by
Gyung-gi Suwon Elementary School in 1994 with roughly 1,000 students from first to sixth
grades, and Gyung-gi Middle School in 2007 with current enrollment of approximately 300
students. GSS consists of 112 teaching faculty members of which 31 are male and 81 are female.
There are nine administrators in leadership: 1 headmaster, 3 principals, and 5 grade team leaders.
6 are male and 3 are female. In addition to the teaching staff and the administrators, GSS has 21
other support staff of which 13 are male and 12 are female. Altogether, there are 146 employees
at GSS.
The school seeks to integrate three C’s into the core values of its mission: Christian,
Cooperative, and Creative. First, GSS wants to provide a solid Christian education for students
EVALUATION OF GSS 15

so that they can grow to reflect Christ-like character. Second, GSS aims to integrate Cooperative
education for students so that they learn learn the importance of relationships and community in
society. Lastly, GSS seeks to provide Creative education for students so that they can discover
their gifts and talents through the diverse activities and programs GSS seeks to provide.
GSS is unique in that although it is a private school with an independent board (Suwon
Office of Education, www.goesw.kr), it received accreditation by the Korean Board of Education
(KBE). Moreover, GSS does not receive any financial funding from the Korean government but
makes an effort to adhere to all of the general educational content requirements equivalent to
other public schools. However, GSS embodies many factors that are different from Korean
public schools. It was the first school in Korea to mainstream students with special needs in each
of its classrooms and is currently the only school that integrates bilingual education (Korean &
English) from kindergarten to third grade. Furthermore, GSS also has a direct application and
interview process for selecting its teachers rather than using teachers assigned by the Korean
Board of Education. Therefore, the attrition rate among GSS teachers is lower than those of
Korean public schools, where teachers are rotated every four to five years within a given city by
the board of education. Although there may be some positive aspects to this system, research
suggests that teacher turnover has a negative impact on student achievement and disrupts the
dynamics of the organizational culture (Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2013).
Organizational Goal
By March 2018, teachers from grades 3-9 at GSS will integrate flipped instruction into
five units within their curriculum as a creative and collaborative instructional approach. Along
EVALUATION OF GSS 16

with the principal and assistant principal, three grade team leaders (each representing 1
st
and 2
nd
,
3
rd
and 4
th
, and 5
th
and 6
th
grades) established this goal after exploring various creative and
learner-centered teaching methodologies that could enhance the learning environment for
students. Teachers will work collaboratively within grade teams (led by the grade team leader)
on a regular basis to design, implement, and refine the curriculum and their teaching practices,
by evaluating the perceived effectiveness of flipped instruction to student learning at GSS.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
GSS has 112 teachers who consistently contribute to the organization’s goal through their
daily classroom pedagogical practices, which integrates the organization’s core mission:
education that is Christian, cooperative, and creative. GSS students from kindergarten to 9
th

grade contribute to the organization’s goal by participating in specific tasks and assignments
given by their classroom teachers. The leadership team at GSS, which includes the headmaster,
principals, and grade team leaders, contribute to the organization’s goal by being visionary
leaders who continuously initiate, implement, and support new ideas to give direction to teachers
for further improvement and advancement of learning at GSS.
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals

Organizational Mission
The mission of GSS is to partner with the home and church in nurturing the next generation to
restore and reflect the image of God by providing an authentically Christian, cooperative and
creative educational environment
Organizational Performance Goal
EVALUATION OF GSS 17

Teachers at GSS will incorporate creative and collaborative instructional methods into their
curriculum.
Teachers Students Administrators
By March 2018,
Teachers from grades 3-9
will implement “flipped”
instruction into five unit
plans within their
curriculum.
By March 2018, students
will work on “flipped”
assignments at home and in
class through collaborative
activities with others.
By March 2018, GSS will
purchase and distribute 30
Google Chrome books to each
grade and provide IT support.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
To continue with GSS’s global goal of incorporating creative and cooperative approaches
to teaching, the leadership at GSS, along with grade team leaders, made the decision to integrate
flipped instruction into five units within their curriculum to further enhance current teaching
methodologies in the classrooms. While it is necessary for all stakeholders at GSS to contribute
to the organizational goal of implementing flipped lessons in their classrooms, I have specifically
chosen classroom teachers from grades three to nine as the stakeholders of focus for this study.
For GSS teachers to integrate flipped instruction effectively into their classrooms, it is
important to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs teachers have with
flipping instruction. GSS teachers will implement flipped instruction into five unit plans
throughout the year and meet regularly with grade team leaders to track their progress as it is
applied into their classrooms. GSS will provide approximately 30 Google Chrome books for
each grade level and establish an IT support staff to assist teachers and students in utilizing
technology in the classrooms. The success of integrating flipped instruction will be determined
EVALUATION OF GSS 18

by GSS teachers’ knowledge, skill, and motivation to apply this new instructional approach to
five unit plans within their curriculum. Furthermore, results from ongoing formative and
summative assessments of student performances will help teachers know whether flipped
instruction enhanced the learning experiences for GSS students. Failure to successfully
implement flipped instruction will result in GSS’s inability to meet the stated performance goal
and potentially deprive students of a truly student-centered learning environment that can
improve critical and reflective thinking and creative problem-solving skills.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the degree to which GSS teachers are achieving
their goal of implementing flipped instruction into five unit plans within their curriculum as a
creative and collaborative instructional approach. The analysis will focus on the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences related to achieving the stakeholder goal, which will
ultimately support the organization’s global goal. While a complete performance evaluation
would focus on all stakeholders, the analysis for this study will only focus on classroom teachers
from grades 3-9 as key stakeholders for practical purposes. Given that, the questions to guide this
study are the following:
1. To what extent are GSS teachers integrating “flipped” instruction as a creative and
cooperative instructional method to achieve the organization’s global goal?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs for teachers to achieve
their goal of integrating “flipped” instruction into their classroom lessons?
3. What are the recommended solutions to validate teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and
EVALUATION OF GSS 19

organizational needs to meet their goal?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis takes a systematic, analytical approach to problem –
solving, which carefully examines stakeholders’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that may be affecting their performance. The conceptual framework for this study will
aim to identify any gaps that may exist among GSS teachers’ knowledge and motivation to
integrate flipped instruction into their classrooms, as well as the organizational culture and
setting that may impact gaps in performance. The methodological framework will consist of both
quantitative and qualitative components. Assumed influences of GSS teachers’ knowledge and
motivation, as well as organizational context of GSS that impact stakeholders’ ability to achieve
the organizational goal will be based on related literature and the analysis of surveys, interviews,
a mini-focus group, and documents. Recommended solutions will be research-based and
evaluated comprehensively.
Definitions
Affective attitudes: A feeling or an emotional reaction towards someone or something.
(simplypsychology.org; study.com/affective-component-of-attitude-definition).
Flipped instruction: A pedagogical approach in which content instruction is moved from the
classroom learning environment to the individual learning space, and the class time is utilized as
a creative, interactive learning environment where the teacher guides students to apply concepts
and engage in the material they learned. (flippedlearning.org)
EVALUATION OF GSS 20

Interdisciplinary learning: The combination or integration of knowledge and modes of thinking
from two or more academic disciplines to raise questions, solve problems, and offer
explanations. (IBO.org)
Meaningful learning: Knowledge of a new concept is used to connect with previously acquired
knowledge and then applied to different contexts. (csudh.edu; oxfordlearning.com/difference-
rote-learning-meaningful-learning)
Self-efficacy: An individual’s belief in one’s ability to succeed or complete a task that influences
one’s behavior, feelings, thoughts, and motivation. (apa.org).
Student-centered learning (SCL): Learning approach where students are engaged in the
learning process with opportunities to freely construction their own knowledge by choosing what
and how they want to study, while teachers are facilitators or coaches. (Kang, Hahn, & Chung,
2015)
Organization of the Project
There are five chapters to this study. Chapter One identifies the purpose of the study,
providing the reader with the background knowledge of the problem, key concepts, and
terminologies relevant to the study. The organization’s mission and goal, as well as the
stakeholders for the study are introduced with the conceptual framework. Chapter Two will
provide a review of literature focused on the problems related to education in Korea, which
consists of a nationally centralized curriculum that has impacted teachers’ approaches to
classroom instruction. Chapter Three will introduce the methodological approach to the study,
EVALUATION OF GSS 21

detailing the process for data collection and the analysis of participants, and Chapter Four will
present the analysis of data. Finally, Chapter Five will present recommended solutions based on
the data collected and related literature.

EVALUATION OF GSS 22

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In this chapter, the review of literature will examine the negative impact the nationally
centralized curriculum has had on teaching practices within Korean schools and the need for a
paradigm shift in pedagogy so that students can be better equipped to meet the challenges of a
global knowledge economy. Learners in the twenty-first century must not only possess
intellectual competency, but must also be creative and innovative in their thinking with skills for
problem-solving (OECD, 2009; So & Kang, 2014). With the goal of improving readiness for
students to succeed in a global world, research suggests it is time for the Korean government to
loosen their tight control over the national curriculum and eradicate the jurisdiction they hold
with various programs in schools (Kim, 2011; Kim, 1999; So, Shin, & Son, 2010). By granting
autonomy and diversity to local schools, both public and private, institutional leaders and
classroom teachers need to propose and explore various innovative and creative approaches to
teaching that can better meet the learning needs of students in the twenty-first century (Kim,
2005; Lee & Park, 2014).
Need for Diverse Teaching Approaches
A study conducted by Cha and Min (2013) indicates that current educational practices in
Korea impose various limitations on student learning. Education in Korea has a highly
centralized curriculum, which places heavy emphasis on rote memory of content knowledge and
“studying to the test” (Estok, 2013). Hence, Korean students are not encouraged to inquire or
think creatively, eliminating any chance for meaningful learning to take place within the
EVALUATION OF GSS 23

classroom (Kim, 2005; Lee & Park, 2014; OECD, 2014; Park & Kim, 2014). However, when
meaningful learning does not take place, students lack motivation and lose interest in learning
(Kim & Park, 2006; Soenens et al., 2012).
A report by Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2009 revealed that
Korean students ranked one of the lowest in affective attitudes such as academic motivation and
interest (Koh & Shin, 2014; Lee et al., 2007). Despite the fact that many Korean students
continue to perform significantly high in their academics, the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) report in 2006 indicate that almost half of the youth in
Korea under the age of 25 are not happy and struggle with low levels of interest in learning.
Although the Korean government has enforced various reform policies to change its educational
system, institutional leaders need to be kept accountable for the intentional implementation of
these policies and make greater efforts toward building capacity in teachers (Park & Kim, 2014).
History, Success, and Challenges of Korean Education
High Value of Education
Korea is widely known today for the concept of “education fever,” due to high
aspirations and expectations Korean parents have for their children (Kim, Lee, & Lee, 2005;
Kwon, Lee, & Shin, 2017; Lee, 2011; Lee, Lee, & Jang, 2010). Deeply rooted in Confucianism,
education has always been highly valued and strongly embedded within the Korean society (Lee,
2011; Sorensen, 1994). Encompassing parents’ interest is also the collective social system with
shared values and perspective on education, economic reward systems, and structure for
educational testing (Chang, 2008; Lee, 2003; Salili,1996; Seth, 2002). These social and cultural
EVALUATION OF GSS 24

values determine and explain the behavior of many Korean parents and students about learning
and academic achievement in South Korea. Sorensen (1994), along with other researchers,
suggests that Korean parents’ beliefs in educational success, which are reflected in one’s
academic credentials and higher degree, determine their children’s upward mobility in society as
well as their economic and social status (Kim et al., 2005; Lee, 2008;Yu, 2011). Hence,
educational success has become the foundation by which individuals establish their credentials
within Korean society.
Following the Korean War, one of South Korea’s national goals was to strengthen and
develop the country through education (Kim, Lee, & Lee, 2005; Lee, Kim, & Byun, 2012).
Unlike other Asian countries with sufficient natural resources, South Korea only had high-
quality human resources to rely on to rebuild its economic structure (Park & Kim, 2014).
According to a study conducted by Lee, Kim, and Byun (2012), the overall illiteracy rate in
South Korea among those 13 years or older in 1945 was 53%, and there were inadequate number
of teachers who had higher education degrees. The Basic Education Law, still in effect today,
was passed in 1949 to establish free education for elementary (required), middle and high school
(optional for 3 years), and college (optional with tuition for 4 years). By 1966, McGinn’s (1980)
study indicates that the illiteracy rate decreased to 15.8% in males and fell below 15% in
females.
Due to the rapid expansion of education in South Korea, the government was not able to
financially support many schools with high-quality facilities and teachers (Kim, 1999; Sorensen,
1994). Hence, the Korean government implemented a comprehensive entrance exam for
EVALUATION OF GSS 25

qualified middle and high school students (Kwon, Lee, & Shin, 2017). The intention was to
improve the quality of education and resolve the problem of overcrowding in schools, especially
in the urban areas. However, the results of testing led to greater disparity in the educational
system because it sorted students by their academic achievement.
During the 1960s and 70s, South Korea dramatically expanded its secondary education
by implementing the High School Equalization Policy (Byun, 2010; Kim, 2004; Kim, Lee, &
Lee, 2008), with efforts to reduce the competition and disparity in access to prestigious middle
and high schools. Furthermore, the South Korean government made efforts to expand and
improve the quality of higher education system in the 1980s and 90s (Lee, Kim, & Adams
(2010). Nonetheless, new challenges in education have continued to be addressed since year
2000, while most recently, autonomy and innovation in education have become a top priority for
Korean schools (Kim, 2005; So & Kang, 2014; Yi, 2015).
There are three key issues fundamental to the problems with education in Korea. First
and foremost, education in Korea is “exam-driven” by the need to prepare students for the
College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT), a high-stakes college entrance exam (Kwon, Lee, &
Shin, 2017). Second, with poor financing of public schools by the Korean government, the role
of public education has weakened, and parents’ distrust in the education system has been
growing (Kim, 2004). Many are looking to private tutoring or shadow education for help, which
has not only provoked additional financial burden on parents, but is creating greater disparity
among students who can’t afford it (Kim & Park, 2009; Kwon et al., 2017). Lastly, the
government controls and restricts the administration of schools, which has resulted in
EVALUATION OF GSS 26

educational programs that lack autonomy and differentiation in schools (Yi, 2015; Park & Jeong,
2013).
Exam Driven (High Pressure) Learning Culture
Son (1987) refers to the education system in Korea as “testocracy” that has culminated to
what is commonly known today as “education fever” (Chang, 2008; Lee, 2003), with high school
and college entrance exam driving the system. Deeply rooted in Confucian philosophy, Sorensen
(1994) suggests that “testocracy” evolved from the belief that men are capable of reaching
perfection through education, and only those who are educated should govern its country and
society. For more than a millennium, most of the high government positions in Korea were
allocated to those who performed well on a civil service exam called Gwago (Kwon et al., 2017).
It was through this tradition that formal education became a means to perform well on exams so
that men and women can be prepared to move up the ladder of social status and mobility.
Kwon et al. (2017) suggests that the use of exams as a social selection device became a
common practice in Korea and continues to today for college entrance and government official
positions. The College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT), also described as “examination hell”
(Kwon et al., 2017; Sung & Kang, 2012), is a highly competitive college entrance exam. It is
sometimes referred to as the “gatekeeper” for success in life and in one’s career because it
determines students’ entrance to prestigious universities, which guarantees upward mobility in
the social ladder and career (Kwon et al., 2017).
Accordingly, teaching to the test has become a standard approach to instruction, where
teachers impart exam-relevant knowledge to students so they can perform well on high-stakes
EVALUATION OF GSS 27

exams (So & Kang, 2014). Kwon et al. (2017) suggest that Korean students’ perceived
motivation for learning is primarily considered a “washback effect” (p.61) of such exams. Rather
than encouraging learning to gain knowledge and understanding of things that are connected to
real life, the standardized national curriculum and assessment system has encouraged teachers
and students to focus on subjects that are mainly related to the CSAT. Consequently, secondary
education in Korea has become highly centered on test preparation rather than developing and
measuring students’ academic potential (Kwon et al., 2017).
Such heavy emphasis on exams has had an adverse effect on many students’ physical and
emotional development, as well as their overall well-being. It is generating students who learn to
achieve or perform well on exams, but not necessarily gain deep understanding or knowledge of
what they are learning. So and Kang (2014) claim this is the primary cause of stress and
depression amongst Korean students. The national exams have become one of the most partial
methods of regulating access to Korean students because those who have access to high-quality
shadow education, such as hagwons (private institutions) or private tutoring, receive better
academic stimulation than those living in rural areas with less access to academically-driven
teachers (Byun, Kim, & Park, 2012; Kim & Park, 2010; Park & Kim, 2014; So & Kang, 2014).
High School Equalization Policy (HSEP)

The Korean government introduced the High School Equalization Policy (HSEP) in
1972, aiming for an equity-oriented education system with hopes of creating a more
heterogeneous classroom and to reduce the burden of private tutoring for parents (Lee, 2004).
The purpose of HSEP was to eliminate the competitive entrance exam to selective high schools
EVALUATION OF GSS 28

and promote educational equality by assigning students on a lottery system that relatively mixed
the ability groups (Ahn & Rieu, 2004; Byun, 2010; Kim et al., 2008). As a result, 28 major cities
and approximately three-quarters of the general high schools in South Korea were affected by the
policy (Byun et al., 2012). All high schools in Korea (grades 10-12), as well as middle schools
(grades 7-9), are subject to the equalization policy today (Kim et al. 2008; Ministry of Education,
Science & Technology, 2009).
In the twenty-first century, however, HSEP has been increasing the learning and
achievement gap in Korean public schools due to the government’s tight control (Byun, 2010;
Byun, Kim, & Park, 2012; Kim et al., 2008; Kim & Park, 2010). As stated earlier, the Korean
government faced challenges with overcrowding in schools following the Korean War because
everyone was in pursuit of education. Even though some schools operated two to three shifts per
day, many of them could not keep up with the demand (Kwon et al., 2017). In 1953, the Korean
government implemented a comprehensive entrance exam for middle and high schools to select
those who were most qualified to receive a secondary education (Byun, 2010). What resulted
from this, however, was growing competition among students who wanted to attend the most
prestigious high schools.
HSEP initially diminished the competitive environment and existing disparity between
vocational and academic high schools by eliminating school choice and enforcing educational
uniformity with a nationally centralized curriculum in both private and public schools (Chun,
2003; Kim, 2004; Lee, 2004). With an equity frame, HSEP was intended to randomly mix
students with diverse academic achievement levels so that those with greater ability could have a
EVALUATION OF GSS 29

positive influence on peers of lower ability, resulting in a more level playing field (Ali, 2014;
Kim et al., 2008). However, teachers were not well trained or equipped to manage heterogeneous
bodies of students in their classrooms. While students with parents in the higher socioeconomic
tier go to top universities with the help of private tutoring, equal opportunities were and still are
unavailable for students with lower socioeconomic backgrounds because they lack financial
access to quality private tutoring or supplementary education. Some critics of HSEP argue that
the policy, resulting in heterogeneous classrooms with mixed achievers, has had a negative
impact on student achievement because teachers have difficulties managing instruction for mixed
level students (Byun et al., 2012).
On the other hand, Byun, Kim, Park’s (2012) study found that those who advocate HSEP
assert the policy helps to improve student achievement because it includes lower socioeconomic
status (SES) students to attend more socioeconomically integrated schools. Nonetheless, there
are others who feel that HSEP implementation has resulted in greater disparity for SES students
because students from higher socioeconomic composition seek quality supplementary education
after school, which in return influences their learning processes and outcomes that ultimately
affect educational equality. This study also found that schools within the regions of HSEP
implementation had no significant relationship to student achievement, compared to those of
non-HSEP implementation regions, except in metropolitan and rural areas.
Despite such efforts by the government, many parents are dissatisfied with the current
state of education in Korea. They feel that educational policies like HSEP have decreased the
quality of education by eliminating school choice and mixing students of all academic level into
EVALUATION OF GSS 30

one classroom (Byun et al., 2012; Kim, 2004; Lee, 2004; Lee, Lee, & Jang, 2010). Some feel
HSEP has made it even harder for teachers to teach students effectively (especially those who are
high achievers) within a heterogeneous classroom due to large class sizes, tightly regulated
curriculum and lack of teacher training in differentiated learning (Kim, 2004; Park et al., 2011).
Furthermore, since there is little or no accountability and transparency between schools and
teachers, there is no incentive or motivation for teachers to improve their teaching and for
schools to improve the quality of their education (Chun, 2003; Park, 1988).
Consequently, this problem has carried over to affect learning and the academic
achievements of Korean students, which has led to a heavier dependence on Private Tutoring
(PT), also referred to as shadow education (Ahn & Rieu, 2004; Lee, 2004). Shadow education
not only imposes a significant financial burden on parents, but also exacerbates inequity in
education due to income or economic disparities and leaves adverse effects on the mainstream
educational system (Lee et al., 2010).
Problems with Shadow Education

Although HSEP initially helped decrease the financial burden of private tutoring for the
high school entrance exam, growing attention has been targeted towards the highly competitive
college entrance exam (CSAT) called Suneung, which is equivalent to SAT & ACT in the U.S.
(Byun, 2009). To pursue higher education, students must take the CSAT and their scores
determine whether they can get into one of the top universities in Korea (Ahn & Rieu, 2004; Kim
& Park, 2010). However, it is exams like CSAT that has created an exam-driven culture where
students are constantly faced with the societal pressure to perform well on tests, leading to the
EVALUATION OF GSS 31

rising demand for shadow education (Lee, Lee, & Jang, 2009).
A 2009 report by the Korea National Statistical Office (NSO) indicated that 8 out of
every 10 Korean students participate in at least one or more forms of shadow education, also
referred to as supplementary tutoring or institutionalized cram schools called hagwon (NSO
report, 2009). With growing distrust in the education system in Korea, many parents and students
turn to private tutors or hagwon teachers for learning more than their teachers at school (Kim,
2004). Currently, the excessive studying and excessive attendance of extracurricular cram
schools (hagwon) and private tutoring is a growing problem in Korea, influencing students’ and
parents’ beliefs and values about learning (Byun, 2010). Almost 80 percent of students partake in
shadow education, producing 38 billion dollars of profit in the hagwon industry every year
(Chang, 2008). Korean Educational Statistics Service (2013) reported that approximately 19.4
billion dollars are spent annually on shadow education. Although it is extremely costly for many
households in Korea, parents make the economic sacrifice for their children’s education,
spending well over 16 percent of their gross income on educational fees (Kwon et al., 2017).
Thus, Korean parents’ devotion and zeal for their children’s education is excessive to the point of
obsession (Chang, 2008), which puts a lot of pressure on their children. Korean parents are
willing to spend much of their physical, as well as financial energy to help their children gain
access to prestigious universities compared to other parents around the world.
Recognizing that shadow education has weakened the role of public education, the
Korean government proposed the so-called 7.30 Educational Reform Measure (7.30
gyoyukgaehyeokjochi) in 1980 (Lee, Lee, & Jang, 2010). With efforts to regulate or prohibit all
EVALUATION OF GSS 32

forms of shadow education outside of the public education system, the government began to
administer after-school programs in schools and established an Educational Broadcasting System
(EBS), which provides low-cost private tutoring through an e-learning system (Lee et al., 2010).
Although the 7.30 Educational Reform Measure failed to eradicate the practice of shadow
education completely, its policy goals and provisions led to a subsequent series of educational
initiatives that helped reduce the demand for private tutoring and enhance the quality of public
education in South Korea (Lee et al., 2010).
Standardized National Curriculum
South Korea has a centralized education system with the government in strict control of
the curriculum and testing requirements that deprive institutional leaders with the opportunity to
manage schools autonomously (Lee et al., 2012; Kwon et al., 2017). The national curriculum
system controls the entire K-12 education, where teachers have a prescribed learning content that
they have to follow with very little room for autonomy and differentiation. So and Kang (2014)
claim that the national curriculum has produced teachers who have become passive in their roles
because they are required to follow the national curriculum in an orthodox way, which is heavily
centered on high-stake exams. Teachers do not have the autonomy or flexibility to create their
own curriculum but rather, remain within the boundaries of textbook guidelines given by the
government.
The government also controls the educational textbooks with a co-existing publishing
system, review system, and an approval system (Chang & Moon, 2014). The government selects
and determines the elementary school textbooks, a review system determines secondary school
EVALUATION OF GSS 33

textbooks and an approval system with the national government, determines the vocational
institutions’ textbooks. All public and private elementary and secondary schools follow the same
national curriculum and are required to use the same textbooks. Consequently, this hinders
teachers from developing or implementing change to the curriculum to meet the diverse needs of
their students in the classroom (So & Kang, 2014).
Such excessive government control has resulted in a rigid educational system that is
highly authoritative and hierarchical, lacking in educational competition, diversity, flexibility,
and autonomy (Chang, 2008; Oh, 2011). Furthermore, Korea’s centralized and bureaucratic
system of curriculum control is having a negative effect on classroom teaching and learning (So
& Kang, 2014). Although teachers have attempted to use different approaches to instruction, the
organizational culture and environmental conditions in schools do not support teachers in
changing their teaching styles. Teachers need to take part in the curriculum reconstruction
process with opportunities to be actively involved in decision-making and planning, and the
government needs to provide on-going professional development with resources they need to
change classroom instruction but this has yet to take place (Kim, 2004).
Lack of autonomy and diversity
Although the High School Equalization Policy reduced the disparities and created equal
opportunity and equity in education, it also strengthened the government’s control over
standardizing the educational system and reducing school accountability (Lee et al., 2010). What
emerged was a bureaucratic education system that lack diversity and autonomy, with greater
uniformity and bureaucracy imposed by the central government (Oh, 2011). The Korean
EVALUATION OF GSS 34

government continues to strive to diversify schools and reform the curriculum, but these efforts
are met with challenges and resistance (Kim, 2005).
The centralized curriculum and governance imposed by the government in elementary
and secondary schools have been the primary cause for the lack of student creativity and
differentiation in learning (Chang, 2008; Lee & Park, 2014). Teachers have become indifferent
because the national curriculum limits their ability to personalize the curriculum concerning the
learning content for their class (So & Kang, 2014). Consequently, teachers have only come to
rely on given textbooks as guidelines, leading to educational practices that focus on rote-
learning, drills, and memorization with heavy emphasis on subjects related to the college
entrance exam (Lee, Kim, & Byun, 2012). Students often memorize information that is
disconnected and are rarely given the opportunity to acquire reasoning, critical and creative
thinking skills (Kim, 1999). Furthermore, extra-curricular activities are often neglected and there
is little opportunity to nurture moral judgments in students in areas such as building character
and aesthetic sensitivity (Kim, 1999; Park & Ki, 2014). Though Korean students excel within a
clear, rigid framework, they lack the creativity and innovative spirit to explore and expand on
their intellectual curiosity (Oh, 2011).
High Academic Achievement but Low Level of Interest and Happiness

According to the last report (2009) by PISA (Program for International Student
Assessments), which evaluates the scholastic performance of 15-year-olds in 75 OECD member
and non-OECD member countries around the world, Korean students ranked second in reading
literacy assessment, fourth in mathematics, and sixth in science literacy assessment. Despite the
EVALUATION OF GSS 35

high academic achievement, Korean students’ level of affective attitudes such as self-concept,
motivation, and interest in learning was found to be low (Mullis, Martin, & Foy, 2008; OECD
2010; So et al., 2010). PISA 2000 report revealed that Korean students’ sense of school
belonging was one of the lowest (Park & Kim, 2014) among OECD countries, and PISA 2003
report indicated that Korean students ranked 31
st
in their interest in math and 38
th
in academic
motivation, despite their test results in PISA (OECD, 2010b). Among 57 countries that
participated in PISA 2006, Korean students had the second lowest level of interest in learning
science (Lee et al., 2012; OECD 2006).
Korean students spend the most days in school (220 days a year), compared to those of
other countries like Finland (190 days) and the U.S. (180 days)(Kim, 1999). On average, Korean
students spent a total of thirteen hours a day studying (factoring in supplemental classes/lessons)
but ranked 24
th
out of 30 developed nations in PISA criterion known as “study effectiveness.”
However, students in Finland who spend significantly less time in school and in studying, have
consistently ranked at the top and performed comparatively with other top-tier countries like
Korea in PISA assessments (WENR report, 2013). Hence, the excessive studying and private
lessons may be unnecessary because they are depriving Korean students of the motivation to
learn at school. The level of satisfaction with life among youth under 25 years old is
considerably low with only 44.9% responding 7 out of 10 points, whereas the figure is almost
double at 81.6% in countries like Finland (PISA, 2009).
Social Context of the

Twenty-First Century Demands
The level of human capital with creativity and thinking skills is critical to any country’s
EVALUATION OF GSS 36

level of productivity and competency (Park & Kim, 2014). Therefore, education is a key
contributing factor to sustaining productivity and competency within a knowledge-based society
(Lee, Kim, & Byun, 2012), and such was the case with South Korea following the war in the
1950s’ (KEDI 2008; Lee, 2008). According to World Bank (2002), knowledge accumulation in
Korea greatly influenced and enhanced every social sector of the economy from 1960 to 2000. In
fact, the knowledge economy indicator showed that Korea had similar or higher competencies in
gross capital formation, college entrance rate, R&D investment, internet services, and hardware
infrastructure when compared with other G7 countries like Germany, Japan, USA, UK, France,
Italy, and Canada (Yu, 2014). Accordingly, education in South Korea will need to build new
skills and competencies in their students, which include problem-solving creativity, thinking and
communication skills, self-directed learning skills, leadership, and teamwork so that they can
forge ahead in a knowledge-based society (Park & Kim, 2014; Yu, 2011).
In a knowledge-based society, individual talents and competencies will be a valuable tool
to have to figure out the cause of problems and resolve conflicts, through the application of
critical thinking skills (Chang, 2008). Students will also need to have the ability to create new
knowledge and integrate existing knowledge rather than just memorizing facts or knowledge (So
& Kang, 2014). For these reasons, education in Korea needs to change and move away from
learning conventional facts to integrating existent knowledge to creating new ones.
Globalization
We live in a global age where national boundaries are slowly dissipating (So & Kang,
2014). The emergence of world economic organizations such as EU, NAFTA, WTO, and OECD,
EVALUATION OF GSS 37

has encouraged many nations to share certain economic policies they can implement with
international economic rules and order (Kim, 1999). There are several educational implications
to globalization. First and foremost, Kim (1999) suggests the quality of education needs to
improve to a global level, where students are encouraged to foster creativity and problem-solving
rather than rote-learning and cramming of knowledge. Education in South Korea needs to
prepare and equip students with leadership qualities that will help the next generation participate
in the global economy as world citizens. Second, the heavy focus on subject-centered curriculum
in Korean schools is not enough to provide opportunities for students to engage in
interdisciplinary learning through content knowledge (Park & Kim, 2014). Rather, Korean
curriculum needs to change to promote the application of diverse teaching methods that
encourage creative and meaningful learning experiences for students.
Accordingly, Korean government needs to decentralize its control and give autonomy and
diversity to local and regional schools that allow individual distinctiveness to exist (Chang,
2008). Education in Korea needs to focus on encouraging self-directed learning in students for
competency building and create new school environments that nurture creativity and
individuality (Cha & Min, 2013). These are the challenges the Korean government must face
today as a result of globalization and the emergence of a knowledge-based society in the twenty-
first century (Joo et al., 2012).
Restructuring the Educational Culture: Recent Reform Efforts
Many government committees and task forces have been established in the past to
EVALUATION OF GSS 38

improve the quality of education in Korea. Established in 1994, the Presidential Commission
(Committee) on Education Reform has been influential in changing the direction of various
policies in education (Lee & Park, 2014). The committee created Framework for a New
Educational System, giving basic guidelines for education in 1995 that resulted in a new
educational model focused on increasing autonomy and accountability in schools (Lee et al.,
2012). During Kim Dae-Jung’s (1998-2003) presidency, the government made efforts to reduce
the need for tutoring in secondary education and prompted competition among colleges through
the BK21 initiative, which funded and supported research and education in higher education (Jo,
2013). Likewise, President Roh Moo-Hyun (2003-2008) expanded the welfare system for
students of low-income families by introducing after-school programs and e-learning systems
that provided alternative options to tutoring (Lee, Kim, Byun, 2012). President Lee Myung-Bak
(2008-2013) implemented various deregulation measures that allowed autonomy and expanded
diversity in schools, which resulted in the establishment of more diversified schools like
vocational magnet schools and Meister schools (Lee et al., 2012). In 2009, a revision of the
school curriculum sought to integrate three to four hours a week of optional and extracurricular
activities, as well as creative and experiential learning activities for elementary, middle, and high
school students (Park & Kim, 2014; Ministry of Education, Science, & Technology, 2009).
Though it is important to have consistency in the execution of educational policy and reform
efforts, the Korean government has continued to change its education system with every political
change due to its stranglehold on the governance of schools. However, for true educational
reform to take place, the government needs to loosen the centralization, standardization, and
EVALUATION OF GSS 39

regulation of their control.
Education Reform Policies in Korea
In 1980, the Ministry of Education launched “Measures to Normalize Education and
Eliminate Extra-Curricular Study,” that changed the measurements for the college entrance exam
and increased admission quotas for universities (Sorensen, 1994), which was in response to
parents’ lack of confidence in the Korean education system. Furthermore, the government
reduced the individual screening devices and modified the difficulty level of University Entrance
Preparatory Exam (UEPE) (Kim, 2004). Although many parents and students responded
positively to these reforms (Sorensen, 1994), the Korean government could not completely
adhere to the change. Despite past and continuous government efforts, it has been difficult to
mitigate the effects of competition because of the belief among Korean parents and their children
that educational achievement is the only way to success and upward mobility in society.
Established in 1994, the Presidential Commission on Education Reform (PCER) brought
four reform proposals, which included a new curriculum for creativity and humanities, greater
autonomy in schools, and a new system for college admissions (Lee & Park, 2014). Reform
efforts that targeted curriculum specifically focused on learner-centered education and teacher-
student relationships, with hopes of creating learning environments that can enhance diversity
and creativity.
The 5.31 School Reform was introduced by President Kim Young-Sam’s administration
in 1995 and was later materialized as the 7
th
curriculum (Lee et al. 2009). It consists of the Basic
EVALUATION OF GSS 40

Common Curriculum and the Selected Curriculum at the high school level, covering a span of 10
years from the primary level to the first year of high school and focused on differentiated
curriculum and autonomy in school communities (Clark & Park, 2013; Lee et al., 2012; Ministry
of Education 1997). The reform allows students in their final two years of high school to choose
the courses they think will eventually help them to prepare for a future career or study path. Also
referred to as “open education,” this reform intended to create a more learner-centered, diverse
education that was autonomous, responsible, unrestrained with equal opportunity (Lee & Park,
2014). Assessment of students were to be more authentic and transparent in the college
admission process, and the government made decisions for administrative and financial support
of schools based on the school’s performance results in these areas. Although such efforts were
made to improve educational conditions, efforts to reduce class size and increase teacher support
were still lacking.
Academic Improvement Target School Project was implemented in 2009 to improve the
quality of education and learning ability of underperforming students, as well as reduce the
achievement gap among students, schools, and regions in South Korea (Cha & Min, 2013). This
project later changed to Creative Management School for Academic Improvement in 2011. Cha
and Min (2013) discovered that the Korean government provided financial and administrative
support to strengthen the quality of schools that were performing below the basic level set by the
National Assessment of Educational Achievement (KNAEA). Evaluation of designated low-
performing schools was conducted every year and could discontinue once the percentage of
student performance rose above a particular threshold. However, it did not account for factors
EVALUATION OF GSS 41

such as family background and educational activities that could have affected students’ academic
achievement. Additionally, the assessments of improvements made by students were not entirely
clear as to whether the results were due to educational efforts made by the school with
government support or because of private tutoring (Cha, Shin, & Min, 2011). Further study is
needed to determine the effectiveness of project schools in improving student learning, as well as
the overall educational quality of these schools. The study recommended the enhancement of
individualized teaching and learning, and the encouragement of participation in afterschool
programs among low- performing students.
Despite these continuous efforts made by the government to promote autonomy and
creativity, So and Kang (2014) believe that Korean schools are not adequately carrying them out.
In fact, they believe that reform efforts will only succeed if new approaches to teaching and
learning, as well as assessing students, are developed. There is still much work that needs be
done to provide differing programs with various approaches to teaching and assessing students
that meet the needs of diverse students within Korea (Kim & Park, 2006; Soenens et al., 2012).
Accordingly, institutional leaders need to be kept accountable towards building capacity in
teachers by providing ongoing education and professional development that can equip them with
the knowledge and skills they need to apply various approaches to teaching that are student-
centered.
Teaching Models for Twenty-First Century Learning
If education has the power to transform lives, as Freire (1993) believed it should, then
teachers and institutional leaders have the responsibility to engage students in deep and
EVALUATION OF GSS 42

meaningful learning. Knowledge should not be just transferred to students but should result in
authentic transformation, where academic knowledge replaces transformative knowledge (Banks,
2008). Woo, Herrington, Agostinho, and Reeves (2007) propose that when learning is perceived
to be authentic, students acquire more meaningful knowledge, which can improve both retention
and transfer of knowledge. For authentic learning to take place in the classroom, teachers need to
attend to the needs of individual students and provide specific learning tasks that are appropriate
for them (So et al., 2010). Moreover, students need to take an active role in their learning,
making decisions that are aligned with their interests. Therefore, Cubukcu (2012) emphasized
that it is the teacher’s role and responsibility to deliberately structure their classrooms or learning
environments so that students can take ownership of their own learning, by deciding on resources
and activities related to their learning goals and work together to share ideas and solve problems.
Sams and Bergmann (2013) state, “Education is for everyone, but the way we deliver
education—and the way students receive it—is not the same for everyone” (p.20). Studies have
shown that the instructional strategies teacher use affect students’ learning (Joo et al., 2012).
Learning goals and learning strategies determine the quality of learning outcomes, which is also
closely associated with student’s motivation and desire to learn (Morton & Saljo, 1976). To
increase the quality of learning outcomes, Leonard (2000) identified that students’ learning
efforts, the curricula and teaching methods are all crucial.
On the contrary, the past characteristics of learning and teaching framework in South
Korea have consisted of large class sizes with highly authoritarian teachers who deposit large
quantities of content information, give excessive homework, and limit the assessments of
EVALUATION OF GSS 43

students’ knowledge and performance to tests (Sorensen, 1994). This type of educational
framework has resulted in passive learners, who lack critical thinking and problem-solving skills,
creativity, and are constantly under stress from being tested. Though Korean students excel in a
strict, structured framework (Chang, 2008), they have been known to struggle in an open
environment without guidelines and rules. With a heavy emphasis on content memorization and
repetition of facts, Chang (2008) refers to Korean students as having lower cognitive complexity
and who have not been taught to transfer or apply their ideas or knowledge to a new context or
framework. Alternatively, a deep approach to learning is characterized by the learner’s
motivation to develop understanding of the material and integrate their knowledge into new
situations (Biggs, 2003; Caine, 2016; Wang, Su, Cheung, Wong, & Kwong, 2013). As Cubukcu
(2012) states, “A student who can reach information is more valuable than the one who
memorizes it.” In other words, it is far more significant for students take ownership of their
learning and know how to find answers to information they seek, rather than have someone
provide that information or simply memorize facts. Onchwari and Onchwari (2009) also advise
teachers to go beyond the teaching of the content and help students become learners who are
equipped with the tools to become effective learners. They said, “In practice, teachers must strive
to facilitate learning environments where a sense of inquiry is encouraged” (p.12). Hence, it is
crucial for teachers to design the learning environment that encourage students to engage in this
type of deep learning, which can improve the quality of their learning outcomes.
An investigation by Park and Min (2008) on the effects of Korean teachers’ teaching
styles on Korean students’ performance confirmed that teachers’ teaching styles affect
EVALUATION OF GSS 44

performance outcomes in their students. In another study by Kim and Ha (2008) of 477
elementary and middle school Korean students, the learning skills and strategies Korean teachers
used greatly affected learning outcomes in their students. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of 185
studies conducted by Ku (2001) on the effects of teaching and learning-related variables on
academic achievement, reported high correlations among class method, learning strategy,
evaluation, feedback and Korean students’ academic achievement. Consistent with prior
research, Joo et al. (2016) found that it is important for Korean teachers to adjust their
instructional strategies to students’ needs to help them improve in their academic performance.
The OECD (2004) emphasizes the importance of variety in learning strategies like
demonstration, elaboration, organization, and meta-cognition in the development of students’
self-regulated, lifelong learning in the ‘Information Society.’ Learning strategies include
cognitive strategies (the way we acquire, organize and store information) that help students
understand and process material (Joo et al., 2012). Students need to experience teaching and
learning materials, as well as tasks that are authentic, relevant, constructive, and cross-
disciplinary, and it needs to engage students in high-order cognitive processes that are consistent
and provide enough challenge and interest to motivate students to learn (Meyers & Nulty, 2009).
According to McGregor (2007), classroom teachers play a crucial role in shaping the way
students learn and think, nurturing and developing thinking skills such as problem-solving,
analysis, synthesis and creativity.
Changing Approaches to Teaching for Twenty-First Century Learners
Intelligence and personality are factors that are hard to control, but studies have shown
EVALUATION OF GSS 45

that certain cognitive learning strategies can have a significant “controllable” component for
academic success (Deshler & Schumaker, 1986; Ellis, Lenz, & Sabornie, 1987; Kim, 1996; Kim,
Lee, Park, Hong, & Kim, 2008). Cognitive learning strategies encompass the ability to acquire,
record, organize, synthesize, and use ideas and information learned for a specific task (Devine,
1987). Since learning strategy is significantly related to academic performance, it is important
for educators to consider utilizing various learning strategies for diverse learners in the
classroom.
Hirumi (2002) emphasizes that learning should no longer be perceived as a passive
process where information is simply “passed along” to students. Instead, learning should be an
active, dynamic process where students are constantly making connections by constructing their
own meaning. Therefore, twenty-first century learning strategies require teachers to change their
mental framework for the way classroom instruction and homework should be designed. Siegle
(2014) suggests it is a “mind-set,” not limited to a specific method. A shift from teacher-directed
to self-directed learning in pedagogy such as inquiry-based learning or flipped learning are
student-centered, empowering students to construct their own knowledge motivated by inquiry
(Ouda & Ahmed, 2016). Since students’ perceived instructional strategies has a positive effect
on Korean students’ academic achievement (Roh, 2009), and are essential in establishing
effective schools (Joo, et al. 2006), it is important for teachers to create student-centered
classrooms, where learners can actively participate in deciding what they want to learn, how they
want to learn, and what kind of help they want from the teacher (Cubukcu, 2012). OECD (2004)
EVALUATION OF GSS 46

emphasizes the importance of students becoming self-regulated learners for lifelong learning in
the Information Society. With advances in technology, teachers can take advantage of the
limitless possibilities for learning that can take place in and outside of the classroom. Teachers
are no longer at the center of knowledge, but rather they are guides on the side, assisting students
to take an active role in the application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of the learning
process (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Comparison of teacher-centered and student-centered learning environments. Adapted
from “Student-Centered, Technology-Rich Learning Environments (SCenTRLE):
Operationalizing Constructivist Approaches to Teaching and Learning” by Atsusi Hirumi, 2002,
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), p. 505.

EVALUATION OF GSS 47

Kang, Han, and Chung (2015) claim that internet and multimedia technology can
encourage the widespread of student-centered learning approach in classrooms. Through the
integration of technology, students have increased access to information, as well as opportunities
to engage in constructing their own knowledge. Therefore, Onchwari and Onchwari (2009)
suggest it is important for teachers to provide learner-centered and technology-rich environments
that take into consideration the learner’s unique identity within an active learning environment.
They insist that teachers help learners learn through learning tasks that engage students in higher
order skills such as problem-solving and critical-thinking skills.
Research indicates that when students take an active role in the learning process, it also
increases their academic self-efficacy (Dembo & Eaton, 2008; Tawfik, 2015). Self-efficacy can
be defined as one’s judgment about their capability to take certain actions to achieve a pre-
determined goal (Bandura, 1986). Accordingly, Pintrich and DeGroot (1990) found that
academic self-efficacy is a predictive variable for learning. Therefore, self-efficacy beliefs
influence expectancy beliefs, which impacts an individual’s competence to succeed because they
are more motivated to engage in and persist at a given task or activity (Rueda, 2011).
Teaching approaches like flipped instruction shifts from the “traditional” to a “new”
frame of thinking, differentiating the instruction for students and encouraging them to become
active learners (Ahmed, 2016; Sohrabi & Iraj, 2015; Tawfik, 2015; Keengwe, Onchwari, &
Onchwari, 2009). By flipping the classroom, students are required to self-learn and take
individual responsibility in the learning process rather than become passive receptors. Through
EVALUATION OF GSS 48

the integration of a self-directed learning strategy, students can learn the content at home (or
outside of school) through the use of certain technology tools such as YouTube, Google Apps,
Edmondo, Teaching Channel, and GlogsterEduScreencast (Ouda & Ahmed, 2016). Teachers’
lectures in class are essentially flipped to self-directed learning in students, and the class time is
utilized to work through problems, ask questions, and engage in a variety of collaborative
learning activities. In fact, a study conducted by Flipped Learning Network (2012) reported that
teachers claimed 80% of their students’ attitudes toward school had improved.
Sams and Bergmann (2013) state that this type of approach to learning “redefines class
time as a student-centered environment” (p.17), empowering students to develop valuable skills
like critical thinking and independent inquiry. It helps students take responsibility for their
learning and prepare them for lifelong learning. This is important because when students
perceive a specific task to be valuable and meaningful, they are more likely to persist and engage
in that task (Kang, et al., 2015). By flipping instruction, the teacher creates a flexible and
adaptable learning environment and encourages collaboration among diverse students.
Sams and Bergmann (2013) also realized that this approach encourages students to be
involved in higher cognitive work in Bloom’s Taxonomy, such as analyzing, evaluating,
applying and creating in class, and lower cognitive work like remembering and understanding is
conducted at home, often through video lectures. Flipped instruction and project-based learning
(PBL) can be combined to move students from the bottom-up of Bloom’s taxonomy to top-
down, where students are not given the project after learning the material, but rather, begin with
EVALUATION OF GSS 49

the problem from the beginning as they start on their projects (Sams & Bergmann, 2013). Ahmed
(2016) refers to teachers as guides in these settings, as they play a supporting role to help
students become active learners in generating knowledge rather than passive receptors of
information. Thus, the classroom learning environment is more cooperative and collaborative,
and students are more deeply engaged with the content with the help of their teacher and
classmates. It is an approach to classroom instruction that is focused on the students’ needs rather
than the teacher’s objectives.
Conceptual Framework for the Study
The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge, Motivation, and the Organizational Context
Maxwell (2013) describes the conceptual framework as an important aspect of one’s
research design because it is “the system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and
theories that support and informs” research (p. 39). It guides the process of how research will be
conducted, where the focus will be, whether there is a gap that might exist, and why it is
important to address it (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Furthermore, a conceptual framework affects
one’s analysis and interpretation of research findings because it reflects the constructs and
theories that framed it before the study.
This study examined various literature that support the need for an educational paradigm
shift in South Korea, where more schools and classroom teachers need to explore and integrate
diverse approaches to classroom instruction. Students today need to possess more than
intellectual competency. They must be creative and innovative in their approaches to problem-
solving and thinking (Estok, 2013; Kim, 2005; Lee & Park, 2014; OECD, 2014; Park & Kim,
EVALUATION OF GSS 50

2014). For Korean students to be better equipped to meet the challenges of a fast-changing global
society, teaching approaches must shift from a heavy emphasis on rote memory, content
knowledge transfer, and studying to test, to the integration of various instructional strategies that
encourage students to inquire and think creatively (Cha & Min, 2013).
The conceptual framework for this study was developed out of GSS’s organizational goal
to integrate creative and cooperative approaches to learning in the classroom, and to determine
whether the organizational culture and setting, along with GSS teachers’ knowledge and
motivation, influence the quality and effectiveness of their performance. Out of various creative
and cooperative teaching methodologies, GSS chose to focus on integrating flipped instruction as
their organizational goal for the next two consecutive school years, ending in March 2018.

EVALUATION OF GSS 51

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework Linking Influences to the Organizational Goal.

EVALUATION OF GSS 52

Maxwell (2013) suggests peoples’ meanings and perspectives are an important factor in
understanding their actions. For GSS teachers to implement flipped instruction successfully into
five unit plans by 2018, they need to have declarative knowledge of various ways technology can
be used to flip instruction, procedural knowledge to know how to incorporate certain strategies
when flipping lessons, and metacognitive knowledge to reflect on the effectiveness of flipped
lessons for various learning objectives. Additionally, GSS teachers need to see the value of
flipped instruction as an effective teaching method that enhances learning in the classrooms, as
well as self-efficacy, or the confidence to use flipped instruction to support student learning.
Furthermore, the construct of learning organizations, where members learn from one
another through peer interaction and collaboration, has great potential to enhance teachers’
knowledge of various teaching strategies through the reinforcement teachers receive from one
another (Hendry, 1996). Cha and Ham (2012) documented the positive results collaborative work
among teachers brought to learning organizations within schools.
Leadership is also important in organizations because it supports unity, group dynamics,
and working in teams, as organizations become what Perrow (1972) calls “cooperative systems”
that move towards reaching the organizational goal through the emphasis on teamwork. Senge
(1990) suggests that leaders are responsible for helping others grow in their capabilities through
learning organizations. Since instructional strategies significantly impact student performance
(Joo et al., 2012; Schmidt & Ralph, 2016; Vaughan, 2014), GSS leadership must be committed
to providing necessary resources to their teachers so that they can make continuous
improvements to their instructional strategies (Moran & Brightman, 2000). Resources may
EVALUATION OF GSS 53

include ongoing training related to flipped instruction, various technology tools available to use
to flip instruction, and sufficient time for teachers to plan and discuss their ideas together. The
construct of support and sharing of instructional resources then determines whether teachers at
GSS can successfully integrate flipped instruction to their unit plans.
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework is a systematic approach to problem-
solving, as it examines stakeholders’ knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that
may be affecting specific performance outcomes. It identifies the gap between the level of
current performance and that of the desired performance goal. Hence, gap analysis aids in the
process of setting clear goals, assessing the current performance, identifying problem areas, and
addressing possible solutions (Rueda, 2011).
Four knowledge types help determine stakeholders’ knowledge influences on
performance, and these are factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002).
In addition to knowledge and skills, motivation has the potential to impact the quality and
effectiveness of one’s performance (Elmore, 2002). When analyzing performance gaps, it is
important to examine the internal and external motivational influences such as self-efficacy,
attributions, values, and goals (Mayer, 2011). Finally, the workplace environment and the
sharing of resources and collaboration in the culture and context of organizations need to be
considered because they also influence stakeholder performance (Bolman & Deal, 1997; Kezar,
2000; Wheeler & Sillanpaa, 1998).
Each of these factors will be addressed by applying the Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap
EVALUATION OF GSS 54

analysis framework to GSS teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on
their ability to meet the performance goal of integrating flipped instruction into five unit plans in
their curriculum by March 2018. Assumed stakeholder knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational influences on performance will be discussed in separate sections below.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences

Knowledge and Skills
According to Clark and Estes (2008), the construction of knowledge and skills are two of
three key factors that impact performance. The scope of an individual’s knowledge and skill
influences the quality and effectiveness of their application (Elmore, 2002). In institutional
settings, teachers’ knowledge and skills can significantly affect their practice and performance,
and thus influence student learning. For teachers to continuously improve in their practice, they
must consistently strive to acquire new knowledge, connecting prior knowledge and skills to a
new context. Hence, knowledge and expertise are the foundations for school improvement.
Various instructional strategies have been shown to have a significant effect on students’
academic performance (Joo et al., 2012; Schmidt & Ralph, 2016; Vaughan, 2014). Furthermore,
Rueda (2011) suggests “different instructional approaches are more effective for some types of
knowledge than others” (p.31). Flipped instruction, as a pedagogical approach, encourages
students to become active learners in constructing their own knowledge, facilitating self-directed
learning and academic self-efficacy through technology and collaboration with peers to solve
problems (Sohrabi & Iraj, 2015; Tawfik, 2015; Keengwe et al., 2009). Research further suggests
that learning is strengthened when students take an active role in building on their knowledge,
EVALUATION OF GSS 55

which is related to academic self-efficacy (Dembo & Eaton, 2008; Tawfik, 2015).
For GSS teachers to achieve the stakeholder goal of implementing flipped instruction into
5 unit plans in their curriculum, they need to have the knowledge and skills necessary to flip
instruction successfully. The review of literature will focus on the knowledge and skills that GSS
teachers need to have to flip instruction successfully to meet the stakeholder’s goals.
Knowledge influences. Rooted in the hierarchical framework of Bloom’s taxonomy, four
knowledge types (factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive) are needed for effective
performance outcomes (Krathwohl, 2002). These four knowledge dimensions can help teachers
determine where and how they can improve their curriculum planning and teaching. Out of these
four, Krathwohl (2002) suggests that factual and conceptual knowledge consists of certain
terminology, details, and elements one must know, whereas procedural knowledge is how the
knowledge, skills or methods can be used to do something. Metacognitive knowledge, on the
other hand, is the self-knowledge that helps one reflect and evaluate their strengths, challenges,
and actions, resulting in self-monitoring of one’s progress.
These knowledge dimensions are important because they will influence GSS teachers’
ability to integrate flip instruction successfully in their classrooms. The review of literature will
look at certain factual knowledge GSS teachers need to integrate various technology tools
available in flipping instruction for their classrooms, certain procedural knowledge to help
teachers plan how they will flip instruction, and the metacognitive knowledge to assist teachers
with evaluating the impact and effectiveness flipped instruction on student learning.
Integrating technology. Teachers need knowledge of various technology tools that can
EVALUATION OF GSS 56

be used to flip instruction. Students today are familiar with technology tools that teachers can use
to make an impact on student learning (Keeng et al., 2009; Ouda & Ahmed, 2016; Sohrabi &
Iraj, 2016; Vaughan, 2014). When teachers integrate technology into their classrooms, the
instruction can be enhanced as it encourages students to take an active role in constructing their
knowledge through self-efficacy and self-regulation (Hwang, Lai, & Wang, 2015; Tawfik, 2015).
Contrary to the didactic approach, different technology tools can be integrated for educational
purposes to encourage students to be self-directed and engaged within a structured and supported
learning environment (Fraga & Harmon, 2015; Tawfik, 2015; Tsai, Shen, & Lu, 2015). The most
common example is the use of a video camera, cellphone, iPad or a tablet PC to make pre-
recorded videos that cover content materials. Another approach is using computers, iPads or
tablet PCs to view online multimedia or educational content, such as Khan Academy (similar to
EBS in Korea), Learners TV, and TED-ED (Sohrabi & Iraj, 2016). The integration of these
educational web resources online help students learn the content materials at home at their pace,
as well as assist in the process of developing online research and computer skills that can benefit
learning in the long haul (Ahmed, 2016). Hwang et al. (2015) further recommend the use of
mobile devices or wireless networks because students are enabled to learn in various contexts
progressively. Hence, assigning students certain learning materials at home as homework by
integrating technology, allows for greater opportunity for teachers to utilize the time in class for
more meaningful and collaborative learning.
Therefore, GSS teachers need to have declarative knowledge of various technology tools
available to integrate to their flipped classroom so they can be effectively utilized to enhance
EVALUATION OF GSS 57

student learning. Teachers need to know how to integrate various online multimedia technology
resources (personally made or available on the web) into their lesson plans so that students can
have sufficient time and space to learn the content material at home (Ahmed, 2016; Hwang et al.,
2015). Research indicates that for teachers to successfully integrate flipped lessons, factors such
as the course content, characteristic of students, the implementation and integration of active
learning strategies, and the development lessons by the teacher, all play a significant role
(Sohrabi & Iraj, 2016). Various forms of technology can be used to teach the content material,
but GSS teachers need knowledge of which technology tool is best to use for specific learning
objectives.
Keengwe et al. (2009) state that the power of technology is in the way teachers utilize it
to provide more intellectual, technology-rich environment for students. Technology can enhance
problem-solving skills and help students think independently, as well as collaboratively.
Technology can be a useful tool for teachers to utilize in teaching content material because it
encourages active learning through the process of conducting research, surfing the web, and
continuously learning across diverse contexts (Ahmed, 2016; Hwang et al., 2015; Keengwe et
al., 2009). Therefore, GSS teachers need to know how to integrate various multimedia
technology resources, whether it is personally made or available on the web, to their lesson plans
so that students have sufficient time and space to fully grasp the material at home. Since GSS
will be providing 30 Google Chromebooks for students at each grade level, teachers will need
knowledge of this particular technology tool and must determine how they can best utilize it to
enhance student learning within a flipped classroom. Finally, GSS teachers may need ongoing
EVALUATION OF GSS 58

training with a variety of other technology tools in addition to web-based teaching resources as
they become available.
Strategies for flipped instruction. Teachers need to know how to incorporate various
strategies for “flipping” instruction. Hwang et al. (2015) state that the way teachers organize and
implement flipped instruction is critical to the success and effectiveness of flipped learning in
students. Flipped instruction means literally “flipping” or switching the work that students
complete at home, with in-class instruction time (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015; Schmidt &
Ralph, 2016). Various research indicate that teachers who flip instruction often assign students to
watch a video or other media resource at home that covers basic knowledge, concept or content,
and then have students return to class with questions, in-class discussions, projects or problem-
solving activities that enhance analytical, applicable, and evaluative knowledge skills
(Abeysekera & Dawson, 2014; Hwang et al., 2015; Schmid & Ralph, 2016; Tawfik, 2015).
At times, different components of flipped lessons can be more effective than others.
These include, but are not limited to, participation in pre/post in-class activities and discussion,
self-paced video lectures at home, or face to face lectures in class for project-based learning,
problem-based learning, or peer learning (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015; Sohrabi & Iraj, 2015).
Teachers need to know how to structure the classroom learning environment so that it is effective
for flipped learning activities, cooperative group work, and differentiated instruction, especially
for those who need further assistance. It is important for teachers to know how to design
instruction in such a way that it facilitates active learning in students in and outside of class so
that students learn to apply self-regulatory skills in managing their time, organizing information,
EVALUATION OF GSS 59

synthesizing content material, and be ready to work collaboratively to solve various problems in
class (Tawfik, 2015). Consequently, it is important for teachers to know that in flipped
instruction, there is greater emphasis on the learning process to master the content material rather
than simply memorizing facts and regurgitating information (Yoshida & Tokoha, 2016).
Hence, GSS teachers need procedural knowledge to know how to flip lessons effectively
so that students are engaged in meaningful learning and encouraged to be active in the learning
process, taking responsibility for their learning. To accomplish this, GSS teachers need to know
best practices and various strategies relate to flipped instruction so that they can maximize the
time they have with students in and outside of the class. GSS teachers also need to know how to
design the classroom learning environment with activities that challenge students to analyze and
apply newly learned knowledge to real-life context (Ahmed, 2016; Nwosisi, Ferreira, Rosenberg,
& Walsh, 2016; Tawfik & Lilly, 2015). Furthermore, it is important for GSS teachers to know
how to give guidance and feedback, as well as individual support to students in need of
differentiated instruction in class, so that students’ understanding or clarification of the learning
content can be achieved.
Effectiveness of flipped lessons. Teachers need to reflect on the effectiveness of flipping
lessons for various learning objectives. Flipped instruction encourages students to actively
participate in the learning process while the teacher supports and guides them (Schmidt & Ralph,
2016; Vaughan, 2014). However, the way teachers design the learning environment influences
the effectiveness of flipped instruction (Fraga & Harmon, 2015). Different components of
flipped instruction can be more effective than others, which include but are not limited to,
EVALUATION OF GSS 60

participation in pre/post in-class activities and discussion, self-paced video lectures at home and
face to face lectures in class for project-based learning, problem-based learning, and peer
learning (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015; Sohrabi & Iraj, 2015). Additionally, teachers need to
evaluate whether the design of the learning environment is effectively encouraging students to
make an active choice, to inquire, to voice opinions and to explore new ideas so that students can
learn more by taking responsibility (Keengwe et al., 2009).
Baker (2006) asserts that learning is enhanced when we have knowledge and control over
own cognitive processes. Therefore, it is important for GSS teachers to have metacognitive
knowledge to reflect and evaluate the effectiveness of their strategies for flipping a particular
content, or the design and execution of in-class activities for specific learning objectives. Given
that, teachers need to be able to reflect on their flipped teaching strategies and evaluate its
effectiveness by establishing specific criteria standards or reflect on the data from formative and
summative assessments of students’ knowledge, understanding, and application of the lessons
learned. Teachers can also ask students and their peers for verbal or written feedback following a
flipped lesson. Since teachers are responsible for adopting effective teaching strategies and
resources, it is crucial for them to exercise metacognition consistently to reflect and evaluate the
effectiveness of their pedagogy.
Furthermore, GSS teachers need to use metacognition to determine whether they have
skillfully integrated technology to flip lessons successfully for specific learning objectives.
Continuous training and sharing of best practices with technology integration in flipped
classrooms need to take place regularly among teachers at GSS because it can improve teachers’
EVALUATION OF GSS 61

metacognitive knowledge with flipped instruction. Finally, collaborative exercises and
discussions where teachers can share and evaluate specific “flipping” strategies that were either
successful or ineffective, can help filter successful strategies for future lessons. Table 1 indicates
the three knowledge influences that were identified along with the related knowledge types and
assessments.
Table 1.

Stakeholder Goal and Knowledge Influence, Type and Assessment for Knowledge Gap Analysis

Organizational Mission
The mission of GSS is to partner with the home and church in nurturing the next generation to
restore and reflect the image of God by providing an authentically Christian, cooperative and
creative educational environment.

Organizational Global Goal
Teachers at GSS will incorporate an innovative and collaborative instructional method into their
curriculum.

Stakeholder Goal
By March 2018, teachers at GSS will implement the “flipped” model of instruction to five unit
lessons within their curriculum.

Knowledge Influence
Knowledge Type
(i.e., declarative
(factual or
conceptual),
procedural, or
metacognitive)

Knowledge Influence Assessment
Teachers need knowledge of
various ways technology can be
used in the classroom for flipped
instruction.
(i.e., Google Chrome book)

Declarative
(factual)
Teachers need to know and be able to
describe which educational
technology tool is best to use for a
specific flipped lesson.
EVALUATION OF GSS 62

Teachers need to know how to
incorporate specific strategies for
flipped instruction in their unit
plans.

Procedural
Teachers are asked to submit their
unit lesson plans describing how they
plan to flip their instruction for
various learning objectives.
Teachers need to reflect on the
effectiveness of flipping lessons
for various learning objectives.

Metacognitive
Teachers were asked to evaluate the
effectiveness of flipped lessons for
various learning objectives through
interview and data collection of
students’ summative assessments,
and discuss what was successful vs.
what they would do differently.

Motivation
Motivation, as defined by Pintrich (2003), is the investment of mental efforts toward a
goal-directed activity or tasks that individuals want or need. Therefore, when goals and
motivation come together, an individual is more likely to invest time and effort to participate in
their roles actively. Mayer (2011) suggests motivation plays a significant role in influencing and
advancing an individual’s effort to immerse him or herself in the mental process of learning
something new or accomplishing specific goals. Both internal and external factors impact
motivation such as competence beliefs, active choice, mental effort, as well as culture and
context. There are five motivation conceptions: interest, beliefs, attributions, goals, and social
partnership, all of which impact an individual’s ability to put effort into learning and persist with
their performance within their context (Clark & Estes, 2008).
As part of GSS’s organizational goal to integrate innovative and collaborative teaching
methods, it is important for GSS teachers to collectively value flipped instruction as an effective
teaching approach and expect this new pedagogy to enhance learning in the classroom for
EVALUATION OF GSS 63

students. Hence, GSS teachers need to have the task and self-efficacy components of the
Expectancy value theory to motivate them towards the goal of integrating flipped instruction into
five unit plans within their curriculum. The review of literature will focus on two motivational
influences that will be discussed: the task value of integrating flipped instruction as perceived by
teachers as an effective instructional approach, and teachers’ self-efficacy as it factors into their
confidence in integrating flipped instruction into their classroom pedagogy.
Expectancy value Theory. Rueda (2011) states that values are critical at the onset of
starting something new. In literature, the motivational principle behind value theory is that an
individual will more likely choose to engage and persist in a task they believe is valuable
(Rueda, 2011). These values determine whether certain tasks align with the individual’s goals
and plans, and if they believe that the task is worth the effort, the individual is most likely to
succeed and achieve his or her goals.
Expectancy value asks two fundamental questions related to motivation, which are “Can I
do the task?” and “Do I want to do the task?” (Eccles, 2006). Both answers must be “yes” for the
individual to fully engage in the process of reaching a goal. While values are important in
starting something new, expectancy is the factor that determines whether the individual will
persist in achieving the goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Both expectancies for success
and high value for the task are needed for individuals to be engaged in reaching certain goals.
Review of the literature suggests that first and foremost, an individual needs to perceive
the importance and meaningfulness of a task to persist in reaching their goals (Zimmerman &
Schunk, 2007). Individuals attribute the success and failure of their outcomes to factors such as
EVALUATION OF GSS 64

ability, effort, and task. These can be improved through ongoing training to reach mastery of
skills necessary to succeed in reaching specific organizational goals and through the provision of
sufficient resources (Marsh & Farrell, 2015). Next is relatedness, which gives a sense of
belonging to a group or a context that can easily be established and maintained through the
development and collaboration of work groups or teams. Last is autonomy, which is the need to
feel in control and independent (Eccles, 2006). Teachers at GSS need to have the expectancy
value in flipped instruction as an effective pedagogical approach that enhances learning in the
classroom so that teachers will be motivated to persist in the goal of integrating this new teaching
approach in their classrooms.
Teacher’s value of flipped learning. GSS teachers need to see the value in flipped
instruction as an effective teaching method that enhances learning in students. Review of
literature points to the fact that students need diverse learning methods (Tsai et al., 2015). In a
study conducted by Tsai et al. (2015), researchers found that when teachers used diverse
strategies for learning within a flipped classroom, students were more motivated to find problems
and resolve them actively. Review of literature also indicates that when teachers flipped
instruction, students showed higher engagement and test scores, with low number of incomplete
assignments (Schmidt & Ralph, 2016). Schmidt and Ralph’s (2016) study further discovered that
in flipped classrooms, students’ self-efficacy was raised because the learning process is largely
self-directed, where students have to conduct research on their own, synthesize information, and
apply knowledge to real life context, while managing their cognitive load.

EVALUATION OF GSS 65

Self-efficacy Theory. The foundation for motivation begins with the perception an
individual holds regarding their capability to learn and perform (Bandura, 1997). When
individuals believe they are capable of performing well, they will be motivated to put forth the
effort and persist with reaching their goals. Belief in one’s competence is a reflection of belief in
one’s ability, which impacts how well that individual performs on a given task or activity. Rueda
(2011) suggests that prior knowledge connected to a given task, or the amount and type of
feedback an individual receives, along with past successes and failures, are factors that influence
beliefs. In fact, Mayer (2011) suggests that a person with high self-efficacy will exert more effort
because they believe that their efforts will bring positive results. Hence, individuals with high
self-efficacy have a strong belief in their competence to fulfill a task and hold high expectations
regarding the outcome of their performance (Rueda, 2011). High self-efficacy, therefore, has a
positive influence on motivation, which helps individuals persist in reaching their goals.
Moreover, self-efficacy can increase in collaborative work culture where teachers have multiple
opportunities to practice a task with feedback and modeling, share successful practices, and
receive support when needed (Fullan, 2007; Pajares, 2006).
Teachers’ confidence. It is important for GSS teachers to be confident in their ability to
use flipped instruction to support student learning. Since teachers’ beliefs in their own abilities
affect their motivation and persistence in completing a task, it is important for GSS teachers to
believe that they have the support they need to reach their organization’s goals successfully.
With grade team leaders assisting them with coaching, resources, and tools, along with the
support from the organization to reach the performance goals, GSS teachers’ confidence can
EVALUATION OF GSS 66

increase. Additionally, GSS teachers’ familiarity with collaborative work as an instructional
strategy in the classroom can elevate their confidence because it is a significant element in a
flipped classroom.
Although high self-efficacy alone is not enough to successfully flip instruction, it is an
important component of performance. If GSS teachers are confident that they are equipped with
the capacity to implement flipped instruction successfully through ongoing support and
collaborative work, they will be more likely to succeed in implementing flipped instruction.
Raising the level of self-efficacy in teachers to flip instruction successfully can be accomplished
through the provision of Professional Learning Communities (PLC) that meet regularly to
collaborate in planning and evaluate prior lessons. With the support and structure GSS provides
for teachers to succeed in flipping instruction, GSS teachers will be more motivated to persist in
the task of integrating this new instructional approach into their classroom pedagogy and reach
the organizational goal. Two motivational influences, expectancy value and self-efficacy, are
identified in Table 2.
Table 2.

Stakeholder Goal and Motivational Influence and Assessment for Motivation Gap Analysis

Organizational Mission
The mission of GSS is to partner with the home and church in nurturing the next generation to
restore and reflect the image of God by providing an authentically Christian, cooperative and
creative educational environment.

Organizational Global Goal
Teachers at GSS will incorporate an innovative and collaborative instructional method into their
curriculum.

EVALUATION OF GSS 67

Stakeholder Goal
By March 2018, teachers at GSS will implement the “Flipped” model of instruction to five unit
lessons within their curriculum.

Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Expectancy Value:
Teachers need to see the value of flipped
instruction as an effective teaching method
that enhances learning in the classroom.
Does flipped instruction enhance student
learning?

List the benefits to learning when flipped
instruction is used in the classroom.
(or)
Do you feel that flipped instruction is valuable
to student learning?
Self-Efficacy:
Teachers need to have confidence that their
use of flipped instruction supports student
learning.
Written survey:
“I feel confident that flipped instruction can
enhance student learning”

Interview Prompt”
“How confident do you feel about your ability to
use flipped instruction for student learning?”

Organizational Influences
Culture may be an abstract concept but it forms the deepest, most inherent part of
organizations, providing structural stability as it influences perceptions, feelings, and actions
within a given society or organization (Schein, 2004). Culture, as Schein states, is the
“foundation of the social order that we live in and of the rules we abide by” (p.3). It is
established by shared assumptions within a group or organization, taking root in espoused values
and principles, shaping the climate of the organization, and impacting observable behaviors and
group interactions among its stakeholders. Every organization has a culture that provides a
foundation and framework for its function and existence. This culture is founded on the
experiences people have in the organization (Schneider, 1996), directing and motivating its
EVALUATION OF GSS 68

group members to work toward shared goals, with daily routines and procedures. Schneider
(1996) refers to this as the “climate” and “culture” of organizations. He suggests that culture can
change through a focus on the climate, which includes the beliefs and values members hold, as
well as the support and rewards that sustain performance.
Likewise, Clark and Estes (2008) believe that every organization has a culture that
impacts “work process” and job performance. Culture defines core values, goals, beliefs, and
processes learned over a period of time. Thus, the development and patterns of culture in an
organization can affect the performance of its stakeholders. Schein (2004) divides culture into
three levels. The first level consists of artifacts and encompasses the visible, physical
environment, such as language, style, published lists of values, and observable rituals. The
second consists of the less obvious, established through social validation, such as espoused
beliefs and values, shared assumptions, and consensus. The third level comprises basic
underlying assumptions developed over time, through the repeated success of implementing
certain beliefs and values in the organization.
Culture of Learning Organizations. Also referred to as “communities of practice,”
learning organizations share knowledge of past successes and failures related to methodology,
exchange and experiment with innovative ideas, and thus engage in experiential learning that
leads to a culture of learning organizations. Its members learn from one another through peer
interactions, and they support each other towards change by reinforcing each other (Hendry,
1996). Schein (2004) describes members of organizations as “operators” who hold valuable
underlying assumptions that determine the efficiency of work. These operators function under a
EVALUATION OF GSS 69

subculture of interdependence and must learn to work collaboratively in teams with open
communication, commitment, and mutual trust. At times, a desire for change in performance
among operators requires the organizational environment to change, along with other influences
such as knowledge, skill, and motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). Furthermore, Perrow (1978)
describes organizations as “cooperative systems” where leaders support unity and emphasize
group dynamics and upward communication, along with ownership shared by everyone and not
just the top executives. Kezar (2001) calls this the teleological tradition, where institutional
leaders communicate the importance of core values and create a shared vision for the
organization, placing great emphasis on working in teams.
Collaboration. Teachers need a culture of collaboration, Professional Learning
Communities (PLC) or Communities of Practice, present to successfully implement flipped
learning. Collaborative work among teachers has been well documented to bring positive results
within schools as learning organizations (Cha & Ham, 2012; Stoll & Louis, 2007). It increases
the morale, enthusiasm, and work ethics in teachers. Through the sharing of failed and successful
experiences, GSS teachers can reflect on one another’s teaching contents, analyze the principle
and objectives of unit plans, and determine how certain technology and teaching strategies can
be more appropriate or effective for specific content or learning objectives. Without the value for
this type of collaborative work, GSS teachers cannot become the learning organizations that
share their knowledge, skills, and motivation to improve performance.
Leadership. Teachers need to know that their leadership values creative and cooperative
approaches to teaching. According to Schein (2004), culture is “created, embedded, evolved and
EVALUATION OF GSS 70

ultimately manipulated by leaders” (p.3). Leaders play a vital role in shaping the organizational
culture such as communicating the mission and vision, values and beliefs, developing enthusiasm
and motivation, and modeling certain actions that inspire others (Kezar, 2001). It is crucial for
GSS leaders to show teachers that they value creative and collaborative approaches to teaching
through their decisions and actions. When organizations share values at the top, they are more
likely to be productive and successful with change (Hendry, 1996; Lewis, 2011; Rath &
Conchie, 2009). Accordingly, decisions made by senior executives bear significant impact in
bringing resources and training necessary for employees to successfully perform their assigned
tasks. Senge (1990) makes it clear that in learning organizations, leaders carry the responsibility
of continuously learning and helping others grow in their capabilities. For GSS teachers to
continually learn how they can best integrate creative and cooperative approaches to teaching,
they must be able to trust their leaders to provide the support they need to meet the expected
performance outcomes.
Support with Resources. Teachers need an organization that supports their efforts
toward the integration of creative and innovative approaches to teaching. Every organization has
a climate and culture that shape how they carry out their policies, practices, procedures, and
routines to achieve their organizational goal. The culture within organization can change through
a focus on the climate, which consists of values and beliefs deeply held by its members
(Schneider, 1996). The climate within organizations is enhanced when there is a system of
support and reward for performance. Therefore, GSS needs to continue supporting a climate of
creative and innovative approaches to teaching so that teachers are not hesitant of trying new
EVALUATION OF GSS 71

methodologies. Hendry (1996) suggests that it is not enough for organizations to simply
publicize their values. Instead, the value for creative and innovative approaches to teaching at
GSS must affect the day-to-day practices and behaviors of their leaders and teachers, which are
reflected in their policies, practices, procedures and routines, as well as teachers’ pedagogy in the
classroom.
Moran and Brightman (2000) suggests that organizations can accomplish mastery when
they are committed to providing needed resources and training to its stakeholders. Therefore,
GSS needs to continually provide their teachers with the capacity to learn and innovate creative
and collaborative approaches to teaching in the classroom. To attain this, Schein (2004)
recommends for organizations to supply the necessary resources, training, and support their
stakeholders need. If GSS seeks to develop a culture of learning organization, processes and
resources need to be provided to all teachers to ensure that learning is part of their job and that
the learning process is an important element. Most importantly, teachers need ongoing training
related to flipped instruction, as well as support for the use and integration of technology in the
classrooms, to achieve the organizational goal successfully. Two organizational influences of
cultural model and one cultural setting influence are identified in Table 3.

EVALUATION OF GSS 72

Table 3.
Organizational Influences of Cultural Model and Setting

Assumed Organizational Influence Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
Teachers need a culture of
collaboration (Professional Learning
Communities) present to successfully
implement flipped learning in the
classrooms.

Survey or interview to determine whether
teachers have (or perceive to have)
sufficient time set aside for collaboration
(PLC).
Cultural Model Influence 2:
Teachers need to know that leadership
values creative and collaborative
approaches to teaching.

Survey or interview teachers to determine
awareness/knowledge of the leadership
values in the area of teaching
methodology.
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Teachers need to have instructional
resources (such as technology
equipment, time, and IT support)
available to them.

Survey to determine whether teachers feel
they have sufficient instructional resources
available to them to successfully flip
instruction.

Conclusion

Extreme collectivism and a fixed mentality within Korean society have stifled innovation
and entrepreneurship, resulting in low diversity, creativity, originality, and autonomy among its
people (Chang, 2008). Though Korean education provided growing success to its current
economy after the Korean War, the literature discusses the need for change, from a highly
centralized and structured educational environment to a more creative and innovative classroom
context. The Korean government, institutional leaders, and parents need to realize that
absolutism in education is harmful and dysfunctional in today’s globalized, knowledge-based,
competitive societies. They need to recognize that creating a better school system is not limited
EVALUATION OF GSS 73

to achieving high test scores. Rather, in the context of Korean education, it calls for the need to
reform curriculum and teaching practices and to build greater capacity in teachers through
professional development that can provide students with learning that emphasizes innovation,
creativity, and exploration, all while sustaining academic excellence.
Learning in the twenty-first century should prepare students with abilities that go beyond
merely understanding knowledge to creating and producing knowledge within various contexts
(So & Kang, 2014). To this end, Korean schools need to help students develop values and
attitudes that encourage self-regulated learning for life long learning, reflecting real life, hands
on learning within a cooperative and collaborative context. As the review of the related literature
indicates, the nature of knowledge and the way educational content is taught in schools must
significantly change to meet the demands of the twenty-first century. The Korean government
needs to provide institutions with autonomy and accountability to meet the diverse needs of
students with an educational experience that is not limited to rote memory and content-
knowledge. Institutional leaders need to provide teachers with resources and training that will
change their standardized teaching methods, and teachers need to have the necessary knowledge,
skills and motivation, as well as organizational support to be able to integrate creative and
innovative approaches to classroom instruction.

EVALUATION OF GSS 74

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The methodological approach to this study includes the research questions guiding the
study, the gap analysis framework connecting the constructs of stakeholders’ needs to the
research questions, and the selection of participants for the study. Furthermore, the researcher’s
approach to data collection and analysis, credibility and trustworthiness, validity and reliability,
ethics, as well as limitations of the study will be discussed.
Research Questions
1. To what extent are GSS teachers integrating “flipped” instruction as a creative and
cooperative instructional method to achieve the organization’s global goal?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs for teachers to achieve
their goal of integrating “flipped” instruction into their classroom lessons?
3. What are the recommended solutions to validate teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs to meet their goal?
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework that guides this study utilizes Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis framework that seeks to identify possible causes for performance gaps that may be
impacting GSS teachers’ performance in achieving the organizational goal of integrating creative
and cooperative approaches to teaching in the classroom. This study took the mixed methods
approach, which included surveys, interviews, mini-focus group, and documents. The analysis
and interpretation of the study’s findings are triangulated and connected to the conceptual
EVALUATION OF GSS 75

framework.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population consisted of 47 elementary and middle school teachers at
GSS. All teachers were asked to fill in a self-administered questionnaire, but a small percentage
of the participants were asked to take part in either focus groups or one-on-one interviews. The
survey was conducted first so that a consensus could be gathered from a large pool of
participants to the research questions.
Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. All classroom and subject teachers from grades 3-9 at GSS
Elementary classroom and middle school subject teachers from grades 3-9, who were
stakeholders involved in reaching the organizational goal of integrating flipped instruction into
their classrooms, were invited to participate in the survey. It was important to determine whether
teachers had the knowledge and motivation to integrate flipped instruction into their classrooms
and whether the organizational context supported their efforts of reaching the organizational
goal.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The objective and scope of this survey is to determine the knowledge and motivation, as
well as the organizational support GSS teachers had with integrating flipped instruction into their
classroom pedagogy. The non-probability sampling procedure was used to administer the
quantitative survey to the target population, which consisted of 47 GSS teachers in the
stakeholder group. The researcher used the census approach to sampling for the self-
EVALUATION OF GSS 76

administered questionnaire because of the nature of evaluating one organization, whereas
purposive sampling was used to conduct the qualitative study due to its specific setting and the
stakeholders involved. The researcher administered a quantitative survey at the beginning of data
collection, which assisted in the process of understanding the problem of practice that might
exist because the research question was directed at evaluating teachers within an organization.
The survey targeted all 47 GSS teachers from grades 3-9, regardless of whether they had
integrated “flipped instruction” into their unit plans. The researcher distributed the self-
administered questionnaire through an online survey platform. Teachers were informed ahead of
time and given two weeks to submit their responses. The researcher did a follow up with non-
responders through an email.
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Teachers who have worked at GSS for more than two years.
GSS teachers’ responses varied depending on the years they had spent at GSS. There was
sufficient variation of responses that resulted in contrasting opinions due to the grade level they
taught, or their length of work experience at GSS, which impacted the way they perceived and
evaluated the overall educational program at GSS.
Criterion 2. Grade team leaders.
Since the role of the leadership team (the headmaster, elementary and middle school
principals, and grade team leaders) is to support classroom teachers, the interviews provided
insight into the leadership teams’ perception of the support they provided to GSS teachers toward
the organizational goal.
EVALUATION OF GSS 77

Focus Group Sampling Criterion and Rationale
The purpose of focus groups is to provide insight into the way people feel about a
situation (Krueger & Casey, 2009). An ideal number of participants recommended by Krueger
and Casey (2009) is between five and eight. This size allows for focus groups to have a more in-
depth discussion, providing greater opportunity for participants to share their thoughts (Patton,
2002). Maxwell (2013) suggests that purposive sampling is a good strategy to use when certain
information can only be obtained from a particular setting, persons, or activities relevant to the
research question. The researcher purposively selected participants who had been at GSS for
more than two years from a pool of 110 GSS teachers for interviews or focus groups. The
specified time span is to separate teachers who were there before the organizational goal was set
from those who began teaching after the organizational goal was in place. Merriam and Tisdell
(2015) suggest purposeful sampling as the best method of choice for a qualitative study because
participants were at the center of issues related to the purpose of inquiry and carry a wealth of
information.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Maxwell (2013) states that research involves the collaboration of participants with the
researcher to generate knowledge that is useful, not only to the research but to those involved
with the organization. Therefore, it is important for the researcher to establish trust with the
stakeholders on site before any research method or instrumentation is applied.
Data serves as the evidence and clues that form the basis for research analysis (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007). Johnson and Christensen (2014) suggest that the use of mixed methods approach
EVALUATION OF GSS 78

to research is an excellent way to administer high-quality research because the collection of
various data is not limited to surveys and observations, but includes all that is communicated to
the researcher while the study is conducted (Maxwell, 2013). Through the collection of various
data from questionnaires, in-person interviews, focus group, and documents, this research
examined gaps related to GSS teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs that
impact their ability to integrate flipped instruction in their classrooms successfully. Triangulation
of these different methods applied to measure the same constructs reduced the risk of bias in the
conclusions, establishing a greater understanding and reliability for the findings.
A survey, which is a self-report instrument, can quickly obtain information and general
understanding of the characteristics of a chosen population under study. In-person interviews
help the researcher gain a deeper understanding from the perspective of participants, and
observations describe the setting, behaviors, and events that take place in the research context.
Additionally, documents or artifacts available through the school will help as an additional
source of data that is naturally a part of the research setting.
Surveys
Surveys give general information about the thoughts, feelings, attitudes, beliefs, values,
perceptions, personality, and behaviors of the participants of a study (Pazzaglia, Stafford, &
Rodriquiez, 2016). A survey is also helpful in generally measuring different characteristics of the
research context using close-ended questions. A survey analysis plan was used to map out the
questions for the survey so that the number of questions addressed for each conceptual
framework would be proportionate in covering all the research questions.
EVALUATION OF GSS 79

The survey consisted of 15 questions, with a few at the beginning that were categorical
with nominal scales so that the researcher could obtain the general demographic information of
GSS teachers. Approximately 5 to 7 questions targeted each of the conceptual frameworks with
Likert-type ordinal scales used to create answers and explore the level of GSS teachers’
knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs. Survey questions were translated into Korean,
as it is GSS teachers’ native language.
The researcher identified and ruled out any threat to the reliability of survey questions
through a pilot test with the leadership team at GSS, and then reviewed the survey questions to
ensure that the language was clear and not worded in a manner to persuade the participants to
answer in one particular way. The nonprobability sampling procedure with convenience
sampling will be applied.
Interviews
Merriam and Tisdell (2015) describe the interview as a structured conversation with a
purpose. It is useful when behaviors, feelings, and perceptions cannot be observed and when past
events cannot be replicated. Furthermore, interview questions try to gain a deeper understanding
of the research context under study through the lens of its participants (Maxwell, 2013).
It is important for the researcher to establish rapport and trust with participants before the
interview process begins, which requires the investment of time in the research context before
any instrument is applied. The researcher asked the headmaster to explain to the stakeholders the
reason for the presence of the researcher at GSS so that possible barriers can be eliminated. The
researcher assured teachers from the beginning that their participation and response would
EVALUATION OF GSS 80

remain anonymous and confidential to the greatest degree possible throughout the research.
The researcher conducted interviews first in a group format, through a mini-focus group,
and later in a one-on-one format. To determine whether the interview questions were clear and
directed at answering the research question, pilot testing an interview with a focus group was
crucial (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The researcher first conducted an initial interview with a
focus group that was knowledgeable about the topic under study to check if any revisions needed
to be made before the actual one-on-one interviews take place. The information obtained
determined whether the wording of the questions required further clarification or revision.
The one-on-one interview consisted of a semi-structured, 30-40 minute interview with a
purposive sampling of approximately 11 teachers (out of 47) who had been involved with
flipping instruction in their classrooms over the past three years. Semi-structured interviews
encouraged participants to respond in a way that reflected their perspectives (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015). The interview protocol consisted of questions that were flexibly worded and that explored
various issues related to GSS teachers’ opinions and values, prior experiences and behavior,
knowledge of flipped instruction, and the level of motivation they had to apply this teaching
method in their classroom. Questions also prompted teachers to share their perceptions towards
the organizational culture and setting that either helped support or hindered their efforts toward
achieving their organizational goals. The researcher controlled the positive or negative responses
or reactions to interviewees’ comments so as to limit the bias in the response.
To further reduce bias in the sampling selection and increase reliability, the researcher
selected teachers who were required to implement flipped instruction to their unit plans before
EVALUATION OF GSS 81

the interview. The researcher sought permission to conduct these interviews during school hours,
in a private office room. Follow-up interviews also took place with some teachers after the initial
interview. Follow-up interviews were more focused on a particular topic that emerged during the
preliminary interview that brought further clarification for any comments that were ambiguous,
or did not make sense, or were inconsistent during the initial interview (Bogdan & Bilken, 2007;
Patton, 2002). A licensed translator translated the interview protocols into Korean, but the
interview notes were taken in English by the researcher (since it is her first language). The
interviews were audio recorded and transcribed by the researcher and then crosschecked for
accuracy and consistency with the researcher’s notes.
Documents and Artifacts
Merriam and Tisdell (2015) suggest that documents and artifacts are valuable sources of
qualitative data that are readily available for use and already exist in the research setting. Some
common types of documents used in qualitative research are public records, personal documents,
popular culture documents, and visual documents such as film, video, and photography.
The researcher obtained permission to examine some relevant documents at GSS that
consists of faculty meeting minutes, artifacts from PD sessions, and a list of technology
resources available at GSS. Such documents and artifacts gave information on the support and
training, the organizational context and setting provided for teachers at GSS to integrate flipped
instruction successfully.
Data Analysis
The findings of this study consist of both quantitative and qualitative data gathered from
EVALUATION OF GSS 82

surveys, interview transcripts, field notes, and other documents. The researcher organized and
broke down the collected data into manageable units to code and synthesize it to find certain
patterns in the research. An interpretation of the data has been given, explaining the findings and
how they relate to the conceptual frames connected with the study.
The researcher gathered the self-administered questionnaire after the designated time
teachers were given to take the survey. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted and
presented through the use of graphics such as tables, lines, bars, and scatter plots to communicate
the results of the stakeholders’ responses. Calculations of measures of central tendency,
variability and frequency were taken from all the stakeholders’ responses with answers varying
from “strongly agree” or “agree” to “strongly disagree” or “disagree.” The researcher checked
the survey data files for any errors or missing information (unanswered responses) that may have
been excluded from the results. Security measures were put in place to protect the information
gathered from the survey data, due to demographic information that may be disclosed when data
were collected, transferred, or stored (a process that may need to be further discussed with the
school). The researcher then coded the data into categories in a consistent format so that results
are easier to understand. The researcher divided the number of respondents by the number of
those to whom it was administered to get the response rate. The researcher gathered at least a
96% survey response rate from the stakeholders to eliminate any potential for a non-response
bias. The researcher divided the number of responses by the total number of survey respondents,
which resulted in the response rate for each survey item.
Data analysis is the process of giving meaning to the data that were collected through
EVALUATION OF GSS 83

observations and interviews, consolidating, reducing, and interpreting what was heard and seen
by the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Since it is important for the researcher to write
memos while collecting data, writing analytic memos after each interview and observation of
classroom teachers, as well as taking descriptive notes on the people, places, activities, and
conversations that take place, was crucial. The researcher made notes of ideas and thoughts
connected to the conceptual framework and the research question.
The researcher transcribed and coded all interviews after they were completed. The first
phase of analysis consisted of open coding, using empirical or emergent codes (inductive) and a
priori codes (deductive) connected to the conceptual framework for each data. These codes was
then combined with axial or analytic codes to identify/define certain themes, patterns,
speculations, as well as any differences and relationships that arose through careful reflection
and interpretation across all data collected. In the early phase of data analysis, coding consisted
of many categories. However, the researcher reduced or combined the number of categories or
codes that were initially constructed from the first phase, as data was further refined and
analyzed. At times, there was a need to create sub-categories. The process of refining and
revising codes continued through the write-up of the findings. Jottings and analytic memos were
used to make notes of personal thoughts, inferences on meaning, second thoughts, or a mental
note that emerged during interviews and data analysis. These codes, jottings, and analytic
memos, which consisted of the last phase, brought together the findings that developed into
certain assertions based on the themes and patterns that formulate and solidify. These assertions
and propositions were framed and supported by the evidence found in the data collected.
EVALUATION OF GSS 84

Validity and Reliability
Validity alludes to the “accuracy of information,” and reliability refers to the
“consistency of information” (Fink, 2013). Validity can be established in a study by pilot-testing
the survey to see if it will measure what it is intended to measure, testing for consistency and
accuracy of information. A pilot test can also aid in the process of designing a reliable survey by
evaluating the questions for clarity to ensure that participants understand them. Moreover, a
reliable survey can increase the response rate and decrease the number of unanswered questions.
Fink (2013) recommends for the pilot test to be applied to respondents and in a context that is
most similar to the actual situation so that researchers can be prepped. The researcher recorded
and presented a detailed description of the method and context of the research site.
The quantitative survey for this study attempted to measure GSS teachers’ knowledge,
motivation, and organizational needs regarding the successful implementation of flipped
instruction into their classrooms. Before using any research instrument, the researcher obtained
informed consent from key stakeholders. The validity and reliability of the survey were
established through a pilot test on a small number of GSS stakeholders (grade team leaders) to
assess whether the questions were consistent and clear. The survey distribution and
administration to key stakeholders, as well as the collection, were the same as the pilot test after
it was reviewed and revised. The participant selection process included all 47 GSS teachers to
limit the presence of bias. The survey was distributed through Google survey with an attempt to
obtain an 85% or greater response rate to secure reliability. Pazzaglia, Stafford, and Rodriguez
(2016) recommend a minimum of 80 responses out of a sample size of 100 in order to achieve a
EVALUATION OF GSS 85

confidence level of 95% in a given study. The researcher followed up with another email to
remind teachers to complete the survey by a designated time. By keeping the data in an
aggregated form, the researcher maintained the anonymity of the survey participants.
Another strategy to establish validity and reliability for this study was the use of
triangulation, which involves multiple sources of data to build a coherent theme (Creswell,
2013). The validity increased when specific procedures were taken to check for the accuracy of
the findings, and similar themes converged over several sources of data. The triangulation of
multiple data (survey responses, interviews, documents) and analysis collected throughout the
study established the reliability and validity when multiple sources revealed similar findings.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Within a qualitative research, credibility and trustworthiness fall significantly on the
integrity of the researcher and their relationship to those studied (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). A
researcher can establish credibility and trustworthiness with participants through shared values,
ethical decisions, as well as consistency and clarity in research methods, paying close attention to
how data is collected, analyzed, interpreted and presented with a conclusion. Thus, it is important
for the researcher to recognize and clarify the presence of reflexivity, bias, dispositions, and
assumptions they bring to the study. It is especially relevant when conducting observations and
interviews, where the researcher’s perception of reality may be different from those of
participants (Maxwell, 2013) and therefore, impact their relationship (Glesne, 2011) as well as
the interpretation of data. Since each person’s definition and understanding of reality is different,
the researcher recognizes the presence of subjectivity in the process of data collection and
EVALUATION OF GSS 86

analysis due to reflexivity of the researcher’s personal background, culture, and experiences. In
this study, the researcher made efforts to reduce reflexivity during the qualitative study by
recognizing when and how she was influencing the participant to act in a certain way or say
something (through leading questions) because it would otherwise affect the validity of the
inferences drawn from observations and interviews (Maxwell, 2013).
Carefully designing, examining and pilot testing the interview questions with the
leadership team at GSS was crucial to ensure that the instruments were culturally and
contextually appropriate. Additionally, it was important to limit probing questions during
interviews so that it did not lead the participants to answer in a particular way or influence their
perception.
Another procedure was member checking, in which the preliminary findings from the
initial interviews were taken back to some of the participants to check for accuracy in the
recording of what they said. Since there was always the possibility of a researcher’s bias or
misunderstanding of what was said and observed on site, Maxwell (2013) recommends this
process to ensure credibility in the findings. Obtaining validation from the respondents directly
on the preliminary analysis assures the readers that the researcher’s interpretation of what has
been captured is accurate.
An extended time spent at the research site produced an analysis of data that was rooted
in reflection, introspection, and self-monitoring of the researcher, which added to the study’s
credibility. Transcripts of interview notes were checked to make sure that they did not contain
any obvious mistakes during transcription. The definition of codes and their meanings were
EVALUATION OF GSS 87

cross-checked and compared with other research results for consistency and clarity.
While an adequate amount of time spent in the field collecting data was important to
establishing validity and reliability, this research attempted to cross-check with other studies
conducted in a similar context with both coherent and contradictory interpretations or
understanding of the experience.
Ethics
The institutional review board (IRB) outlines five basic principles for research involving
human subjects (Glesne, 2011). First, researchers have the ethical responsibility to provide
enough information for participants to make an informed decision to participate in the study.
Second, participants must be able to withdraw from the study at any phase without penalty.
Third, all potential risks to the participants must be annihilated to assure interviewees that no
harm will come as a result of the study. Accordingly, benefits must take precedence over all
potential risks, and lastly, qualified researchers should conduct the research. In return for
participation, researchers need to be responsible for behaving ethically and respectfully, not
being deceitful or pressuring interviewees to participate in a particular study (Rubin & Rubin,
2012).
Hence, it is important for the researcher to establish credibility and trustworthiness with
those under study through the demonstration of their competence and character (Patton, 2015). In
this study, the researcher spent time with GSS teachers before any interviews or observations
took place to establish relationships and rapport with those under study. The researcher asked in
advance for informed consent from teachers to participate in this study. The researcher asked
EVALUATION OF GSS 88

GSS teachers in advance to sign an informed consent form to participate in this study, with a
statement assuring confidentiality of their identities (unless they wished to receive recognition
for their contribution). The researcher assured teachers that they would not be linked to any
specific response, so their positions were not threatened in any way by the comments or feedback
they gave. The researcher requested permission to record and quote the interviewees, and any
requests to turn off the recorder or delete or edit quotations at any time during the interview were
respected. Additionally, the researcher insured confidentiality by keeping all records anonymous
of what the researcher heard. At the same time, the researcher reminded teachers that there was
always a possibility for anonymity to be compromised, despite efforts to conceal the participants’
identities. Although confidentiality could not be guaranteed, the researcher aimed to
communicate with the participants by sending a copy of the transcriptions and making sure that
the participants agreed with what was documented. The researcher reminded potential
interviewees that they could refuse to participate and that there would be no penalty for rejecting
participation.
Since the primary data collection instrument is the researcher, his or her values, cultural
beliefs, assumptions, and biases may be present throughout a study (Creswell, 2013). In this
study, the researcher is a native Korean who immigrated to the United States when she was nine
years old. Since she has received most of her education in the U.S., the researcher acknowledges
that her personal experiences and cultural beliefs, which are deeply ingrained, may influence
certain assumptions and biases in the interpretation and analysis of data. Patton (2013) suggests
these assumptions exist in cross-cultural inquiries because words can carry a different meaning
EVALUATION OF GSS 89

in other cultures. To address these issues, the researcher used certain analytic tools that foster
awareness when these biases and assumptions influenced the direction of the analytic process,
and sought the help of other native Korean speakers to review the responses from participants
that have been translated by the researcher to make them as verbatim as possible.

EVALUATION OF GSS 90

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which GSS teachers are achieving
the organizational goal of integrating flipped instruction into five unit plans within their
curriculum as a creative and collaborative teaching method. Applying the KMO conceptual
framework to a mixed-methods approach to data collection of surveys, interviews, a mini-focus
group, and documents, this study will identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
needs GSS teachers have that impact their performance. The questions that guided this study
were the following:
1. To what extent are GSS teachers integrating “flipped” instruction as a creative and
cooperative instructional method to achieve the organization’s global goal?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs for teachers to achieve
their goal of integrating “flipped” instruction into their classrooms?
3. What are the recommended solutions to validate teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs to meet their goal?
Participating Stakeholders
This study narrowed the data collection to 47 participants, comprised of 21 elementary
teachers from grades 3-6 and 27 middle school teachers from grades 7-9. The school leadership
decided to exclude the lower grades (K-2
nd
) from this study because flipped instruction was more
difficult to integrate in the lower grades due to safety issues with technology. The researcher
gathered 45 responses from the survey out of 47 participants, 8 responses from interviews that
EVALUATION OF GSS 91

consisted of 7 teachers from the elementary and 1 from the middle school, as well as a mini-
focus group of 3 middle school math teachers.
The survey respondents consisted of 53.3% subject teachers from the middle school and
46.6% grade level teachers from the elementary school, reflecting a balanced number of teachers
from differing grades. All teachers who were interviewed worked at GSS for more than two
years, ranging anywhere from 3 to 21 years. Figure 3 reflects the survey participants by the grade
level they teach. Figure 4 presents the interview participants by the number of years they have
worked at GSS and the grade they currently teach.

Figure 3. Survey participants from each grade. (n = 45)

Figure 4. Interview participants’ years of teaching and grade level.
11%
11%
11%
14%
20%
22%
11%
Survey Participants
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th
0
10
20
30
3rd 4th 6th 7th 8th 9th
Years
Teaching Experience of Interview Participants
EVALUATION OF GSS 92

Results
This section presents the results from surveys to answer the first research question “To
what extent are GSS teachers integrating ‘flipped’ instruction as a creative and cooperative
instructional method to achieve the organizational goal?”
The survey results in figure 5 indicate that 78% of GSS teachers from grades 3-9 are
currently integrating flipped instruction in their classrooms. However, 71.1% of respondents (32
out of 45) either strongly agree (6.7%), agree (20%), or somewhat agree (44.4%) that it is
difficult to integrate flipped instruction in their classrooms as shown in figure 6.

Figure 5. Survey Q1. I am currently integrating flipped instruction.

Figure 6. Frequency of responses to survey Q7. I often find it difficult to integrate flipped
instruction in my classroom.
Yes
78%
No
22%
Integration of Flipped Instruction
6.7
20
44.4
26.7
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Strong Agree Agree Somewhat
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
EVALUATION OF GSS 93

Findings
This section presents the results and key findings from surveys, interviews, one mini-
focus group, and documents provided by GSS, and organized by Clark & Estes’ (2008) needs
analysis framework to validate the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that impact GSS teachers’ performance with integrating flipped instruction to their
classrooms. A comprehensive review of the literature, learning and motivation theories, as well
as organizational theories, formulated the assumed KMO influences to validate and address the
second research question, “What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs for
GSS teachers to achieve their goal of integrating “flipped” instruction into their classrooms?”
Each section will highlight the assumed needs that were validated, as well as the needs that were
not validated.
Knowledge Results
There are three types of knowledge (declarative, metacognitive, and procedural) in the
needs analysis framework that influence the quality and effectiveness of GSS teachers’
performance to integrate flipped instruction successfully. Each of the three knowledge areas is
organized and presented with results and findings, followed by a synthesis of these knowledge
influences.
Declarative knowledge. GSS teachers need knowledge of various technology tools
available to use in diverse ways to flip instruction effectively. The construction of knowledge and
skills are key factors that impact performance. Clark and Estes (2008) identify knowledge as the
“engine” or “transmission system” of a car that can either facilitate or inhibit performance. Kim,
EVALUATION OF GSS 94

Kim, Lee, Spector, and DeMeester (2013) suggest that one of the barriers to effective integration
of technology to teachers’ pedagogy and content is related to their lack of knowledge. Therefore,
it is important for GSS teachers to acquire a broad knowledge of various technology tools
available so that it can be used effectively for flipped instruction.
The survey results from the knowledge assessment indicate that more than half (60%) of
the respondents either agree (6.7%) or somewhat agree (53.3%) that it is challenging to acquire
new technology skills to flip instruction. Results from another question indicate that 38 out of 45
(84.5%) respondents strongly agree (8.9%), agree (26.7%), and somewhat agree (48.9%) that it
is difficult to prepare pre-recorded video content for students to watch at home. These results,
along with the findings from the interviews, indicate that GSS teachers’ perceived sense of
challenge and difficulty in acquiring and using various technology tools is related to the lack of
information and training GSS has provided for their teachers.
In a survey question that asked teachers how often they received training relevant to
flipping instruction, only 1 person said weekly, another individual said every other week, 2
respondents said monthly and 25 (which was the highest number) said every three months.
Quarterly training sessions reflect the frequency of training and support GSS teachers have been
receiving with flipped instruction. However, this may be insufficient when teachers are learning
a new skill. Interview findings from this study also revealed that most teachers at GSS either had
limited knowledge of different technology tools or limited the use of technology tools to flip
instruction effectively. The most frequently mentioned technology tool was their tablet PC to
create and upload content videos for students to view at home. Aside from this hardware
EVALUATION OF GSS 95

technology tool, some teachers mentioned the use of different software tools, such as cellphone
apps and online database, like Google drive. The two most frequently mentioned app that GSS
teachers used to communicate with each other, as well as students, were BAND and KakaoTalk.
For example, Sam and Henry both talked about using their tablet PCs to make a video for
a unit in math and history. With the use of additional software technology tools, both teachers
mentioned that they upload and share video resources and documents to a shared database or a
web-drive like Google drive. James, a 3
rd
grade teacher, made a comment that teachers often
share their ideas through a cellphone app called BAND, where they communicate and share
information with each other by uploading specific links to instructional skills or curriculum-
related resources.
However, the main focus of technology in flipping instruction at GSS seemed to center
around making videos. Henry’s initial remark, “Flip centers on watching a video,” seemed to
reflect this perception and the general misunderstanding that many teachers could have about
flipped instruction. He said,
“How effective is the video?...is something I wonder about and what percent watch it?
There’s some misunderstanding about it, and some students don’t watch it, but everyone
is required to watch it. I don’t think it fits for elementary students. If all subjects were
taught using the ‘flip’ approach, there would be a lot of videos for students to watch.”
He then criticized that “it’s inconvenient and difficult to do on a regular basis.” Henry further
added, “’Flip’ right now, is mainly focused on making videos and those who are resistant to
technology, tend to push this away.” Sam’s response was similar.
EVALUATION OF GSS 96

“There’s a feeling that when we talk about flipped learning; there has to be a video that
goes with it…also we limit it to pictures or videos for the teaching component, but this is
not the only option. I feel… there are different ways, different methods… but our school
has this understanding that a video has to be used, which I think is a misconception.”
Some teachers at GSS were aware that there are other ways to flip instruction, but both teachers
confirmed that most teachers held the perception that making videos of teaching contents was
crucial to flipped learning.
Three teachers explained how they approached the out-of-class assignment using a
different technology tool that didn’t require using a video. Jane gave an example of how she used
a phone app, BAND, to create a group chat room, where her 3
rd
grade students uploaded a
picture of their finished assignment or activity and received credit for their work. She also
mentioned using the Moamo app for a science unit on plants, where students took pictures of
plants they wanted to know more about and asked questions to gain more information about that
particular plant. She did say, however, that she also had to integrate a video to give students
directions on how to download the app and use it. Another teacher, Mindy, spoke of using power
point presentations or Screen-o-matics in her social studies class for a unit on traditional Korean
homes. She used a power point presentation to explain the history behind the concept and the
building process of these homes before students began with the in-class activity of making
figures and designing systems.
Clark and Estes (2008) assert that the ability of an individual to perform a particular task
depends on the declarative knowledge one has, but if that knowledge is limited, then the
EVALUATION OF GSS 97

resulting performance will also be limited. GSS teachers’ lack of knowledge with technology
tools used to flip instruction has left some teachers feeling frustrated. Mindy expressed her
feelings of limitations saying,
“I wish I knew a little more about technology or had the technical skills to do more, but
because I don’t, I lack...the knowledge… to know how to use certain technology for a
specific purpose. I’m doing simple things, but if I knew a little more, then I think I can do
more.”
Mindy recognized that if she had more information or knowledge of various technology tools
that can be integrated to flip instruction, she would be able to do more than what she has been
doing in the past with her class.
James was the only teacher to point out that the use of technology to flip instruction does
not have to be limited to the use of videos, and that there are other ways to integrate technology
to flip instruction. He said, “…even though the word ‘flip’ means backwards, exactly what do we
have to ‘flip’ was something we weren’t sure of...but I don’t think it requires a video.” Then he
continued to explain that although there are different methods to flip instruction, a lot of GSS
teachers hold the misunderstanding that a video has to be used. When probed further about some
ways he has integrated technology in the past to flip instruction that did not involve a video, he
mentioned that sometimes he gives students one sentence, or a task they have to complete before
coming to class, where students to have to find information online (or offline if preferred) on a
given topic before coming to class the next day.
Likewise, research indicates that teachers should not to get hung up on making videos
EVALUATION OF GSS 98

(Ash, 2012), and they should utilize both online and offline learning experiences for students
(Schmidt & Ralph, 2016). Teachers can utilize technology to access existing resources online
(content information in a wide range of subject matter) in the form of reading a text, or
participating in an interactive challenge, or take quizzes. There are numerous technology tools
that can be adapted for learning, but teachers need more information on these tools and ways
they can utilize these tools to flip instruction effectively. Therefore, the findings from this study
validate the need GSS teachers have for more declarative knowledge of various technology tools
that can be used to flip instruction because they have demonstrated limited knowledge of these
tools to a couple of hardware and software tools.
Procedural Knowledge. GSS teachers need to know how to incorporate certain
strategies for flipping instruction. In a flipped classroom, Bergmann and Sams (2014) suggest
for teachers to move the direct instruction (lecturing of content) out of the classroom space, and
into an individual learning space. Using a pre-recorded video for students to watch at home is
just one of the ways that enable teachers to flip instruction, but it should not be the only way. In
fact, Ash (2012) recommends teachers to utilize existing videos or resources on the web and not
be preoccupied or anxious with creating their own videos. While teachers’ technology skills are
an important factor, research suggests it is more important for teachers to explore meaningful
ways to engage with their students during class for deeper learning to take place (Hao, 2016;
Nwosisi, Ferreira, Rosenberg, & Walsh, 2016; Sams & Bergmann, 2013; Schmidt & Ralph,
2016).
Although survey results indicate that 43 out of 45 (95.6%) respondents agree, or
EVALUATION OF GSS 99

somewhat agree, that they believe students benefit from flipped instruction, 32 out of 45 (71%)
teachers strongly agree, agree, or somewhat agree, that they often find it challenging to integrate
flipped instruction in their classrooms. Likewise, findings from the interviews revealed that 7 out
of 11 participants said they had a general knowledge of flipped instruction but felt it was difficult
or challenging to integrate because they lacked in-depth knowledge and experience with this new
approach. Most of them expressed that there was lack of training and support for teachers to fully
grasp the idea behind flipped instruction, which has limited their skills to flip instruction
effectively. Some teachers mentioned that guidelines to flip instruction have been ambiguous and
that ongoing support has been lacking. Since procedural knowledge is affected by the declarative
knowledge one has to perform a skill (Clark & Estes, 2008), it is important for GSS to provide
teachers with resources that will inform teachers of different flipping strategies, which will carry
over to their procedural knowledge in knowing how to flip instruction more effectively.
One interview question asked GSS teachers how often GSS provides workshops or
training in general, and three out of seven elementary teachers said, “Maybe…once a semester
(school-wide) for 15 hours.” One survey question asked participants how often GSS offers
professional development (PD) for flipped instruction, and 56.8% said only once every three
months, and 34.1% indicated once a year. Within the past 3 years, since September 2015, the
documents of PD sessions indicate that there were four school-wide seminars or workshops for
teachers on flipped instruction. The first PD was an all-day workshop with John Bergmann for
five hours in 2015, and the second PD was in October 2016 for two hours, where several
elementary teachers presented their methods and approaches to flipping instruction to all
EVALUATION OF GSS 100

elementary teachers. The last two sessions in June 2017, introduced Screencast-o-matic and
Explaineverything programs to all elementary teachers, and some teachers modeled a flipped
lesson for their peers.
Middle school teachers said they met regularly to discuss and plan flipped classrooms.
They had received more extensive training with flipped instruction (such as workshops in the
U.S or observations of other schools), but Heather criticized that it was not adequate. She said,
“We’ve had a new book tossed our way and asked to read…but when it comes down to
applying those things within the classroom context, the ‘software’ of ideas is something
that teachers have to do, and there is not enough support that is being provided by the
school.”
The “software” of ideas that Heather alluded to was the processing of those ideas into real steps
and tasks, where the support, in her opinion, is currently “not enough” for teachers. Then she
went on to express that this was a heavy burden.
Middle school teachers’ capacity to integrate flipped instruction appeared to be greater
than those in the lower grades due to the presence of a technology teacher and additional
training. However, one teacher commented that there are others in the middle school who have
chosen not to use this approach. When John was probed further about some possible reasons for
this, he said,
“I don’t think the amount of official training GSS provides is sufficient. We did 15 hours
this year (2017) for the first time, although we started deliberate planning in 2016…But I
don’t think it was enough. I think a teacher or a specialist who specifically focuses on
EVALUATION OF GSS 101

teacher workshops or training needs to be present at GSS to support teachers.”
His response reflects GSS teachers’ needs for more effective training to learn the how to
steps of flipping instruction, which involves detailed procedures with guided practice with and
corrective feedback during practice (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Min explained during the interview that “things are not taught step by step. They just say,
‘This is the way it’s used…there’s these things…do you want to use it?’” However, the way
teachers organize and implement flipped instruction is critical to the success and effectiveness of
flipped learning in students (Hwang et al., 2015). Therefore, it is crucial for teachers to know
how to organize and implement certain strategies to flipping instruction. In fact, 93.3% of
respondents (42 out of 45) either strongly agree, agree, or somewhat agree that the classroom
environment has a significant effect on the success of implementing flipped instruction, but
71.1% of GSS teachers felt it was challenging. These results indicate that although teachers are
aware that the design of the classroom environment is crucial to student learning, they lack the
knowledge to know how to make further improvements.
Neilson (2012) points out that it is important for teachers to know how to design the
learning environment. However, all eleven teachers in the interview expressed some degree of
difficulty when it comes to designing creative and engaging activities for students in the
classroom. Jake said,
“Making videos is one thing but in prior lessons, explanation or teaching took place in
class. But now that this is gone… although we know generally what flipped
instruction is… because there isn’t enough examples or stories about what should take
EVALUATION OF GSS 102

place in the classroom context, the main focus has been on what and how we will record
the videos. But the greater difficulty is not knowing what to do with students during
class time.”
Schmidt (2016) suggests that students will be more engaged when teachers provide greater
variety in content, activities, and videos, but GSS teachers in both elementary and middle school
expressed that this was difficult to do. They expressed the need for more explicit expectations
and on-going training that can provide specific examples or sequence of steps for flipping
lessons. Sue, another middle school teacher said,
“If there was a bigger difficulty… the lesson designs that have to follow during the class
time is what takes a lot of time and creativity…wrestling with ideas…a lot of energy is
poured into this…but it doesn’t mean that we are doing it well right now.”
James also made a similar comment by saying, “Getting resources and materials to do this or
certain activity idea, is a difficult challenge…It’s a bit weak (speaking about his ideas).” Then he
continued and said, “The impact of teaching is very big because what a teacher prepares after the
video has to be different from what the students are used to in the past. Something fun…Then,
there’s improvement.”
Both Sue and James recognize that creative ideas and various activities need to be
incorporated when lessons are flipped, but they both admitted that their ideas were “weak” or
that they weren’t doing it “well.” Their comments reflect that their lack of knowledge for
different strategies (they are not aware of) to flip instruction effectively has impacted their
teaching in the classroom when lessons are flipped.
EVALUATION OF GSS 103

Although GSS teachers recognize that there are many benefits to student learning when
classroom activities are designed well for flipped lessons, some teachers described the process of
designing flipped classrooms with words like, “burdensome,” “difficult,” “pressured,” and
“inconvenient.” These feelings developed from the lack of procedural knowledge, of not
knowing the how to’s or different strategies that can be applied to flipping instruction
effectively. Jake mentioned that up to now, “The main focus has been on how we will record the
video and what will be recorded, but the greater difficulty is not knowing what to do with
students during class time.” He went on to say, “What we need is…like a mentor teacher, or an
expert on ‘flip,’ who can practically show and guide teachers how to flip instruction effectively.”
Metacognitive knowledge. GSS teachers need to reflect on the effectiveness of flipping
lessons for various learning objectives. Metacognition is being aware of one’s cognition and
knowing when and how to use a particular strategy (Rueda, 2011). Not only is it important for
GSS teachers to have knowledge and skills required to flip instruction effectively but they also
need to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of their strategies for various learning objectives.
Figure 7 presents the survey results that indicate that out of forty-five survey respondents,
twenty (44.4%) applied flipped instruction to math, four (8.9%) to social studies, two (4.7%) to
Korean and Science, and one (1.7%) to English. Seven (15.6%) respondents indicated that they
do not apply flipped instruction at all, and nine (20%) respondents selected “other” but did not
indicate the subject.
EVALUATION OF GSS 104

Figure 7. Number of teachers that applied flipped instruction to a subject.
One survey question asked teachers if they thought flipped classrooms allowed for more
active learning to take place and increase higher order thinking for students, and the results
indicate that 36 out of 45 respondents either strongly agree (2.2%), agree (37.8%), and somewhat
agree (40%) that flipped instruction encourages active learning and critical thinking skills in
students. In another survey question, 41 out of 45 respondents either strongly agree (2.2%), agree
(60%), and somewhat agree (28.9%) that when they integrate flipped instruction, they believe
students improve in acquiring new information.
Although teachers recognize the benefits to student learning when flipped instruction is
integrated, the findings from this study indicate that most teachers do not integrate it frequently
to their classroom teaching. In fact, all elementary teachers who were interviewed said they do
not integrate flipped instruction frequently but utilize it when there’s a difficult lesson that takes
a lot of time to explain, or when certain activities are challenging to do in class. Jane, a 3
rd
grade
0
5
10
15
20
25
Math Social
Studies
Korean
Language
Science English other None
Subjects
EVALUATION OF GSS 105

teacher, shared how she flipped a science project to give students more time in class for the
hands-on activity. She said,
“Some things take a long time in class for students to do certain tasks, like making a toy.
To plan and build a toy during class time was difficult. So, I made a video and explained
things, like the planning process or how to prepare materials. Students viewed the video
and brought the materials they needed to build their toy in class. They were able to spend
sufficient time making the toy in class.”
Mindy, a 4
th
grade teacher, shared how she flipped instruction for a social studies unit that
covered some elements of architecture. She said,
“In social studies, there’s a unit where kids draw graphs or make figures and design
systems, and those things involve drawing samples, but students can’t see it very well if I
draw it on the board, so I have tried it with that. One semester, in social studies, topics
like “ondol” or “giwhajip” that reflect the wisdom of the past, where I needed to explain
things before students got involved with the activity of making samples…I made a video
for students to watch. When certain things are better explained and listened to
independently, I flip instruction...depending on the need.”
However, Mindy went on to say,
“I was motivated but since it was a method that we never experienced, nor our
generation, and in watching the videos, we can see what it is but wondered…is this right?
Are we doing it right? Or is there a better way? We’re still not used to it and wondering if
this is right or whether we are doing it right.”
EVALUATION OF GSS 106

These questions that Mindy is asking indicate that she is at times, uncertain about the strategies
she is applying to flip instruction in her classroom. Sam, another 4
th
grade teacher shared how
flipping instruction was effective in helping a high functioning autistic student understand basic
geometry concepts. He said,
“…when there’s a difficult content, and the student does not feel confident that he
can do it. So for that student, during math class, I made a video of basic concepts in
geometry and had him watch the video. Then I had the student do the activities where he
had to apply the concepts, and he seemed to understand the concepts… also he grew little
by little to like math.”
Moreover, Sam went on to explain that this student’s interest in math grew over time, and he saw
how flipped instruction could benefit low performing students or those with learning disabilities.
Henry, a P.E teacher, mentioned that flipped instruction works well for this subject
because students like the class. When he needs to save the time in class for more fun and
meaningful activities, he asks students to watch the video before coming to class. That way,
students can participate in the game and know what they need to do. Jane also discovered flipped
instruction to be effective in math when she used it for a unit on multiplication and division, and
John, a 7
th
grade technology teacher, said, “With certain subjects, it’s good to flip but there are
others, where it is better actually to teach it…so I show the sample in class and show students
how to do it rather than making a video for it.”
Jane went on to say that in their weekly grade team meetings, teachers share ideas about
specific units that are more effective to flip. Teachers also collaborate to prepare flipped lessons
EVALUATION OF GSS 107

that are time-consuming or difficult for students to comprehend. Certain grade level teachers
collaborated more often than others in flipping instruction, and they seemed to have more ideas,
less stress, and greater awareness for units or lessons that are more effective to flip. Teachers
who did not collaborate with others in flipping instruction seemed to utilize this approach less in
their classrooms and held more negative perceptions towards flipped instruction.
Motivation Results
Expectancy Value. GSS teachers need to see the value of flipped instruction as an
effective teaching method that enhances learning in the classroom. Values are important in
starting something new because individuals are more likely to engage and persist in tasks they
believe or perceive to be valuable (Rueda, 2011). In other words, individuals must believe that
there are benefits to performing a specific task before their behavior is influenced to act upon it.
Therefore, it is crucial for GSS teachers to believe that flipped instruction is a valuable teaching
method that can enhance the learning experience for students in the classroom.
Results from the survey indicate that a total of 95.4% (41/43) of teachers either strongly
agree, agree, or somewhat agree that flipped instruction provides personalized (or differentiated)
learning for students, and 80% (36/45) strongly agree, agree, or somewhat agree that flipped
classrooms allow for more active learning to take place and increase higher order thinking in
students. However, 86.7% (39/45) strongly agree, agree, or somewhat agree that they feel
pressured to integrate flipped instruction in their classrooms. This implies that although most
teachers believe flipped instruction enhances the learning experience of students, their
motivation to use this instructional approach is largely related to the pressure or sense of
EVALUATION OF GSS 108

responsibility they feel, rather than believing it to be valuable.
During the interview, Sam commented that he thought flipped instruction was valuable
and effective because it allowed for more differentiated and individualized instruction. Steve and
Jake said they found it to be effective for low performing or struggling students because the
integration of technology allowed students to review the content through video until they
understood it, and they were able to receive more individualized help from teachers during class.
Tawfik (2015) points out that because teachers spend less time lecturing and students spend more
time participating in creative activities in class, flipped learning helps students become more
immersed in their learning. Accordingly, John said,
“Students’ attitude towards instruction or behavior in class has been different. In the past,
students used to rely only on textbooks or teacher’s lectures, but by flipping instruction,
there has been an increase in diverse activities that take place in the classroom.
Independence has grown, and students have become more active rather than passive in
their learning.”
Sam, Steve, Jake and John all mentioned some benefits that result from flipping instruction, but
this contradicts the survey results that indicate that 71.1% of teachers find it difficult to integrate
flipped instruction, and 86.7% feel pressured to integrate flipped instruction. Such findings are
reflective of GSS teacher beliefs or perception that, although flipped instruction can be beneficial
to students, it is not the motivating factor, nor is it perceived to be personally valuable to them.
There may be many reasons for this lack of motivation, but as one elementary teacher
commented, “Flipping all subjects all the time would be difficult and unrealistic because then
EVALUATION OF GSS 109

students would have too many videos to watch for homework.” He also added, “Flipped
instruction might work well in the middle school, but it is difficult to integrate into the lower
grades.” He made a point that “teachers do not have a clear understanding for the purpose of flip
learning at GSS, so the focus has been more on ideas for preparing and recording content
videos.”
Similarly, James asserted that there were other effective teaching methods GSS has used
in the past, but that flipped instruction has been “forced” on them, so it feels “somewhat
burdensome.” Henry, at the elementary grade level, said, “There were questions regarding
this…and even now there’s some doubt regarding this….” Hence, some teachers see the value in
flipped instruction but at the same time, feel pressured or “pushed” to integrate this teaching
method into their classrooms because it is a school-wide goal.
Pintrich (2003) suggests that goals and motivation must come together for an individual
to invest their time and effort in an activity and perceive the activity as something valuable to
them before being engaged in that activity (Eccles, 2009). However, as these findings revealed,
some teachers at GSS were not motivated to flip instruction because the goal or its purpose was
not very clear to teachers, and therefore, was not valuable enough for them to invest the time or
effort into integrating flipped instruction. Henry clarified several reasons for the lack of
motivation in teachers by saying,
“Teachers go into it (flipped instruction) with some hesitation because there is lack of
communication for one. Second, since technology is integrated to this…those who are
resistant to tech, tend to push this away. Moreover, in elementary, kids are younger, so
EVALUATION OF GSS 110

parents have to watch it with them. For older students, they have to go to hagwon
(supplementary private tutoring), but videos become additional homework they have to
do, so it is burdensome for students.”
He explained that when GSS first started flipping instruction, it was their understanding that
teachers were making the videos to send to the mission field (for missionary children) but that
the goal seemed to have changed a bit since then. He went on to say, “There’s a need to clarify
what the purpose is for this so that they (teachers) can all sense a need to do it and be motivated
to do it.” Another important point he made was that teachers (and parents) need to perceive
technology to be more beneficial than harmful, for student learning.
For some elementary teachers, technology was perceived to be a burden and a barrier
they must overcome. For one, elementary teachers who cover multiple subjects perceive flipped
instruction to be very time-consuming because of all the videos they are required to produce.
Also, teachers and parents hold negative perceptions towards the use of technology at school.
Moreover, many elementary teachers’ apprehension towards flipped instruction was related to
technology use at the elementary level. Steve commented, “It’s becoming more difficult for
teachers to enjoy what they’re doing? (teaching)…It’s the feeling like, ‘I’ll just do what I can do
well without hearing negative feedback’ because they’ve tried it (flipping), but it doesn’t work
well, and it becomes burdensome, which has been the environment most recently….” He spoke
of some teachers at GSS who were not motivated to continue persisting with flipping instruction
because of their “failed experiences” and that they would rather stick to what they can do well
instead.
EVALUATION OF GSS 111

However, technology-enhanced flipped classrooms allow students to give immediate
feedback to teachers during the learning process using formative feedback that provides teachers
with information on the effectiveness and efficiency of their teaching (Kang, et al., 2015).
Moreover, teachers can also utilize this information as guidelines to help students find gaps in
their knowledge. Therefore, GSS teachers need to perceive that technology enhanced flipped
classrooms can bring positive results and outcomes in student learning.
Self-efficacy. GSS teachers need to have confidence that they can flip instruction
effectively to support student learning. In the social learning theorists’ concept of self-efficacy,
Bandura (1977) suggests that individuals are more likely to perform when they believe they can
perform the behavior successfully. Individuals with high self-efficacy have a firm belief in their
competence, hold higher expectations for positive outcomes, and are more confident that they
can fulfill a given task (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). For GSS teachers to reach the organizational
goal, they need to have the confidence that they can flip instruction effectively to support student
learning.
When survey results indicate that 95.6% of teachers agree (60%) or somewhat agree
(35.6%) that students benefit from flipped instruction, but 71% find it difficult or somewhat
difficult to integrate it into their classrooms, their sense of difficulty can be connected to or
reflective of their confidence to flip instruction successfully Several respondents from the
interviews commented that they lack the confidence to flip instruction because it is a new
teaching approach that they have never personally experienced, and that the directions or
guidance is unclear. Additionally, some teachers mentioned that there was lack of ongoing
EVALUATION OF GSS 112

training to help teachers develop their skills in flipping instruction.
Steve was hesitant, as he said, “I think it would be difficult with first and second grade,
and third and fourth grade is a little uncertain… so everyone thinks differently as to whether
flipped instruction is something good.” One teacher commented that they do not feel motivated
or confident to apply this new teaching approach because they lack the knowledge,
understanding, and clarity required for flipped instruction. James, an elementary teacher, said,
“When students come to class, there must be a good follow-up program or activities,
since it cannot be the same as the video. But getting resources or materials to do this and
ideas for activities is difficult and challenging. It is a bit weak, and I lack confidence
because what I prepared is weak.”
John shared that some teachers, who are shy by nature and have difficulty speaking in front of a
camera, find it difficult to record videos. He said, “It takes much determination for teachers to do
this, and depending on your talent...if they don’t not feel satisfied, they do it over and over but
then decide… they would rather just lecture,” and some teachers have given up on making
further effort.
Heather, on the other hand, expressed her concerns about the possible impact flipped
instruction can have on students in the long run. She implied that her lack of confidence in
flipped instruction may not lead to positive results in student learning or performance. She
added, “There are also some practical limitations to what we can apply in the classrooms due to
specific regulations by the department of education.”
As Bandura (1997) suggested, if the foundation for motivation begins with the
EVALUATION OF GSS 113

individual’s perception that they are capable of learning and performing a given task, it is crucial
for GSS teachers to believe that they can learn and master the skills necessary to flip instruction
effectively, rather than questioning or doubting about their performance and whether it is worth
their effort.
Organizational Results
Cultural Model Influence 1. Collaboration. The culture of collaboration among
teachers as “learning organizations” is needed through PLC to successfully implement flipped
instruction in classrooms. There is evidence that collaborative work among teachers brings
positive results within schools as learning organizations (Cha & Ham, 2012; Stoll & Louis,
2007), because it increases morale, enthusiasm, and work ethic in teachers. Learning
organizations, also referred to as “Communities of Practice” or “Professional Learning
Communities,” share knowledge of past successes and failures related to specific methodologies,
exchange and experiment with innovative ideas, and engage in experiential learning that results
in a culture of learning organizations (Henry, 1996). Teachers can learn from one another
through peer interactions and support each other towards change by reinforcing each other.
The findings from this study revealed that the culture of learning organization is already
present at GSS through PLC (Professional Learning Communities), or “research groups,” which
meet regularly every other week. During these meetings, teachers can learn and explore a
specific topic or area of interest more in-depth and discuss what they discovered, ways it can be
adapted to their context, or attend a workshop together related to the topic of interest. GSS
elementary teachers also shared that they hold weekly meetings that are organized by grade
EVALUATION OF GSS 114

teams, where teachers collaborate to discuss and plan various lesson ideas and approaches to
teaching. A designated teacher, who feels confident and is interested in a subject, often presents
the main ideas. Others in the group are invited to take whatever they want from it and adapt it to
their teaching. One teacher commented that some teachers are more specific about sharing
certain concepts or contents that could be effective to flip, so they collaborate to design flipped
lessons for that unit. Then, teachers share this information with other GSS teachers through a
phone application, such as BAND or Kakaotalk. Middle school teachers meet twice a month in
their subject or department, whereas grade levels meet once a year (for issues related to that
grade), and all middle school teachers meet weekly to discuss certain issues related to academics.
Sue added that more recently, teachers have been meeting more “regularly” for workshops or
training in flipped instruction,
GSS elementary school is divided by mini-schools where two grade levels (1
st
and 2
nd
, 3
rd

and 4
th
, 5
th
and 6
th
grades) meet every other week to go over events or issues related to the
administration at school. Jane said, “Mini-schools help develop certain distinctiveness about
their grades” because they work as a team to develop and improve teaching practices relevant to
their specific grades. On the contrary, Jake said, “There’s not much room for discussion” outside
of these weekly or bi-weekly meetings. Although the communication between teachers is well
established at GSS, some feel that this is not the same with the leadership at GSS.
John, a middle school teacher, said, “Since the school is small, casual conversations
during lunchtime, like ‘I’m doing this in music class, do you want to try it together?’ which
results in a lesson that combines two different subjects, are more informal collaborations that
EVALUATION OF GSS 115

take place.” He further commented that in some ways, ideas are shared or developed more
frequently through informal collaborations, like at lunchtimes, than in formal settings. However,
this may be the case because they do not have a designated collaboration time for teachers to
work on flipping instruction for the subjects they teach. Since performances within an
organization increase when individuals communicate consistently and candidly with others about
plans and processes (Clark & Estes, 2008), opportunities for teachers to collaborate in diverse
settings or context, be it formal or informal, are important for teachers at GSS.
Cultural Model Influence 2. Leadership. Teachers need to know that leadership values
and support creative and collaborative approaches to teaching. Leaders must be committed to
the vision of the organization and actively participate in the process to continually make
improvements (Clark and Estes, 2008). Findings from interviews indicate that more than half of
the teachers perceive the school leadership to be very supportive and financially generous with
providing various training and workshop opportunities for teachers inside and outside of Korea.
Several teachers who have been at GSS for more than five years expressed that in the past, the
school leadership inspired teachers to “explore and learn as much as they want,” encouraging
autonomy and further exploration of individual interest areas. In fact, diverse teaching methods
have been explored and applied at GSS to improve the learning environment for students. When
teachers were asked to talk about some creative and innovative teaching methods they’ve used in
the past, all of them mentioned cooperative education, and some brought up inclusive education,
open education, relational learning, blended learning, interdisciplinary teaching, home-study
through online education, English immersion, hands-on learning, team teaching, mini-schools, as
EVALUATION OF GSS 116

well as after-school class/activities that students select according to their area of interest.
However, one teacher expressed that this has decreased slowly in recent years and that
the most recent focus has been on school-wide interests, such as “flipped instruction” and the
extension of a new “building project” for a high school, rather than teacher interests. When asked
about his thoughts on school leadership, he said,
“Leadership makes decisions, and teachers have little participation in the decision-
making process. Decisions are made top-down, and teachers are told or forced to do it.
Teachers did not have a choice (regarding flipped instruction), but it was an obligation.
There were no deep discussions. The feeling we get is that we get the help that the school
wants to provide. So…it’s not so much about whether I need the help or not, but the
school predetermines what teachers need training in and then says, ‘We have planned
this and this training…since we have provided this training, let’s try flipped instruction
now’.”
When asked how GSS can improve, Sam’s response was, “Supporting areas of interest that
teachers directly have, rather than school-wide.” Another teacher, Henry, said,
“The reason why we cannot help but be negative about this is that …one of the most
positive things about GSS was the good communication we had and the fact that
voluntary initiation was encouraged, which helped teachers challenge one another.
However, with flipped instruction, there is a split on how teachers feel.”
James made a similar comment, “…For leadership, since it was their idea, there was a lot of
passion and energy. But for others…it’s not the same.” James, who has been working at GSS for
EVALUATION OF GSS 117

the past 21 years, said that the decision to integrate flipped instruction was “basically
announced,” but that there should have been some initial steps leading to this decision.
A couple of teachers added that certain structural and role changes at GSS were
announced or notified to teachers, rather than having teachers participate in the decision-making
process. In the same way, integrating flipped instruction as the school-wide goal was a decision
that did not include the participation of all GSS teachers. Therefore, some teachers still do not
have a clear understanding of its purpose. Jake went on to explain that if GSS had communicated
these changes more clearly to teachers, they would have understood, and there would be more
cooperation and collaboration. However, because decisions were made at the top and then
communicated to teachers, they did not have the opportunity to thoroughly think through the
benefits and value of flipped instruction or other changes that are taking place.
Nonetheless, there were teachers who felt supported by the school leadership. Jane, who
has been at GSS for 9 years said, “They (leadership) support teachers to explore and try as much
as they want. If the teacher has the desire to do something, the school gives support.” Mindy,
who has been at GSS for 16 years said, “Teachers are encouraged to be autonomous. If it’s really
needed and helpful, then the school gives a budget and resources.” These findings indicate that
there is a divide in teachers’ perceptions of the leadership support at GSS.
Although leaders play an important role in shaping the organizational culture by clearly
communicating the mission and vision, values and beliefs, and modeling certain actions that
inspire others (Kezar, 2001), the findings from this study indicate that the leadership at GSS has
not been communicating to teachers very clearly. The lack of clarity in communication has left
EVALUATION OF GSS 118

some teachers feeling resistant towards recent decisions and changes at GSS. Therefore,
teachers’ attitudes towards flipped instruction as a valuable instructional approach can improve
when the leadership communicates its values and purpose more clearly, with support that helps
teachers bring positive changes to student learning in the classroom.
Lewis (2011) suggests that leaders’ decisions make a significant impact in providing
resources and training to its stakeholders. As such, the findings from this study indicate that the
leadership at GSS have been providing sufficient tangible resources to teachers, but it was not
always the kind of support teachers wanted or needed. Some teachers expressed that they still
need time to process flipped instruction, and others said they needed further guidance, training,
and education.
Jake expressed the need for more collaborative time to work with other teachers to flip
instruction. He said, “We discuss what worked well in class. If the class next door is doing
something well, it’s easy to ask. The grade team meetings and PLC are best because it allows
time for sharing and communication.” However, weekly grade team meetings do not always
focus on flipped instruction, and there isn’t additional support or guidance teachers can receive
inside GSS. Sam shared that it would be helpful if “the school can provide more specific
examples for teachers (through training or workshops) so that they can be more motivated.” He
said few teachers went overseas to receive training, but most teachers have learned what they
know from reading books or articles online. However, Sam suggested that it would be more
beneficial for teachers to “actually observe” flipped instruction in practice.
These findings validate GSS teachers’ need to feel valued and supported by their
EVALUATION OF GSS 119

leadership in their efforts towards achieving the organizational goal of integrating creative and
collaborative approaches to teaching. Leadership should not limit their support to only flipped
instruction but to diverse teaching approaches and methods that can enhance and engage student
learning in the classroom. An interesting observation one teacher made recently is that there has
been a growing pressure and expectations from parents for a stronger focus on academics that
has also been a factor discouraging teachers from adopting more creative and innovative
approaches to teaching. He said, “As the school leadership took over, there was a decrease in
teachers initiating, and the role of a teacher has become more difficult now than in the
past…they are feeling burdened.” In Steve’s opinion, this is one of the factors that has caused
GSS teachers to become more passive and apathetic towards learning and adapting new and
creative approaches to classroom teaching.
Cultural Setting. Resources. Teachers need an organization that supports the sharing of
instructional resources and ideas (which include technology equipment, time, and IT support).
Schein (2004), Moran and Brightman (2000) emphasize the importance of organizations to
provide necessary resources, training, and support to its stakeholders so that they can reach
mastery of their given task. Clark and Estes (2008) also suggest for organizations to provide
tangible supplies and equipment their stakeholders need, so that they can achieve the
organizational goal.
The findings from this study revealed that most of the teachers at GSS feel supported by
the school with tangible supplies (technology equipment). Sue mentioned several technology
resources that GSS has provided, such as the tablet PC for teachers, Chrome books for students,
EVALUATION OF GSS 120

and WIFI throughout the school that enables technology integration in classrooms. Most
recently, GSS invested in another resource for students by purchasing many Chromebooks for
fifth and sixth graders, as well as personal tablet PCs for teachers so that they can take videos
and upload them online for flipped instruction. John talked about GSS providing an IT staff who
oversees the operation of technology within the school, while several other teachers mentioned
receiving financial support from GSS to attend special workshops or seminars.
Jake, who has been at GSS for five years said, “Teachers are generally supported pretty
well with training and resources, but it is help that the school wants to provide rather than what
teachers need.” He said it would be more helpful if the school provided support to teachers when
they are faced with certain difficulties or challenges as they try something new. Sam mentioned
something similar saying,
“The amount of support is sufficient but regarding the support that teachers really need?
Areas that teachers want to know more about, like flipped instruction. How are other
schools or countries doing it? Teachers want to learn more from other’s experiences. We
have read books, and teachers have researched about it, but the school can provide more
specific examples so that teachers will be more motivated.”
Their comments imply that although they feel supported with tangible resources, teachers want
the school to support them in other areas of need they might have.
Aside from these tangible resources GSS has provided for its students and teachers, a
need that was repeatedly brought up by several teachers was a quiet place for them to record
videos. Eight out of eleven teachers mentioned that it was difficult to find a quiet place or a room
EVALUATION OF GSS 121

to record videos, due to all the after-school activities that take place on campus. Several teachers
brought up the need for extra time to plan and prepare flipped lessons, as well as additional
training or workshops on flipping instruction. John suggested that it would be helpful for
teachers to have ongoing support on campus through a flip expert or a mentor teacher, who can
be present on campus to assist and guide teachers as they plan and execute flipped instruction.
He mentioned the idea of a “flip zone,” where both tangible technology resources, as well as
continuous guided support, can be provided for teachers at GSS.

EVALUATION OF GSS 122

CHAPTER FIVE
RECOMMENDATIONS
The conceptual framework for this study was developed out of GSS’s organizational goal
to integrate creative and cooperative approaches to learning in the classroom. Out of various
approaches to teaching, GSS chose to focus on integrating flipped instruction as a short-term
organizational goal. The assumed influences were categorized and validated in Chapter Four
through qualitative and quantitative data analysis, organized by knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs GSS teachers have to integrate flipped instruction successfully into five unit
plans. This chapter will discuss the significance of these findings and provide recommendations
based on theoretical principles found in the literature to address areas that need improvement.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations.
Introduction. As Clark and Estes (2008) suggest, the construction of knowledge and
skills are important factors that influence an individual’s ability to perform at a given task.
Knowledge is required for individuals to know how to accomplish their performance goals
(Rueda, 2011) and when future challenges or changing conditions necessitate new problem
solving skills (Clark & Estes, 2008). There are three different types of knowledge that impact
one’s performance, which consist of declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and
metacognitive knowledge (Rueda, 2011).
Table 4 represents the list of assumed knowledge influences that impact GSS teachers’
performance as they design and implement flipped instruction. These were supported by
EVALUATION OF GSS 123

literature and validated through the data collected from surveys, interviews, a mini-focus group,
and documents, along with the recommendations for these assumed influences, based on
theoretical principles found in the literature that will help GSS teachers with the knowledge they
need to integrate flipped instruction successfully to five unit plans within their curriculum.
Table 4.
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers need
knowledge of various
technology tools
available to use in
diverse ways to flip
instruction
effectively. (i.e.,
Personal Computer,
Google Chrome book,
Interactive
whiteboard, video
camera, iPad, cell
phone or Tablet apps,
both hardware &
software) (D)
V Y The construction
of knowledge and
skills are key
factors that impact
performance.
(Clark & Estes,
2008)

Information and
job aid describe
what individuals
need to know to
achieve their
performance goals
(Clark & Estes,
2008)
Provide teachers with
information on diverse
technology tools that
can be used to flip
instruction.

Provide job aids for
teachers with
information that can
help them determine
which technology tool is
most effective to use for
a specific purpose when
flipping instruction.
Teachers need to
know how to
incorporate certain
strategies for flipped
instruction in their
unit plans. (P)
V Y The way teachers
organize and
implement flipped
instruction is
critical to the
success and
effectiveness of
flipped learning in
Provide job aids that
guide teachers to the
best practices/strategies
for flipping lessons.

Train teachers with
successful strategies
used to flip lessons for
EVALUATION OF GSS 124

students (Hwang
et al., 2015)

Teachers need to
know various
ways technology
can be integrated
in flipped
classrooms so that
students have
sufficient time and
space to learn the
content material at
home and engage
in activities at
school. (Hwang et
al., 2015)

Effective training
involves giving
guided practice to
apply new
knowledge &
skills, with
accurate
procedures, and
corrective
feedback during
practice that leads
to automated
knowledge (C &
E, 2008)
specific subject/content
material.

Conduct training for
GSS teachers that
involve observing other
teachers’ use of
technology unfamiliar to
them, so that they can
gain knowledge of new
ways to integrate
technology for various
purposes.
Teachers need to
reflect on the
effectiveness of
flipping lessons for
various learning
objectives. (M)
V Y New knowledge
and skills must be
learned in such a
way that when it
is appropriate, it
will be edited until
it is accurate and
then automated
(Clark & Estes,
Provide ongoing
education for teachers
on different strategies
used to flip instruction
so that teachers can
reflect and evaluate the
effectiveness of these
methods.

EVALUATION OF GSS 125

2008)

Metacognitive
knowledge is the
awareness of
one’s cognition
and cognitive
processes. (Rueda,
2011)

Learning is
enhanced when
we have
knowledge and
control over own
cognitive
processes (Baker,
2006)
Provide training
opportunities for
teachers to practice
flipping instruction
under the guidance of a
mentor/peer/expert who
can give corrective
feedback and
collaborate to decipher
the effectiveness of each
method for specific
learning objectives.

Declarative Knowledge Solutions. Teachers need knowledge of various technology
tools available to use in diverse ways to flip instruction effectively. The availability of
technology tools for delivering instruction has grown significantly in recent years with
developments of different types of digital technology, but Kim et al. (2013) points out that
teachers lack knowledge and professional development that systematically assists them with
information and training they need to use technology in their classes effectively. Since
knowledge is an essential component that impacts one’s performance, the scope of knowledge
one has influences the quality and effectiveness of their performance (Clark and Estes, 2008).
Therefore, the scope of knowledge that GSS teachers have of various technology tools available
for educational purposes will influence how effectively they will use it to flip instruction and
enhance the learning environment for students.
EVALUATION OF GSS 126

Research confirmed that when teachers integrate technology effectively, instruction is
enhanced because it encourages students to take an active role in constructing their own
knowledge through self-efficacy and self-regulation (Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector & DeMeester,
2013; Hwang, Lai, & Wang, 2015; Tawfik, 2015). Likewise, Kang et al. (2015) claim that the
use of technology enhances student-centered learning by motivating students to actively
participate in their learning experience and take ownership of their learning. Moreover, the
integration of technology encourages students to be self-directed and engaged within a structured
and supported learning environment (Fraga & Harmon, 2015; Tawfik, 2015; Tsai, Shen, & Lu,
2015). Technology also makes it possible to access a considerable amount of information quickly
and easily for students (Ouda & Ahmed, 2016), and information is something individuals need to
know to achieve specific performance goals (Clark and Estes, 2008).
The findings from this study revealed that GSS teachers’ declarative knowledge of
technology integration to flip instruction were often limited to the use of their tablet PCs (to
make content videos) or specific apps (to communicate with each other and students) due to the
lack of information they had with various technology tools. Out of 11 interviewees, only one
teacher mentioned the use of apps, and another teacher mentioned the use of Screencast-o-matic
and power point presentation. Because GSS teachers lacked information of various technology
tools available, it influenced their design of the learning environment for students in a flipped
classroom. Therefore, to help GSS teachers gain greater knowledge of various technology tools
available, GSS needs to provide more information and job aids to teachers so that they can utilize
technology more effectively when they flip instruction.
EVALUATION OF GSS 127

Chen (2010) suggests for teachers to carefully consider which technology tool they
should use when it is integrated for a specific lesson. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby, &
Ertmer (2010) emphasized that the focus should not be on the technology tool itself, but the
enhanced learning experiences technology can bring for students. Through the provision of
information on different types of technology tools that can be used to flip instruction, GSS
teachers can utilize this knowledge to determine which tool is best to use to achieve the highest
effectiveness for a specific learning objective.
Job aids with a list of information on different technology tools can be another resource
for GSS teachers to use on their own when they are designing flipped instructions. Job aids
should be easily accessible and assist GSS teachers with greater options to select technology
tools that can engage students for meaningful learning within a flipped classroom. It can also
help teachers determine which tool will be most effective to use for a specific learning objective.
Furthermore, job aids can consist of various hardware and software technology tools available
either at GSS, on the web, or through an app.
Bergmann and Sams (2013) suggest various hardware tools aside from personal
computers, such as interactive whiteboards (using digital pen on the screen to visually show step
by step procedures of how to do something), iPads (camera and apps), tablet PCs (camera and
internet), video cameras (to capture something with a movement), and cell phones (apps). All of
these are easily accessible technology tools for teachers and students. Additionally, there are
many software tools, online or through an app, that are easily accessible and some of them free
for teachers and students to use. These tools can be used to create and edit videos (Screencast-o-
EVALUATION OF GSS 128

Matic & Camtasia Studio), access the world-wide-web (internet blogs, games, simulations), or
review the knowledge of content materials from other sources (Bergmann & Sams, 2013). Like
Khan Academy, the Education Broadcasting System (EBS), funded by the Korean government,
provides lectures and study materials for students to engage in through television, radio
programs, internet and published materials (Kwon, Lee, & Shin, 2017). Moreover, Ebooks and
apps like Fakebook, Educreations, and Seesaw, are also cost-efficient and useful tools that
teachers can integrate into a flipped lesson that help students develop creative and intellectual
skills (Johns, Troncale, Trucks, Calhoun, & Alvidrez, 2017). These hardware and software
technology tools enable teachers to build a digital library of resources within GSS and share
them with students, as well as other teachers. Finally, Bergmann and Sams (2013) recommend
the use of online hosting sites such as Google classroom, Moodle or Blackboard, as optional
platforms for teachers to share information and store other resources.
There are many hardware and software technology tools available for teachers to use
creatively in designing learning environments for students that increase active learning
experiences, both at home and in the classroom. Traditional technology tools that have been
around for a while, such as video cameras, can be combined with a computer to design a virtual
field trip through a video conference. Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al. (2010) gave an example of one
teacher who integrated a video conference for a unit on Native Americans for her first grade
students. Through the integration of technology for this lesson, students were able to gain a
deeper understanding of the content because they were able to visually see the clothing and tools
of Native Americans and hear their instruments.
EVALUATION OF GSS 129

In addition to information and job aids mentioned above, GSS can also provide
opportunities for teachers to observe other teachers’ lessons and their uses of technology to flip
instruction in their classrooms. Chen (2010) points out that it is important for teachers to be
exposed to various types of technology tools and learn how these tools can be integrated in the
classroom for specific learning objectives. By observing other teachers, GSS teachers’
knowledge of technology can be broadened and deepened, when they can see first-hand, the
diverse role technology can play in a flipping instruction to help students engage in meaningful
learning. In fact, Siegle (2014) points out that technology can be tool to differentiate instruction
in the classroom because it provides more opportunities for students to make choices in their
learning process. For example, those who are gifted or performing at a higher level can access
more advanced content when technology is integrated, while those who are struggling can review
the video content or receive individual help from the teacher. He further adds that technology can
be a tool for students to collaborate and share or construct ideas with one another, or further
explore concepts and apply them to other disciplines. For GSS students, utilizing online
resources, such as programs or lectures produced by EBS or videos made by other teachers in or
outside of GSS, may be a great option to consider. What is important to remember is that there
are many twenty-first century technology tools readily available for teachers to use in Korea to
engage students in learning and enhance instruction.
Procedural Knowledge Solutions. Teachers need to know how to incorporate certain
strategies for flipped instruction in their unit plans. When designing the flipped classroom,
Bergmann and Sams (2013) suggest for teachers to apply the principles of Universal design for
EVALUATION OF GSS 130

learning. Since all learners are different, teachers should use multiple approaches to present the
learning content to students. The way teachers design, organize and implement flipped
instruction through active learning strategies, ultimately determines the success and effectiveness
of flipped classrooms (Hwang et al., 2015; Sohrabi & Iraj, 2006).
The findings from this study revealed that although GSS teachers have a general
knowledge of how to flip instruction, 71% expressed difficulty or challenge in flipping
instruction, and 73.4% found it challenging to get students to watch the videos. These results,
along with the findings from interviews, suggest that GSS teachers perceive flipped instruction to
be difficult or challenging because they lack procedural knowledge of various strategies used to
flip instruction and engage students in their learning. Some teachers (especially at the elementary
level) mentioned during interviews that post-training opportunities have been limited. Although
teachers may perceive flipped instruction to be valuable, Park and Sung’s (2013) study found
that when there is lack of in-service professional development for teachers, they fail to apply it in
to their classrooms. In fact, they recommend that teacher training be offered on a continual basis
so that they have opportunities to deal with problems and difficulties that may occur during the
implementation process. Hence, it is important for GSS to provide further training that does not
stop at merely passing along information but provide detailed procedures to different methods
and approaches proven to be effective in flipping instruction, as well as ongoing support to help
teachers implement these strategies successfully in their classrooms.
Clark and Estes (2008) emphasize that the repeated practice of new knowledge and skills
enable individuals to reach perfection and automation. Park (2008) pointed out that when
EVALUATION OF GSS 131

teachers have limited understanding of how to integrate a new teaching approach, it leads to
implementation problems because they are only partially acquainted with the concepts.
Therefore, training should involve learning the “how to” knowledge and skills, as well as
demonstrations that involve step-by-step procedures to various strategies related to flipping
instruction effectively and include guided practice with corrective feedback from a mentor
teacher or an expert to help teachers improve their skills. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that
some training sessions can take place through a computer and web-based training session, and
that it does not have to be limited to the classroom environment.
However, the findings from the interviews and document of PD at GSS revealed that
teachers lacked this type of training, not only in frequency, but the type of training they received
related to flipped instruction. A comment from one respondent who said, “It’s somewhat of a
burden when lots of ideas are thrown our way,” implies that new ideas are burdensome because
there isn’t enough support or guidance for teachers after the idea has been tossed to them.
Another teacher’s comment reflects similar feelings when she said she “wrestles with many ideas
and much energy is poured into it (flipped teaching)” but that she was not sure if she was doing it
well. These comments suggest that GSS teachers need more guidance and corrective feedback as
they practice new approaches to teaching like flipped instruction. Teachers need continual
guidance and feedback so that they can improve in areas that are needed, or receive confirmation
that they are doing it well, which leads to increased self-efficacy and confidence in individuals
that lead to better performance.
EVALUATION OF GSS 132

Since GSS teachers are already familiar with the content they teach, such that providing
information on flipped instruction in the form of job aids can also be helpful. Job aids can be in
the form of digital resources in text that explain the how-to steps or project-showcase videos
where teachers can share their ideas or the final product (Ullman, 2013). It can also be in the
form of a small manual or a booklet that contain helpful information to flipping instructional
strategies used by other teachers within or outside of GSS for various learning objectives.
Teachers can easily access and utilize job aids with detailed information on when or how specific
strategies can be effectively applied when they are designing flipped classrooms.
Another finding from this study revealed that most teachers who were flipping
instruction at GSS felt that they needed to make content videos for students to view at home.
Concurrently, almost all the elementary teachers interviewed at GSS expressed that this was
difficult and challenging to do frequently because of the multiple subjects they have to teach, on
top of finding a quiet place inside the school to record videos. However, research findings
confirmed that teachers do not have to limit the out-of-class assignments to merely viewing
teacher made videos at home (Siegle, 2013; Sams & Bergmann, 2013; Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2010; Nwosisi, Ferreira, Rosenber, & Walsh, 2016; Schmidt & Ralph, 2016). In fact, the best
approach for teachers is to provide a variety of options for students to learn the content according
to their learning preferences (Ouda & Ahmed, 2016). Schmidt and Ralph (2016) recommend the
use of pre-made videos by other teachers or professionals (either at GSS, EBS, or online),
whereas Sams and Bergmann (2013) recommend that existing videos can be used for a different
purpose besides just viewing the content, like posting a question for students to answer.
EVALUATION OF GSS 133

Abeysekera & Dawson (2015) recommend screencast or vodcast, which are tools commonly
used to teach key concepts for a specific topic, where teachers share the information in the form
of a traditional lecture but share with students what is on their computer screen. Smith (2015)
further adds that there is always the option of having students complete lessons or activities in a
printed format at home. If teachers choose to use videos, Sams and Bergmann (2013)
recommend that teachers post to an online hosting site like Moodle or Blackboard, or an internal
district server like Google classroom, which can alleviate some of the concerns parents might
have over technology use for younger students.
Once GSS teachers receive sufficient information and training on various strategies to
self-directed learning for students’ out of class assignments, they also need to learn how to
creatively design activities for the classroom that engage students in active learning with
discussions, problem-solving activities, and the application of concepts learned within a flipped
classroom. These activities should encourage student participation, collaboration, and interaction
focused on inquiry-based learning that provides more differentiated learning for students (Ouda
& Ahmed, 2016). GSS can accomplish this through more detailed training that involves
designing meaningful activities for different learning objectives, and/or creative projects that
help students develop analytical and critical skills as they apply their learning to real-life
contexts. Hwang et al. (2015) suggest that project-based learning and problem-solving learning
strategies can be integrated into flipped classroom activities to promote higher order thinking
abilities in students. Sams and Bergmann (2013) recommend that teachers consider doing
projects in class to learn the content material from the start. This is a top-down approach to
EVALUATION OF GSS 134

Bloom’s taxonomy, and projects do not necessarily have to be assigned at the end of the learning
process. Technology can also be a tool integrated into the classroom activity for a web-based
project, where students collaborate with their peers to access information from the internet and
utilize various resources online to expand on their knowledge (Kang et al., 2015). Some other
forms of technology integration can be videos or video conferences, PowerPoint presentations,
interactive whiteboards, or problem sets, all of which can become optional resources for
teachers.
Whichever the approach, Sams and Bergmann (2013) emphasize that the higher ends of
Bloom’s taxonomy should be moved to the class time, where students are applying, analyzing,
evaluating and creating. Furthermore, it is important for GSS teachers to remember that the in-
class activities should tap into the interest and strengths of their students, giving them
opportunities to demonstrate their understanding through various means. Both job-aids and
training should provide the support and learning that GSS teachers need to flip instruction
effectively in and out of their classrooms.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions. Teachers need to reflect on the effectiveness of
flipping lessons for various learning objectives. Siegle (2014) emphasized that flipped
instruction not be just about a method for teachers, but a mindset in which the traditional order of
classroom instruction and homework has interchanged, and it can go beyond the use of any
particular technology (Kim et al., 2013). Hwang, Lai, and Wang (2015) explained that it takes a
lot of time and effort for teachers to flip instruction because they need to reflect and analyze the
learning objectives and then determine which teaching strategy and technology is most effective
EVALUATION OF GSS 135

to use for a specific learning objective. Furthermore, Sams and Bergmann (2013) emphasize that
when teachers are flipping instruction, it is important to consider which lesson is more suitable to
do outside of the class and which ones are more beneficial for student learning inside the
classroom.
Since metacognitive knowledge helps individuals become more aware of their cognitive
process (Rueda, 2011), GSS teachers need further education on the impact of different strategies
used to flip instruction for student learning, so that they can reflect on its effectiveness for certain
learning objectives. Furthermore, GSS teachers need more training that involves the
demonstrations and observations of different strategies used to flip instruction so that they can
evaluate the effectiveness of each method for student learning. Then, teachers will have the
metacognitive knowledge to determine when certain methods should be applied to specific
learning objectives.
Training can help us organize and connect new knowledge to existing knowledge, which
impacts our performance in the application of that knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008). One of the
valuable elements of training is that teachers can receive remedial feedback during practice that
can help them reflect, correct or change certain methods that are effective for specific learning
objectives. Clark and Estes (2008) recognize that the essential benefit of training is to support the
practice of a new skill. However, adding education to training can further benefit GSS teachers
with the conceptual and analytical knowledge they need to reflect on the effectiveness of the
strategies they used to flip instruction.
EVALUATION OF GSS 136

During an interview, one teacher said, “In watching the videos, we can see what it is but
wondered, is this right? Or are we doing it right? Or is there a better way? We are still not used
to it...” Her questions reflect GSS teachers’ lack of metacognitive knowledge in flipping
instruction because there is uncertainty in her voice. She is not sure whether the methods or
strategies they have used at GSS to flip instruction is or has been effective or not for students.
However, these questions can be answered through education and training on flipped learning by
helping teachers reflect on their practices or strategies applied to flip instruction. Teachers can
then determine the methods that were successful and correct or eliminate those that were not.
Through demonstration and corrective feedback during training from peers, GSS teachers can
collaborate to reflect on the effectiveness of certain strategies, which will lead to continual
improvement in their performances.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Pintrich (2003) defines motivation as the investment of mental effort that
individuals make towards a goal. Therefore, when individuals are motivated, they invest the time
and effort towards learning something new or pursuing a goal. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest
that while knowledge influences our brain to do something, motivation influences us to act and
put effort towards a given task. Internal and external factors, such as competence beliefs, active
choice, mental effort, as well as culture and context, all impact an individual’s motivation to
perform (Rueda, 2011).
The assumed motivation influences consist of GSS teachers’ perceptions towards flipped
instruction as an effective teaching method that enhances student learning (expectancy value)
EVALUATION OF GSS 137

and their perceived confidence in integrating flipped instruction (self-efficacy). Table 5 lists the
summary of assumed motivation influences that were supported by literature and validated
through the data collected from this study, along with the recommendations for these influences,
based on theoretical principles found in the literature that will help GSS teachers with the
motivation they need to integrate flipped instruction to five unit plans within their curriculum.
Table 5.
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Motivation
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Expectancy Value:
Teachers need to
see the value of
flipped instruction
as an effective
teaching approach
that can enhance
learning in the
classroom.
V Y While values are
important in starting
something new,
expectancy is the
factor that determines
whether the
individual will persist
in achieving the goal
(Clark & Estes, 2008;
Rueda, 2011).

When goals and
motivation come
together, an
individual is more
likely to invest time
and effort to
participate in their
roles actively
(Pintrich, 2003).

Provide teachers with
continuous education on
the value of flipped
instruction as an
approach that can
enhance learning in the
classroom.

Provide classroom
teachers with training
opportunities to observe
other teachers modeling
different ways to flip
instruction and reflect on
the positive impact it can
have on the learning
process for students.

EVALUATION OF GSS 138

Values are critical at
the onset of
something new
(Rueda, 2011)
because individuals
are more likely to
engage and persist in
a task they believe is
valuable.

Individuals are more
likely to engage in an
activity when it
provides value to
them. (Eccles, 2009).
Self-Efficacy:
Teachers need to
have confidence
that they can flip
instruction
effectively to
support student
learning.
V Y The foundation for
motivation begins
with the perception
an individual holds
regarding their
capability to learn
and perform
(Bandura, 1997).

Individuals with high
self-efficacy have the
strong competence
that they can fulfill a
task (Mayer, 2011;
Rueda, 2011)

Self-efficacy
increases in a
collaborative work
culture where
teachers share their
successful practices
and receive support
when needed (Fullan,
2007)

Provide ongoing training
for teachers to practice
flipping instruction with
support (especially in the
beginning) until they
reach mastery of skills
necessary to flip
instruction successfully
(Pajares, 2006).

Allocate time for teachers
to collaborate (PLC)
within their grade teams
to share strategies that
were successful in
flipping instruction to
enhance classroom
learning.

Give opportunities for
classroom teachers to
receive feedback on their
flipped instruction from
grade team leaders or a
mentor/expert and
observe good modeling
EVALUATION OF GSS 139

Have multiple
opportunities to
practice a task with
feedback and
modeling that can
help increases self-
efficacy in
individuals (Pajares,
2006).
of flipped instruction by
other peers or
professionals.

Expectancy Value. Teachers need to see the value of flipped instruction as an effective
teaching approach that can enhance learning in the classroom. Eccles (2006) claims that
expectancy value asks two fundamental questions related to motivation, which are “Can I do the
task?” and “Do I want to do the task?” Both answers must be “yes” for individuals to fully
engage in the process of reaching a goal. He further asserts that the expectation for success and
its value are both essential for an individual to engage in a task or strive toward a goal. Values
are critical at the onset of starting something new (Rueda, 2011) because individuals will only
engage and persist in a task they believe is valuable. Values determine whether certain tasks
align with the individual’s goals and plans, and whether the task is worth their effort. Hence,
GSS teachers need to believe that flipped instruction is a valuable and effective teaching method
that can enhance learning for students in the classroom, and then have the confidence that they
can flip instruction effectively to support student learning. These two values must be present to
influence GSS teachers’ decisions to integrate flipped instruction to their classroom teaching
practices.
EVALUATION OF GSS 140

In a study conducted by Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby, and Ertmer (2010), the
research confirmed that teachers’ beliefs related to the value of technology use, influenced their
decision to use technology for certain instructional goals. In other words, teachers who did not
believe that technology was valuable and beneficial for students chose not to integrate
technology into their classrooms. On the other hand, teachers who used technology believed it to
be valuable because it enabled the facilitation of “more complex learning experiences that were
previously difficult or impossible to achieve by providing access to more resources and current
information, as well as new learning experience.” (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., p. 1328). Likewise,
if GSS teachers believe that flipped instruction can enhance learning for students, they will be
more likely to integrate this approach in their classrooms.
The findings from this study reveal that teachers were often hesitant about flipping
instruction because they felt that they had to integrate technology in their classes to flip
instruction. However, teachers (especially at the lower grades) and some parents perceived
technology to be more harmful to students, rather than a tool that can enhance learning for
students. Several teachers said, “…in Christian schools, there’s a negative feeling towards the
use of the internet.” The general perception held by some elementary teachers and parents at
GSS considered the use of technology as something that was required for flipped lessons and
therefore, more harmful than beneficial to student learning. Furthermore, some teachers were
aware that they needed further education and training with technology integration and flipped
learning for educational purposes to be more effective at flipping instruction for their class. Park
EVALUATION OF GSS 141

and Sung (2013) cite that the main cause for low teacher motivation is often linked to the lack of
in-service professional development for teachers.
One teacher’s comment, “I need to learn this (technology skills), but then I need to make
the opportunity to learn…but I’m not at a point where I have the motivation to look at a video
and self-learn” reflects her awareness of the need to further develop her skills in using
technology to flip instruction. However, due to the lack of training provided to teachers, her
value beliefs and the level of motivation to improve her skills in using technology to flip
instruction was not significant enough to put forth the effort in developing her technology skills.
Also, her comment indicates that GSS may not be providing the education and training teachers
need to perceive technology integration and flipped instruction as a valuable component that
enhances student learning.
More than teacher knowledge, the beliefs or values teachers hold influence their actual
teaching practices (Ertmer, 2005; Kagan, 1992, Pajares, 1992). Hence, it should be a top priority
for GSS to continue educating teachers on the value of flipped instruction to support student
learning so that GSS teachers’ beliefs toward flipped instruction and the use of technology can
become more positive. Moreover, GSS teachers need to believe that technology plays a valuable
role, not only in flipping instruction, but designing student-centered learning environments.
Professional development opportunities with training sessions that demonstrate the potential
benefits of flipped instruction and technology integration can bring positive changes to GSS
teachers’ beliefs and values regarding flipped classrooms. The training sessions should provide
GSS teachers with opportunities to observe other teachers or a mentor teacher flip instruction and
EVALUATION OF GSS 142

integrate technology effectively. Schmidt and Ralph (2016) advise teachers to flip instruction
with technology because it can encourage student engagement, improve test scores, and decrease
the number of incomplete assignments.
Self-efficacy. Teachers need to have confidence that they can flip instruction effectively
to support student learning. The foundation for motivation begins with one’s belief in their
capability to learn and perform (Bandura, 1997). When individuals believe they can perform
well, it is more likely that they will be motivated to put forth the effort and persist with the given
task. Likewise, Rueda (2011) suggests that individuals with high self-efficacy will be motivated
to exert more effort to persist in reaching their goals because they believe that their efforts will
bring positive results (Mayer, 2011). Hence, individuals with high self-efficacy believe in their
competence to fulfill a task and hold high expectations regarding the outcome of their
performance.
The findings from this study indicate that GSS teachers’ low levels of self-efficacy with
flipped instruction resulted in their lack of confidence to integrate this approach successfully.
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that under-confidence can often lead to problems with
persistence and choice. Therefore, if GSS teachers continue to lack confidence in their ability to
flip instruction successfully, they are unlikely to persist with the effort of integrating this
instructional approach into their classroom teaching. In fact, the findings from this study
confirmed that, of the teachers who chose not to flip instruction or only flip a minimum number
of units required, most held negative feelings or perceptions toward the flip approach and did not
feel comfortable with the use of technology in the classroom. One elementary teacher said, “I do
EVALUATION OF GSS 143

not think it fits for elementary…I would not say I use it a lot but twice a year, which the school
requires of us.” Another teacher expressed that he does not use flipped instruction frequently
because there were too many barriers and too many people he had to convince, including
students and parents, who held strong resistance towards technology. He said, “When this
continued, the barriers became a burden and made me wonder if we had to do it this
way…wanting to discontinue.” Some other reasons given by GSS teachers were related to lack
of training and support, unclear expectations or guidelines, disinterest or indifference, and the
amount of time and energy it requires.
Almost all the teachers said flipped instruction requires a lot of time and energy, which
discourages them from putting forth the effort to use this method for student learning. Some
teachers said, “It takes five to six times the amount of energy to prepare,” but their greatest
challenge or difficulty was in developing ideas for the classroom activities. In fact, one teacher
described his lessons as “a bit weak” and recognized that he lacked confidence in the lessons he
prepared because he did not perceive them to be very creative. He admitted that he did not
integrate flipped instruction frequently in his class and further added, “There are other effective
teaching methods aside from flipping instruction, from the perspective of teachers. So when the
school mentioned flipped instruction and forced it on us, it felt somewhat burdensome?” His
comments reflect his negative perception towards flipped instruction as a valuable teaching
method, which has resulted in the lack of motivation to use this method. Likewise, other teachers
who lack the confidence to flip instruction successfully, perceived it to be a burden and a duty
they had to fulfill. The survey results where 86.7% of the teachers either strongly agree, agreed
EVALUATION OF GSS 144

or somewhat agreed that they feel pressured to integrate flipped instruction reflects their
perception towards flipped instruction, as well as 71% who strongly agreed, agreed, or somewhat
agreed, that often find it challenging or difficult to integrate flipped instruction.
Since teachers’ beliefs in their ability affect their motivation to persist with a task, it is
imperative to raise confidence in GSS teachers to flip instruction successfully. As Clark and
Estes (2008) state, “Novel or unanticipated challenges require a great deal of mental effort to
succeed. Mental effort is determined, in large measure, by our confidence.” (p.81) They further
note that motivation is controlled by our belief that our environment provides us with goals and
resources that result in certain amount of effectiveness. Kang et al. (2015) suggests that self-
efficacy is specific to its context and is closely connected with external conditions that impact
performance in learning or accomplishing a specific task. Hence, GSS needs to provide clear
goals and resources for teachers with multiple training opportunities to help teachers continue to
be motivated to practice flipping instruction (Pajares, 2006). This can also include feedback and
modeling during training that will eventually help raise the confidence in GSS teachers to flip
instruction successfully.
Fullen’s (2007) research confirmed that self-efficacy could increase in a collaborative
work environment where successful practices are shared, and support is provided when needed.
As the findings from this study indicate, ongoing collaboration among teachers who shared
successful practices or strategies related to flipping instruction was limited to teachers in the
focus group (M.S math teachers) and one third grade teacher. Others in the study did not mention
the collaboration with other teachers regarding flipped instruction and answered with only the
EVALUATION OF GSS 145

frequency and length of their meetings when they were asked about their collaboration with other
teachers. Therefore, it should be a top priority for GSS to provide multiple opportunities for
teachers to collaborate on flipped classrooms, whether it is through their weekly grade team
meetings, or special monthly or bi-monthly training sessions, where teachers can practice
flipping instruction, share successful practices, give and receive feedback, and provide support
when needed. The practice of flipping instruction with feedback during training and the
provision of ongoing technology support in the classroom is a validated need that should occur
continually at GSS until teachers feel confident that they have mastered the skills to flip
instruction successfully.
If efficacy is the strongest determinant of teachers’ decisions to use an instrument or
instructional approach (Chen, 2010), then it is crucial for GSS to raise self-efficacy in their
teachers with regards to flipped instruction. A suggestion given by Clark and Estes (2008) is to
assign goals that are specific, short-term, and challenging but achievable. In addition, they
suggest that schools provide job aids if teachers need additional knowledge and skills, and
encourage and give positive feedback to teachers when they are doing a good job. Moreover, it is
important to give corrective feedback without making teachers feel inadequate, but instead,
affirm them by helping them remember past successes. Finally, it is important to listen actively,
while empathizing with teachers regarding the challenges or difficulties they might feel.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Organizations reflect a certain culture and climate in the daily routines and
procedures of its members that direct and motivate them towards a shared goal (Schneider,
EVALUATION OF GSS 146

1996). Culture shapes the climate of organizations and provides structural stability as it
influences stakeholders’ perceptions, feelings, and behaviors, due to shared assumptions that
have been rooted in espoused values and principles (Schein, 2004). Nonetheless, the culture of
an organization can change due to a change in climate that is grounded in the beliefs and values
of its members, as well as the support and rewards systems that sustain performance (Schneider,
1996).
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest there is a culture within every organization that impacts
stakeholders’ performance and the work process that can be defined by two constructs: cultural
models, which are not always visible but observable group norms, espoused beliefs and values
shared by a group learned over time within the work environment, and cultural settings, which
are the physical environments where policies and procedures impact performance (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Both cultural models and settings must align throughout the organization’s
structure for the organization to achieve its mission and goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
As such, Table 6 lists the assumed organizational influences that were supported by
literature and validated through the findings from this study, along with the recommendation for
these influences based on theoretical principles found in the literature. These influences will help
GSS bring change to teachers’ instructional approaches and provide the organizational needs
teachers have in order to achieve the organizational goal.

EVALUATION OF GSS 147

Table 6.
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model
Influence 1:
A culture of
collaboration among
teachers as learning
organizations is
needed through
Professional
Learning
Communities (PLC)
to implement flipped
instruction in the
classrooms
successfully.
V Y The development
and patterns of
culture in an
organization can
affect the
performance of its
stakeholders (Clark
& Estes, 2008).

Learning
organizations share
knowledge of past
successes and
failures related to
methodology,
exchange and
experiment with
innovative ideas, and
thus engage in
experiential learning
that leads to a
culture of learning
organizations
(Henry, 1996)

Collaborative work
among teachers has
been well
documented to bring
positive results to
schools as learning
organizations (Cha
Policy:
GSS needs to make
PLC required for
teachers to focus on
developing knowledge
and skills related to
flipped instruction,
where teachers can
collaborate and
exchange ideas for best
classroom practices.

Practice:
Teachers need to
practice meeting as
PLC to learn and
experience the benefits
of learning
organizations (within or
outside workshops, or
field trips) that will
encourage them to
work collaboratively.

EVALUATION OF GSS 148

& Ham, 2012; Stoll
& Louis, 2007)
Cultural Model
Influence 2:
Teachers need to
know that the
leadership values
and supports
creative and
collaborative
approaches to
teaching.
V Y Organizational
performance
increases when
leaders are
continually involved
in the improvement
process (Clark &
Estes, 2008)

Culture is “created,
embedded, evolved
and ultimately
manipulated by
leaders” (Schein,
2004, p.3)

Leaders play an
important role in
shaping the
organizational
culture through the
communication of
mission and vision,
values and beliefs
that model certain
actions (Kezar,
2001)
Policy:
The leadership at GSS
needs to support
classroom teachers by
facilitating PLC and
monthly school-wide
PDs or training
sessions on specific
topics relevant to the
organizational goal
(i.e., flipped
instruction) that
supports creative and
collaborative
approaches to teaching.

Practice:
The leadership at GSS
needs to have
consistent interaction
with classroom teachers
to communicate the
vision and values of
GSS and collaborate
with them to develop
and establish best
practices for classroom
instruction.
Cultural Setting
Influence 1:
Teachers need an
organization that
supports the sharing
of instructional
resources (which
include technology
HP Y Organizations
require tangible
supplies and
equipment to
achieve goals (Clark
& Estes, 2008)

An organization can
Policy:
Designate a time for
teachers to work
collaboratively (i.e.,
aligning curriculum
objectives, developing,
demonstrating &
sharing best practices
EVALUATION OF GSS 149

equipment, time, and
IT support)

accomplish mastery
when it is committed
to providing needed
resources and
training to its
stakeholders (Moran
& Brightman, 2000)

Organizations need
to supply necessary
resources, training,
and support to its
stakeholders
(Schein, 2004).

Organizational
performance
increases when
individuals
communicate
regularly and
candidly to others
about plans and
processes (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
for classroom
instruction, sharing
materials)

Policy:
Provide an updated list
of technology resources
available at GSS for
teachers to reference
when integrating
flipped instruction.

Practice:
Provide teachers with
the resources needed
(technology equipment
or IT support) for
flipped instruction.

Cultural Model 1. Collaboration. According to Rueda (2011), cultural models reflect
the perceptions or understandings of certain practices its members share within a given context.
Within a school setting, cultural models influence the values, practices, policies and reward
structures that are shared by the members of its community. Therefore, cultural models within a
school context can either promote or impede performance goals of teachers. Collaborative work
is one out of many influencers that shape the cultural model of a school (Rueda, 2011).
Collaborative work among teachers has been well documented to bring positive results
EVALUATION OF GSS 150

within schools as learning organizations because it increases the morale, enthusiasm, and work
ethic in teachers (Cha & Ham, 2012; Stoll & Louis, 2007). Learning organizations, also referred
as Professional Learning Communities (PLC), can help its members learn from one another
through peer interactions and support each other towards change by reinforcing one another
(Hendry, 1996). Furthermore, learning organizations can share knowledge of past successes and
failures related to certain methodologies and engage in experiential learning by exchanging and
experimenting with innovative ideas (Rueda, 2011). Within organizational settings, sustained
interaction among peer teachers can lower the resistance that often arises with change and
become a source of learning and professional development for teachers (Park & Sung, 2013).
For example, a study conducted by Glazer and Hannafin (2008) discovered that teachers
who had extensive modeling from a mentor, one-on-one planning, and technical support from
peers, improved in their ability to plan and implement technology-infused lessons. Hughes and
Ooms (2004) study found that when teachers met regularly as community of practice, they
supported one another towards technology integration efforts. Therefore, both studies concur that
teachers benefit tremendously from one another when they collaborate regularly as communities
of practice to plan together and learn from one another or a mentor teacher. Furthermore, Park
and Sung’s (2013) study found teachers formal and informal conversations among peers to be
beneficial in building practical knowledge and skills for effective implementation of new ideas.
They advised that it is important for schools to create a climate where teachers are encouraged to
talk and collaborate with peer teachers to clarify and implement curricular ideas and refine their
understanding for organizational expectations.
EVALUATION OF GSS 151

The findings from this study revealed a positive climate at GSS among teachers and the
practice of Professional Learning Communities (PLC), as an optional meeting differentiated by
by various interests or topics teachers have. When teachers were asked about the primary focus
or function of PLCs, several teachers said that it was a place for teachers to share or discuss ideas
about lessons or conduct research and investigations into a topic of interest. Similar findings
from an empirical study of PLCs in public schools of Seoul Korea by Seo and Han (2012)
indicate that many schools hold similar characteristics of PLC, but collaboration was often
limited to mostly sharing of ideas. What was lacking or often missing were practices such as
observations of classroom teaching by a colleague, visitations of other teachers’ classrooms and
observing peers, and working in teams (Seo & Han, 2012).
Although the presence of PLC at GSS is a positive finding, GSS teachers’ practice of
PLC was like the findings mentioned by Seo and Han. Therefore, the findings validate the need
for GSS to redefine the function of PLCs, where it can extend beyond the sharing of ideas and
research, to include collaboration that consists of observations and joint work (Seo & Han,
2012). Also, teachers need to work interdependently with more mutual adjustments at the level
of practice. PLC models and functions may differ between school levels, but it may be more
urgent to have PLC grouped by grade level or subject matter teachers teach at GSS, focused on
the integration of flipped instruction for specific content or unit. Through the participation of
PLC, GSS teachers should go beyond the sharing of knowledge and ideas, making observations
of each other’s classrooms, reflecting and providing feedback on one another’s teaching
contents, methods and strategies, and analyzing the principles and objectives of unit plans.
EVALUATION OF GSS 152

Teachers also need to collaborate to determine how certain technology and teaching
strategies can be more appropriate or effective for a specific content or learning objective.
Without the value for this type of collaborative work, GSS teachers cannot become the learning
organizations that share their knowledge, skills, and motivation to improve their performance.
PLC for flipped classrooms should be a priority for GSS teachers if the organizational goal is to
have “all teachers” integrate flipped instruction to five unit plans within their curriculum. GSS
should also consider designating a teacher within the school who is highly skilled and has
mastered flipped instruction to be available on campus to give support to teachers so that
teachers have a place to turn to when they face difficulties or challenges in flipping instruction.
Park and Jeong (2011) suggest that it is important for schools to have the support of
teachers for any change initiatives to be successful because it is ultimately teachers who develop
and expand innovation and innovative ideas within schools. Therefore, it is important for GSS to
collaborate with their teachers and include their voices in designing and implementing any
changes to classroom instruction.
Cultural Model 2. Leadership Support. According to Schein (2004), culture is
“created, embedded, evolved and ultimately manipulated by leaders” (p.3). Leaders play a vital
role in shaping the organizational culture by communicating the mission and vision, values and
beliefs, to cultivate enthusiasm and motivation in others, and model certain actions that inspire
others (Kezar, 2001). Therefore, it is crucial for leaders in organizations to be committed to the
vision of the organization, continually communicating the core values and shared vision with its
stakeholders and moving forward to make improvements, while actively participating in the
EVALUATION OF GSS 153

process (Clark & Estes, 2008). Burke (2008) further adds that leaders make a significant impact
on organizational change as he states, “Power is the capacity to influence others; leadership is the
exercise of that capacity” (p. 242). There is a clear distinction Burke makes about leadership
being a role more than a position, and how that role influences others, not by command and
control but through personal skills, like “active listening, persuasion, and empathy” (p. 243).
Leaders need to be aware that their roles affect others, and that they are personally being affected
by others as well.
According to Hendry (1996), organizations are more likely to be productive and
successful with change when values are shared at the leadership level. This is because
organizations are “cooperative systems” (Perrow, 1978) where leaders support unity and the
sharing of ownership by every person in the organization. Decisions that are made by senior
leaders carry a significant impact on bringing in the resources and training necessary for
employees to successfully perform their assigned tasks (Lewis, 2011; Rath & Conchie, 2009). In
the study conducted by Chen (2010), teachers were more likely to put effort toward their
performance when there was a supportive culture at school from the administration and team
leaders. Park and Jeong’s (2011) study of 967 teachers and 32 principals revealed that leadership
is significantly related to teachers’ emotional and behavioral responses to change. Hence,
leadership plays a crucial role in organizations and in bringing organizational change.
The findings from this study revealed that teachers perceived the leadership at GSS to be
very supportive in providing tangible supplies and resources for teachers. However, with recent
changes at GSS (which include two building projects and a plan to add a high school), several
EVALUATION OF GSS 154

teachers expressed disappointment and discontent with the lack of clear communication,
inadequate training, budget reductions, and lack of teacher participation in the decision-making
process. Some structural and cultural changes within GSS have not been communicated very
well to teachers, which has increased their resistance to change and decreased their sense of
perceived support. Therefore, the findings recommend that the school leadership make greater
effort towards building capacity in their teachers by establishing policies and procedures that
prioritize training opportunities and collaboration with other teachers and leaders at GSS.
According to Gilley, Gilley, and McMillan (2009), leaders function as change agents,
who have a direct influence on introducing and establishing strategy and implementation for
change. Therefore, leaders must not only provide support during the planning process, but they
also must become active assistants in the change process, sharing their expertise and providing
resources when necessary (Matsui, 1997). Hence, GSS leaders need to be more intentional in
establishing specific policies and practices that provide support to teachers’ needs, such as
regular meetings to communicate and collaborate on developing and establishing best practices,
as well as training and professional development opportunities that help teachers feel supported
by the leadership for their efforts.
Cultural Setting. Support with Resources. Cultural settings are defined by policies and
practices established and executed within organizational or social contexts that are visible
(Rueda, 2011). When we believe that these settings or work environment provides us with goals
and resources that lead to effectiveness, Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that individuals will
most likely be motivated to work. Likewise, Schein (2004) points out that organizational settings
EVALUATION OF GSS 155

influence stakeholders to perform more effectively in their roles when clear work goals and
essential resources, such as tangible supplies, equipment, and training, are provided. Moreover,
Moran and Brightmann (2000) claim that stakeholders can only reach mastery of skills when
organizations are committed to providing needed resources and training. However, the findings
from this study confirmed that there was lack of professional development and training
opportunities for GSS teachers to fully grasp the value of flipped learning and effective strategies
teachers can apply to flipped classrooms. Teachers also lacked sufficient time set aside to plan
and design flipped lessons and the opportunity to exchange or develop ideas for in-class
activities. Moreover, the support of an IT staff is present at GSS, but ongoing support to help
teachers integrate technology for flipped learning was absent
In a study by Kopcha (2012), findings revealed that when teachers were mentored
throughout their first year with additional training and follow-up, their beliefs, skills, and
instructional practices changed positively. Similarly, the findings from this study revealed that
although the tangible resources (i.e., technology tool) at GSS were sufficient, specific guidance
and more opportunities for training were lacking. Just as Chen (2010) discovered in his study
that teachers felt they had the resources and support when training was provided, training that
includes the observation of and feedback from a mentor or peers is needed at GSS to help
teachers reflect and improve their instructional skills.
Aguinis and Kraiger (2009) examined several studies to determine whether training and
development for individuals and teams in organizations result in benefits. Their study concluded
that training improves organizational performance in the areas of effectiveness, productivity, and
EVALUATION OF GSS 156

improvement in quality. Training also brought indirect benefits, such as employee turnover, the
organization’s reputation, and social capital. These studies identified training as an essential
resource that GSS needs to provide to teachers. Furthermore, time as a resource was a factor that
was not included as an influence but discovered through the findings from this study. Almost all
the interviewees mentioned that time was a factor that influenced their decision to the amount of
effort they will put into learning new ideas and methods, such as flipped instruction.
Concurrently, the lack of time was a factor that influenced GSS teachers from integrating flipped
instruction as a consistent instructional practice in their classrooms. Therefore, GSS teachers
need allotted time to plan, learn, collaborate, and receive further training on flipped instruction,
so that they can enhance student learning through flipped classrooms.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) will be used to
design and implement an evaluation plan for this study. The Kirkpatrick Model has four levels
that begin the evaluation process in reverse order, and the effective use of this model will help
the leaders at GSS determine whether the recommendations provide the desired performance
outcome in GSS teachers.
Level Four: Examine the level of targeted outcomes or clearly defined goals, measured
through “leading indicators” that help determine if resources (training) are being utilized
effectively and efficiently by everyone within the organization towards implementation and
desired outcomes.
EVALUATION OF GSS 157

Level Three: Determine the success of on-the-job performance through “critical
behaviors,” which are actions that impact desired performance outcomes, and required drivers
that monitor, encourage, reinforce and reward the use of critical behaviors and results in the
sense of responsibility within individuals to grow in their knowledge and skills to improve
performance.
Level Two: Reflect on the degree of learning that occurred through participants’
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment during implementation, as well as the
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment that participants reflect during
implementation.
Level One: Evaluate participants’ satisfaction, along with their engagement and relevance
because these are important elements to initiate change (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
GSS seeks to educate their students by integrating creative and collaborative teaching
methods into classroom instruction. Studies have shown that instructional strategies teachers use
significantly impact student learning (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Ku, 2001; Joo, Seo, Joung, &
Lee, 2012; Roh, 2009). One of the strategies GSS has chosen to implement is “flipped”
instruction, which can promote creativity, problem-solving skills and collaboration among
students. The goal of flipped instruction is to move away from traditional teachers’ roles of
transferring content knowledge using textbooks, to getting students engaged in meaningful
learning during class time through various activities and group projects. This study examined the
knowledge and skills needed, as well as the motivational and organizational barriers that hinder
EVALUATION OF GSS 158

GSS teachers from flipping instruction successfully. The proposed solutions consist of policies
and practices, which build capacity in teachers through the provision of resources, various
training programs and workshops, leading to outcomes that will help GSS teachers reach their
organizational goals.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Kirkpatrick (2016) recommends for leaders to start every project with a focus on Level 4,
before any training programs begins. Table 7 shows the proposed Level 4 outcomes, metrics, and
methods for both external and internal outcomes for teachers at GSS. The leading indicators will
measure the critical behaviors of GSS teachers that impact the desired outcomes that reflect the
levels of achievement in reaching their goal of flipping instruction to five unit plans within their
curriculum.
Table 7.
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increase the number of unit
plans that are being
“flipped” each semester.
Increased number of teaching
contents that have been flipped for
each grade/teacher/subject (MS).
More/diverse strategies learned
and applied to flipping instruction.
Each grade team leader keeps
a record of the number of
units and subject that have
been flipped for each grade
within a shared folder.
(paper or digital form)
Increase the frequency of
collaboration time within
grade levels to flip lessons.
Improved strategies and skills for
flipping instruction through the
sharing of resources; diverse ideas
& activities for students.
Schedule mandatory
collaboration time for each
grade level (Subject for MS)
to flip one unit each month.
(2-4 hrs)
Create a folder for each
grade level (subject for
Shared resources for teachers
(content video, PPT, in-class
Provide technology training
for teachers to learn how to
EVALUATION OF GSS 159

MS) on the school shared
drive for teachers to upload
flipped lessons/units and
relevant resources.
activity ideas, group project ideas,
software/hardware technology
information) + increased number
of flipped units within each grade
levels/subject. (MS)
integrate technology
(hardware & software) to flip
instruction. Share &
download resources, both
online and from the school
shared folder.
Internal Outcomes
Increase teacher motivation
through monthly PLC
meetings within each
grade/subject (MS) to
collaborate on best
practices for flipping
instruction.

Easily accessible information (Job
aids) that provide a list of in-house
teacher-made videos about a topic,
learning content, or other online
resources, as well as descriptions
of technology resources and
strategies for flipping instruction
that result in less stress or burden
for teachers.
Review and reflect on the
benefits of flipped instruction
strategies for student
learning.
Update list & description of
resources gathered.
Demonstrate, observe,
discuss, provide feedback for
effective strategies in
flipping instruction.
Increase teacher confidence
in flipping instruction by
sharing examples of
successful lessons or
strategies that were
effective in flipping
instruction with other
teachers.
Confidence leads to frequency of
use. Weekly share-out at least one
successful sample lesson/unit
during grade (subject MS)
meetings, that can help other
teachers develop ideas & skills for
flipping instruction.
Designate a monthly PD day
for flipped instruction where
teachers demonstrate, role-
play, present most successful
flipped lesson give/receive
feedback from peers.
Increased teacher
knowledge and confidence
with technology use. (in
flipping instruction or other
methods)
Deeper engagement in learning for
students through the integration of
technology.
Greater diversity in creative and
innovative approaches to teaching
and learning.
PD and training sessions that
consist of learning,
demonstrating and observing
the diverse use of technology
for teaching and learning in
the classroom.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Critical behaviors are specific behaviors connected to the desired
outcomes that can be measurable and observable and repeatedly performed to be reliable and
impactful (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 3 is perhaps the most important level because
EVALUATION OF GSS 160

the “critical behaviors,” reflect the behavior changes that take place because of the program
implementation (Kirkpatrick, 2006). Therefore, certain processes, systems of support, and
accountability need to be in place at GSS through “required drivers” that reinforce, monitor,
encourage, and reward these performance behaviors in GSS teachers.
Table 8.
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for New Reviewers
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
Teachers need to
design and integrate
flip instruction to
five unit plans.
(year)
The number of
units/lessons flipped
throughout the year.

Teachers submit/upload
flipped unit/lesson plans to
school online portal.
(web-hard)
Throughout one
school year.
(Mar-Feb)

Teachers need to
collaborate within
grade levels
(subject MS) and
share resources that
lead to successful
or effective flipped
lessons/units.
The number of
successful/effective
flipped lessons/units.
Hold PLC meetings each
month focused on flipping
lessons/units within each
grade (subject MS).
Grade team leader or a
mentor collaborates with
teachers to demonstrate,
observe, review, discuss,
provide feedback to
lesson/units and determine
the effectiveness/success of
flipped units/lessons.
Monthly PLC
meetings within
each grade with
a grade team
leader or a
mentor teacher
or an expert in
the field.
Teachers need to
share resources
with other teachers
at GSS.
(technology)
List of resources
through job aids or
digital documents to a
shared portal.
(content video, online
resources)
Grade leaders keep track of
teacher resources that have
been uploaded to a shared
portal.
Once a month
throughout the
school year.

EVALUATION OF GSS 161

Teachers need to
integrate
technology for
student learning.
Frequency, name, and
purpose of various
technology tools
used/integrated in
teaching.
Encourage the integration of
technology through education
& training that remind
teachers of the value in
flipped learning. Demonstrate
strategies and share ideas.
Once a
semester.

Teachers need to
review/reflect on
the effectiveness of
strategies used to
flip instruction for
specific lessons.
Assessments of
student performance
with flipped lessons.
Informal verbal
feedback from
students and peers.
Evaluate formative and
summative results of student
performance.
Peer evaluation/feedback
after observing a flipped
lesson.
Ongoing
throughout the
year, after a
flipped lesson or
unit has been
taught.

Required drivers. Level 3 consists of “required drivers” that continuously monitor the
progress and performance of stakeholders based on specifically identified drivers and encourage
critical behaviors required for on the job performance. Hence, it is important for critical
behaviors to be “specific, observable, and measurable,” beginning with the desired results in
mind, followed by the behaviors required to achieve them, and then the competencies required to
get the job done (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Furthermore, these “required drivers” need
to be identified and implemented within a supportive job environment with the help of
supervisors that reinforces and encourages the desired behaviors. Table 9 shows the
recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of GSS teachers.
EVALUATION OF GSS 162

Table 9.
Required Drivers to Support GSS teachers’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Email sent out monthly to remind teachers to upload flipped units
that have been integrated in class.
First Monday
each month
1, 2, 3
Designate monthly PLC for grade level (subject MS) teachers to
work in groups, designing a flipped unit for their grades.
Once a
month during
PLC
1, 2, 3
Bi-annual, all day PD session focused on technology integration
for flipped instruction. Provide training, education and job aids for
teachers to further develop their knowledge and skills needed
when implementing flipped instruction.

Twice a year,
on or off
campus
1, 2, 3
Send grade leads or those interested to flipped or technology
workshops off campus once a year.
Once a year
outside of
campus
1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Peer modeling of successful flipped lessons during monthly PLC.

Monthly 1, 2, 3
Feedback and coaching on curriculum design and implementation
of flipped instruction from grade lead/mentor/expert.

Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Public acknowledgement of teachers that integrated the most
number of flipped units throughout the school year at the end of
the year.

End of the
year
1, 2, 3, 4
Monthly acknowledgement of effectively flipped lessons/units by
teachers during PLC.

Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
EVALUATION OF GSS 163

Monitoring
Grade team leaders assess and give feedback on the design of
flipped lessons and teacher’s performance in class.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Monthly grade level meetings that organize and monitor the
integration of technology used to flip instruction.
Monthly 1, 2, 3

Organizational support. To make sure that teachers are consistently implementing the
required drivers, GSS will provide ongoing support and resources necessary for teachers to be
successful in implementing flipped instruction to their unit plans. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) recognizes that it is often more difficult to connect the training to the on-the-job
performance that lead to organizational results. However, when initiatives become part of the
organization’s system or policy, such as the weekly PLC and monthly PD sessions focused on
flipped instruction for GSS, resources and instructional design can be allocated to improve the
performance of GSS teachers. Therefore, weekly PLC and Monthly PD sessions or workshops
specifically focused on providing education, training and job aids that consist of strategies
related to technology integration and flipped instruction, will help GSS teachers continue in their
efforts to flip instruction successfully. Each grade team leader will also utilize the collaboration
time to give guidance to teachers through feedback and coaching, as well as peer modeling of
successful strategies that can be used to flip instruction. Moreover, grade team leaders will
support teachers through the assessment and feedback of their design and implementation of
flipped lessons for a minimum period of 6-12 months because Kirkpatrick asserts that a change
in behavior may not occur until 3 to 6 months after the training occurs. Furthermore, training that
EVALUATION OF GSS 164

is comprised of short-term programs (such as several hours or days of workshop) with limited
follow-up, has been found to be inadequate (Park & Sung, 2013). .
Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals. Upon completing the recommendations, GSS teachers will be able to
achieve the following:
1. Design lesson plans where content knowledge is flipped. (C, D)
2. Make videos of content or find existing resources online for students to view outside of
class prior to the lesson. (P)
3. Collaborate with other teachers to share resources. (P)
4. Share successful strategies used to flip instruction with other teachers. (C, M)
5. Reflect on the effectiveness of strategies used to flip lessons to determine if learning
increased due to the strategy used. (V)
6. Be intentional and purposeful with the instructional time in class so that students are
engaged in the learning process. (A)
7. Allow time for students to ask questions, work in groups, or seek students who need
one-on-one help. (P)
Program. GSS teachers will achieve the learning goals listed in the previous section
through an ongoing effort by GSS to provide the necessary knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources teachers need to flip instruction effectively in their classrooms. To help
teachers reach success in integrating flip instruction, ongoing collaboration in PLC with
resources, training, workshops, and job-aids, as well as the supervision of grade team leaders or
EVALUATION OF GSS 165

mentor teachers, will help GSS teachers develop best practices in flipping instruction throughout
the school year.
For the next two years, GSS teachers will meet monthly in PLC with the guidance of a
grade team leader or a mentor teacher to monitor the progress of integrating flipped instruction
into their curriculum. GSS teachers will collaborate to select one unit plan they can flip at each
grade level so that students can experience diverse approaches to learning and engage with the
learning at home and in class. GSS will need to provide training and resources teachers need to
design the flipped classroom so that students can engage in meaningful learning. Grade team
leaders will designate monthly collaboration time where teachers can share ideas, resources,
conduct peer-review and discuss best practices in flipping instruction. This process will help
teachers improve their pedagogy with flipping lessons for specific academic subjects and units.
PD sessions or outside workshops that cover diverse strategies and best practices for
flipping instruction will help increase GSS teachers’ level of motivation and confidence to
integrate this new teaching method. The value of flipped instruction will improve and impact
teachers’ performance and pedagogy in the classroom. Job-aids will provide teachers with the
resources of specific information and techniques to flipping instruction, which will help teachers
improve their instructional skills. Recognition of teachers who successfully flipped the most
units at the end of the year will have increased confidence and motivation to continue flipping
instruction for student learning.
Components of learning. Learning experiences should occur during training and consist
of various activities that increase GSS teachers’ knowledge, skill and motivation to integrate
EVALUATION OF GSS 166

flipped instruction to their classroom teaching (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Thus, it is
essential to assess how much GSS teachers are learning both declarative and procedural
knowledge of flipping instruction. Furthermore, it is important for teachers to value such training
so that their commitment and confidence to integrate flipped instruction can increase each year.
As such, Table 10 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these components of learning.
Table 10.

Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks on “flipped” instruction Pre and Post training/workshop
Knowledge checks through discussions (group activities) on
key concepts related to flipped learning
During training/workshop and
PLC
Create a PPT presentation on “flipping” instruction for a
specific learning content or subject.
Post training/workshop
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Role play & simulation of flipped instruction During PLC or training
Action planning: create a plan for application in the
classroom, goals for the year, & check- points on progress.
During PLC or at the end of
training/workshop
Teach back: a portion or element of “flipped” learning as a
way to confirm their own understanding of flipping lessons
At the end of training/workshop
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment survey asking
participants about their level of proficiency before and after
the training
At the end of workshop
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Observations of classroom teachers’ attitude and participation
during workshop and group discussion related to flipping
instruction
During training/workshop and
afterwards in their own
classroom
Discussions of the value and benefits of flipped instruction for
student learning
During training/workshop
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item After the training/workshop
EVALUATION OF GSS 167

Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Give ample opportunity for teachers to discuss any questions,
concerns, or barriers they see in integrating flipped instruction
in their classroom and find solutions to suggest within small
groups.
During PLC or
training/workshop
Strengthen the art of “flipping” instruction through
mentorship, coaching or peer check within grade teams. Thus,
the skills to flipping instruction can be further developed and
improved.
During PLC following the
training/workshop
Retrospective pre- and post-survey assessment item of their
confidence in their ability to flip lessons
After the training/workshop.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback During training/workshop
Create an individual action plan After or during training
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item After the training/workshop

Level 1: Reaction
Kirkpatrick (2006) considers “Reaction” to be the measure of participants’ levels of
satisfaction. Therefore, it is important to determine GSS teachers’ reactions to the Professional
Development and training sessions focused on flipped instruction. Positive reactions to PD and
training sessions are essential for GSS teachers because it can improve their chances of learning.
Kirkpatrick (2006) states, “If participants are sitting in their places with a negative attitude, there
is a good chance they are not eager to learn new knowledge or skills.” As such, Table 11 lists the
reactions of participants to the learning event being engaging, relevant and favorable.
EVALUATION OF GSS 168

Table 11.

Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Attendance records During the workshop
Ask meaningful questions During the workshop
Discussion in grade teams 3-4, 5-6, & 7, 8, 9 (evaluate sample
lesson/unit; discuss the use of technology tools/resources)
During the workshop
Relevance
Pulse check with participants via survey (online) and discussion
(ongoing)
During break time or
immediately after workshop
Course evaluation (anonymous survey) One week after workshop
Customer Satisfaction
Course evaluation through focus groups or interviews to get
more in-depth information
1-2 weeks after the
workshop.
Post Program Survey (online) & discussion (ongoing) After training session

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. A short survey should be
distributed to participating teachers to determine their level of engagement during training on the
relevance of the content materials covered and their overall satisfaction with the design and
delivery of the training that was provided.
During the Level 1 training session, GSS leadership should make a list of items they want
to find out from teachers’ reactions to the training (i.e., subject content, leaders’ effectiveness,
schedule, audio visual aids, handout, facilities, etc.). Then, they should design a five-point scale
questionnaire form (Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor; or Strongly Agree, Agree,
EVALUATION OF GSS 169

Neutral, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree) that will quantify teachers’ reactions. The purpose is
to get as much information as possible within a short time and get 100% immediate response.
Kirkpatric (2006) also recommends ending the training session with an opportunity for
participants to comment about ways to improve the program. Additionally, the instructors can
interact and conduct a “pulse check” with teachers to determine if the content of the training has
been clearly communicated and relevant, and whether the learning environment, as well as the
organization and delivery of the material, is helpful for them in flipping instruction.
Level 2 will measure GSS teachers’ before-and-after knowledge, skills, and attitudes by
providing a form that teachers can complete for evaluating knowledge and attitude changes with
regards to flipped instruction. Through role-playing, or some other method to test performance,
teachers will demonstrate the skills they have learned in flipping instruction effectively.
Teachers’ attitude towards flipping instruction will also be examined during and immediately
after training, through open-ended questions that will probe teachers to express how they feel
about flipped learning. Their responses may give further information in their confidence to flip
instruction, as well as their commitment to applying this teaching approach into their classroom
practice.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Kirkpatrick (2016)
recommends that the best time for evaluation to occur is after the participants have engaged in
the required drivers and after they have had the opportunity to apply newly learned skills on the
job. Approximately 3-6 months after the training, and then every quarter following, the
leadership team will administer a patterned interview or a written survey containing open and
EVALUATION OF GSS 170

scaled items using the Blended Evaluation approach to measure, from GSS teachers’
perspectives, satisfaction and relevance of the training (Level 1), confidence and value of
applying their training to the classroom context (Level 2), application and practicality of the
training to the integration of flipping instruction, (Level 3), and the extent to which GSS teachers
are actually applying flip instruction into their classroom practices (Level 4). It is important to
determine what changes in behavior have occurred since the training, or whether they plan to
change their behavior in the future.
For ‘mission-critical’ programs, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend the
gathering of both quantitative and qualitative data. Open-ended surveys are easy to administer
and tabulated electronically, but the response rates may be low and the information gathered can
be limited. Therefore, a post-program survey should be administered with results analyzed to
find if there are any trends that are identified. If any specific topic is identified, it should be
followed up with interviews of GSS teachers to gather their feedback.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Level 3 of Behaviors for GSS teachers will consist of monthly observations of teachers’
behavior in class by grade team leaders to determine if any barriers are hindering teachers from
performing the critical behaviors and required drivers necessary to integrating flipped instruction
successfully in their classrooms. Weekly meetings with teachers and informal interviews may
also give some insight into causes for these barriers. Teachers can also monitor their progress
towards flipping instruction for five unit plans by writing an action plan/report and working
within grade level teams to keep each other accountable towards the organizational goal.
EVALUATION OF GSS 171

Flipping Instruction Progress
Subject Target (5 Units) Actual
Math

Science

Korean

Humanities

Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) is an effective tool that can be utilized to plan,
implement and evaluate certain programs within organizations so that it can guide the progress
and success of organizational goals. The framework of the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016)
EVALUATION OF GSS 172

was used to implement and evaluate GSS’s effort towards implementing flipped instruction to
five unit plans in their curriculum. Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training and evaluation will help
determine whether GSS, as an organization, is providing its teachers with the necessary
knowledge, motivation, and organizational supports teachers need to be successful in integrating
this new teaching approach into their classroom teaching.
Kirkpatrick (2016) recommends evaluating the program during implementation rather
than waiting until it is complete to gather and analyze data so that it can influence the outcome of
the program if changes occur along the way. There are four levels of training and evaluation that
ensure stakeholders are progressing towards the organizational goal. First, the program must
begin with the identification of desired outcomes, using leading indicators that clearly measure
the results of targeted outcomes. Second, the program must establish critical behaviors that
assess stakeholders’ performances to determine whether they are utilizing what they learned
when they are back on the job. Third, stakeholders should be evaluated based on the
identification of specific learning outcomes such as knowledge, skills, attitudes, confidence, and
commitments. Last, stakeholders’ reactions towards the training should be assessed based on
their perceived level of satisfaction, engagement, and relevance.
To maximize program results and implement change, three key data analysis questions
need to be addressed: 1) “Does the … meet expectations?” 2) “If not, why not?” and 3) “If so,
why?” (Kirkpatrick, 2016). The data that is collected at each level needs to indicate whether
certain requirements have been met. Next, if any outcomes do not meet the expectations for any
components, these must be identified and corrected. On the other hand, if program outcomes
EVALUATION OF GSS 173

meet expectations, it is equally important to find out what stakeholders are doing to increase
performance and desired outcomes. Addressing these questions will bring more clarity as to why
certain programs are succeeding or failing.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The strength of this study is in its mixed approach to data collection because quantitative
or qualitative data, by itself, is inadequate to understand a research problem entirely (Creswell,
2014). Through the triangulation of surveys, interviews, a mini-focus group, and documents, the
quantitative data provided a general understanding of GSS teachers’ views, and the qualitative
data entailed rich information in the details of the participants’ views and opinions that recalled
even after some time had passed. This method outweighs any errors or biases that could be
inherent in a single method and provides a better assessment of the results and findings, as well
as the explanation that developed. The documents of PD, workshops, and training that GSS
provided for its teachers included rich data that gave concrete evidence to the frequency and type
of support GSS teachers received.
The potential weakness of this study is that it is a single case study with a small number
of participants, which limits the generalizability of the findings. The selection of 11 teachers in
the interview was to examine more closely, possible factors or influences that are hindering or
discouraging GSS teachers from integrating flipped instruction successfully into their classroom
teaching. Since the qualitative data consists of information filtered through the perceptions of
interviewees, the presence of bias cannot be ignored altogether.

EVALUATION OF GSS 174

Limitations and Delimitations
Several limitations can be associated with this study. First, the data from surveys
consisted of teacher’s self-reports and perceptions and excluded K-2
nd
grade teachers, as well as
special subject teachers at GSS. Participants for the interview were purposefully recommended
and selected by the assistant principal of GSS, which could have resulted in some bias in the
collection of responses. The mini-focus group of three middle school teachers also limited the
range of opinions, perceptions, and experiences of the entire middle school teaching population
at GSS because all of them taught the same single subject. Therefore, the opinions and
perceptions of the eleven teachers who were interviewed cannot represent the entire teaching
population at GSS, and it is difficult to know to what extent their perspectives apply to other
teachers at GSS. A study that includes more participants may result in a more accurate analysis
of factors that are influencing GSS teachers from integrating flipped instruction.
The second limitation of this study can be in the translation of language from Korean to
English and vice versa. Although a licensed translator was used to translate the data instruments,
certain words may carry a slightly different meaning in the Korean language when translated. To
limit any obscurity or ambiguity in the way questions are worded, the researcher had the data
instruments reviewed by several people in the field of education in Korea. The interviews were
recorded, transcribed, and translated by the researcher who is bi-lingual. However, some
limitations and researcher bias in the translation process may be present due to the researchers’
proficiency with the Korean language.
The third limitation is that two additional influences were found through the transcription
EVALUATION OF GSS 175

of the qualitative data that were not included in the list of assumed influences at the start of this
study. The need for sufficient time to design and prepare flipped lessons and the need for a quiet
place to record videos on campus were two needs that were found. Though both of these needs
could be included within resources, they were both mentioned explicitly by almost all of the
interviewees. Therefore, there may be other needs present among GSS teachers apart from the
eleven interviewees that were not discovered or included in this study.
The fourth limitation is related to the context of GSS. Because it is a private school with
less government control and regulations than most public schools in Korea, this study limits the
external generalizability. Most public schools in Korea would not have the autonomy, nor the
budget, to invest in their teachers with the capacity to learn and experiment with creative and
collaborative approaches to teaching that are student-centered. Therefore, the recommendations
for this study would only be most applicable for GSS.
Finally, due to the limited time frame for data collection at GSS before the end of the
school year, the results and findings may not have encompassed an accurate portrayal of all the
needs GSS teachers have with integrating flipped instruction successfully to their unit plans.
A delimitation to the study is that the small number of participants allowed for more time
to be spent in gaining a deeper understanding of their experiences. As opposed to a short-answer
study distributed to many participants, lengthy interviews with a few participants provide rich,
thorough feedback about flipping classrooms that short answers would not have been able to
capture. Indeed, Maxwell (2013) recommends smaller groups when participants have a lot to
share about a topic or experiences.
EVALUATION OF GSS 176

An additional delimitation addresses the research context. While findings from the
private school context may be more difficult to generalize to public schools, teachers in the
private schools may be under less pressure to “play good,” or gloss over certain difficulties
related to flipping classrooms than their public-school counterparts.
Future Research
Future research should incorporate extensive sources of data, with a broader range of
teachers with varying backgrounds (subject areas, gender, grade levels) from different schools
(both private and public) with similar organizational goals. Although parents were not included
as stakeholders in this study, future research should explore Korean parents’ perceptions towards
flipped instruction to this new instructional approach in their children’s learning. Future research
should also explore the impact flipped instruction has on Korean students’ learning and academic
performance, which is a significant paradigm shift in classroom pedagogy from a teacher-
centered to a student-centered approach to teaching. Furthermore, the significant impact of
building (or absence of) capacity in teachers in designing student-centered classrooms could also
be furthered explored in more depth within the Korean school context. Most importantly,
institutional leaders and educators in Korea need to carefully consider the role of technology in
twenty-first century learning by finding effective ways to integrate it in student learning rather
than dismissing it, because it will play a significant role in preparing students for the global
knowledge economy.

EVALUATION OF GSS 177

Conclusion
Kim et al. (2013) discovered through their study that the beliefs teachers hold regarding
the nature of knowledge and learning, and effective ways of teaching, strongly influence their
pedagogical practices. Likewise, Park and Sung (2013) found that teachers play a key role in
bringing success to curriculum reform because their knowledge, beliefs and perceptions are
crucial to implementing effective change in schools. Furthermore, several studies have also
found that student’s perceptions of teachers’ instructional strategies and the classroom learning
environments affect their academic achievement (Joo et al., 2012; Schmidt & Ralph, 2016;
Vaughan, 2014). Therefore, to bring positive changes to teaching practices for the twenty-first
century learners in South Korea, teachers need to change their beliefs by 1) recognizing the need
to change their own beliefs 2) observe effective strategies and good practices in teaching 3) give
and receive feedback on teaching practices,, and most importantly 4) receive social (peer) and
cultural (organization) support through collaboration and ongoing training (Ertmer, 2005; Kim &
Baylor, 2008; Ma, Lai, Williams, & Prejean, 2008; Kagan, 1992). Various research findings
indicate that changing teacher beliefs is crucial to facilitating change in teaching practices.
Likewise, although GSS teachers continue to make efforts toward integrating creative and
innovative approaches to teaching, the results and findings from this study suggest that greater
effort needs to be invested in teachers by the leadership to close the gap in performance due to
the lack of specific knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs that were validated in this
study. To help GSS teachers implement flipped instruction into 5 unit plans within their
curriculum, the school leadership must make greater effort to help teachers change their
EVALUATION OF GSS 178

perceived beliefs about technology and flipped learning. Park and Jeong’s (2011) empirical study
found school leadership can play a significant role in reducing teachers’ resistance to change,
which can be one of the barriers that hinder the facilitation of reform efforts in schools. This can
begin with building capacity in teachers through intentional, ongoing training with the provision
of resources for teachers to help them be better equipped to flip instruction effectively.
Furthermore, certain policies and processes within schools can be established to keep teachers
accountable to the initiative of integrating flipped instruction into their classroom pedagogy.
Likewise, it is important for Korean schools (private or public) to consider and remember
that efforts toward a paradigm shift in instructional practices require time, resources, and
experience for teachers. Moreover, school reform efforts in the past in Korea have often taken
the top down approach without the careful consideration of teachers’ thoughts or needs, although
they play a significant role in implementing change (Park & Jeong, 2011). Gilly, McMillan and
Gilley (2009) identified the important role school leaders have in motivating, communicating,
and building teams within schools as predictors for successful implementation of change in
schools. Change initiatives take time, but a change in teacher beliefs and attitudes concerning
effective teaching pedagogy and learning environments require the help of institutional leaders to
initiate change in school culture and climate as well (Chen, 2008). Reform efforts to bring
positive changes to teaching practices in Korea may require Korean schools and their leaders to
continue in their efforts toward building capacity in teachers, as well as include them in the
participation of decision- making process.

EVALUATION OF GSS 179

References
Ahn, H-H., & Rieu, D-M. (2004). Why do Economists Disagree with the High School Education
Policy? Korea Journal, 44(2) 174-188.
Ali, A. (2014). Globalization and inequalities. International Journal of Commerce and
Management, 24(2), 114–118.
Ash, K. (2012). Educators view ‘flipped’ model with a more critical Eye. Education Week,
pS6-S7.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, Group Identity, and Citizenship Education in a Global Age.
Education Researcher, 37 (3), 12-139. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X08317501
Biggs, J. B. (John Burville). (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the
student does (2nd ed.). Buckingham; Philadelphia, PA: Society for Research into Higher
Education: Open University Press.
Bogdan, B.C., & Bilken, S. K. (2007). Chapter 3: Fieldwork. In Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5
th
ed.)
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership
(2nd ed., Chapters 1, 2, 3). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burke, W. (2008). Organization change: Theory and practice (2nd ed., Foundations for
organizational science). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Byun, S.Y. (2010). Does policy matter in shadow education spending? Revisiting the effects of
EVALUATION OF GSS 180

the high school equalization policy in South Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review,
11.83-96.DOI 10.1007/s12564-009-9061-9
Byun, S., Kim, K., & Park, H. (2012). School choice and educational inequality in South Korea.
Journal of School Choice, 6(2), 158-183
Caine, R. N. (2016). 12 brain/mind learning principles in action: Teach for the development of
higher order thinking and executive function (Third ed.) Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Carroll, A., Houghton, S., Wood, R., Unsworth, K., Hattie, J., Gordon, L., & Bower, J. (2009).
Self-efficacy and academic achievement in Australian high school students: The
mediating effects of academic aspirations and delinquency. Journal of Adolescence,
32(4), 797-817.
Cha, S. H., & Min, B. (2013). Evaluating the performance of academic improvement target
schools in Korea. KEDI Journal of Education Policy, 10(1), 83-104.
Cha, S. H., Shin, H. S., & Min, B. C. (2011). Exploring student and school factors explaining
differences in academic achievement between academic ability improvement oriented
schools and other schools. Asian Journal of Education, 12(4), 335-356.
Cha, Y-K., & Ham, S-H. (2012). Constructivist teaching and intra-school collaboration among
teachers in South Korea: an uncertainty management perspective. Asia Pacific Education
Review, (13), 635-647. DOI. 10.1007/s12564-012-9225-x.
Chang, S. J. (2008). A cultural & philosophical perspective on Korea’s education reform:A
critical way to maintain Korea’s economic momentum. Academic Paper Series, 3, 157-
EVALUATION OF GSS 181

178.
Chang, C-Y. & Jung, H, M. (2014). School Textbook Policy and System in Korea.
(English). Journal of Textbook Research, 7(3), 33-65.
Chen, R-J. (2010). Investigating models for pre-service teachers’ use of technology to support
student-centered learning. Computers and Education, 55, 32-42
Chun, S. (2003). Modernization and Globalization of Educational Competition: Overcoming the
High School Equalization Policy. Korea Journal, 43 (4), 186-224.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches / Johnson, R.B. & Christensen, L. (4th;CSZA; ed.). Thousand Oaks,
California: SAGE Publications.
Cubukcu, Zuhal. (2012). Teachers' Evaluation of Student-Centered Learning
Environments. Education, 133(1), 49-66.
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1986). Learning strategies: An instructional alternative for
low- achieving adolescents. Exceptional Children, 52(6), 583-590.
Devine, T. G. (1987). Teaching study skills: A guide for teachers (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Ellis, E. S., Lenz, B. K., & Saborine, E. J. (1987a). Generalization and adaptation of learning
EVALUATION OF GSS 182

strategies to natural environments: Part 1: Critical agents. Remedial and Special
Education, 8(1), 6-20.
Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
Estok, S. C. (2013). Re-defining South Korean Scholarship and Education within the Context of
Globalization. Comparative Literature and Culture, (15), 1-10. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.2214
Flipped Learning Network. (2012). Improve student learning and teacher satisfaction in one flip
of the classroom. Retrieved from
http://flippedlearning.org/cms/lib07/VA01923112/Centricity/Domain/41/classroomwindo
winfographic7-12.pdf
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London.
Glazer, E., & Hannafin, M. (2008). Factors that influence mentor and teacher interactions during
technology integration collaborative apprenticeships. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 16(1), 35–61.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil &
P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, (3), 403-422.
Hans, S. (2004). The Relationship between academic motivation variables, cognitive strategies
and academic achievement. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 18(1), 329-
350. (in Korean)
EVALUATION OF GSS 183

Hendry, C. (1996). Understanding and creating whole organizational change through learning
theory. Human Relations, 49(5), 621–641.
Hirumi, Atsusi. (2002). Student-Centered, Technology-Rich Learning Environments
(SCenTRLE): Operationalizing Constructivist Approaches to Teaching and
Learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 497-537.
Hughes, J. E., & Ooms, A. (2004). Content-focused technology inquiry groups: Preparing urban
teachers to integrate technology to transform student learning. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 36(4), 397–411.
Johns, K., Troncale, J., Trucks, C., Calhoun, C., & Alvidrez, M. (2017). Cool tools for school:
Twenty-first-century tools for student engagement. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 84(1),
53-58.
Joo, Y. J., Seo, H., Joung, S., & Lee, Y. K. (2012). The effects of academic self-efficacy,
learning strategies, and perceived instructional strategies on high and low achievers’ in
the middle school Korean language. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 9(2). Retrieved
from http: //search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1266507604.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist,
27(1), 65-90.
Kang, M., Hahn, J., & Chung, W. (2015). Validating a technology enhanced student centered
learning model. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 26(3), 253.
Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership: Bringing diverse voices to the table. About Campus, 6–
11 and 722–743.
EVALUATION OF GSS 184

Kezar, A. (2001). Research-based principles of change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 28(4), 113–123.
Kezar, A. (2001). Theories and models of organizational change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21
st
century: Recent research and conceptualizations.
ASHE- ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 25–58.
Kim, A. (1996). The effects of meta-cognition training on children's attributional style and
ability of solving problem. The Journal of Educational Research. 10(2), 25-52.
Kim, B. (2007). The hermeneutical reconceptualizing of curriculum and teaching-learning
process. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(4), 61–80.
Kim, B., Lee, K., Park, J., Hong, S., & Kim, H. (2008). Effects of cognitive learning strategies
for Korean learners: A meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Education Review, 9(4), 409-422.
doi:10.1007/BF03025659
Kim, C., & Baylor, A. L. (2008). A virtual change agent (VCA) to motivate pre-service teachers
to integrate technology. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 11(2), 309e321.
Kim, C.M., Kim, M.K., Lee, C., Spector, M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and
technology integration, Teaching and Teacher Education, V29, 76-85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005
Kim, H. (2004). Analyzing the Effects of the High School Equalization Policy and the College
Entrance System on Private Tutoring Expenditure in Korea. KED.I Journal of
EVALUATION OF GSS 185

Educational Policy, 1(1), 5-23.
Kim, J. W. (2004). Education Reform Policies and Classroom Teaching in South Korea.
International Studies in Sociology of Education, 14(2). 125-146.
Kim, J., Lee, J., & Lee, S. (2005). Understanding of education fever in Korea. KEDI Journal of
Educational Policy, 2(1)
Kim, J., & Park, D. (2010). The determinants of demand for private tutoring in South Korea.
Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(3), 411-421.
Kim, M. H., & Ha, J. H. (2008). The Effects of academic motivation and study skills on
academic achievement and school adjustment. The Journal of Child Education, 17(2), 33-
48. (in Korean)
Kim, S. N. (2005). The Developmental Directions and Tasks of the School Based Curriculum
Management System in Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6(1), 41-49.
Kim, T., Lee, J.-H., & Lee, Y. (2008). Mixing versus sorting in schooling: Evidence from the
equalization policy in South Korea. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), 697-711.
doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.07.014
Kim, U., & Park, Y. S. (2006). Indigenous psychological analysis of academic achievement in
Korea: The influence of self-efficacy, parents, and culture. International Journal of
Psych, (41), 287–292. doi: 10.1080/00207590544000068.
Kim, Y-H. (1999). Recent Developments in Korean School Education. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, (10), 55-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/sesi.10.1.55.3510.
Kirkpatrick, D. (2006). Seven Keys to Unlock the Four Levels of Evaluation. Performance
EVALUATION OF GSS 186

Improvement, 45(7), 5-8.
Koh, M., & Shin, S. (2014). A Comparative study of elementary teachers’ beliefs and
Strategies on classroom and behavior management in the USA and Korean school
systems. International Journal of Progressive Education, (10), 18-33.
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and
practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers &
Education, 59(4), 1109-1121.
Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI). (2008). Universalization of tertiary
education (Understanding Korean educational policy Vol. II). Seoul: Korean
Educational Development Institute.
Korea National Statistical Office. (2009). The survey of private education expenditures in 2008.
Seoul: Korea National Statistical Office.
Korea National Statistical Office. (2013). Educational statistics on high school graduates and
college entrants of Korea: 2013 Statistics. Retrieved April 15, 2014, from
http://kess.kedi.re.kr/
Ku, B. D. (2001). The effect of teaching-learning related variables on academic achievement
through meta-analysis. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Human Resource
Development, 33 (2), 131-140.
EVALUATION OF GSS 187

Kwon, H., Lee, E., & Lee, D. (2016). Meta-analysis on the effectiveness of invention education
in South Korea: Creativity, attitude, and tendency for problem solving. Journal of Baltic
Science Education, 15(1), 48-57.
Kwon, S. K., Lee, M. & Shin, D. (2017). Educational assessment in the Republic of Korea:
Lights and shadows of high stake exam-based education system. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice. 24(1), 60-77,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1074540
Lee, J. (2003). Understanding of education fever. Seoul: Won-mee-sa. (in Korean)
Lee, J-H. (2004). The School equalization policy of Korea: Past failures and proposed measure
for reform. Korea Journal, 44 (1), 221-234.
Lee, J. H. (2011). Education and family in conflict. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 15(4), 395-401. doi:10.1177/1028315310385462.
Lee, C. C., Kim, Y.E., & Byun, S. S. (2012). The rise of Korean education from the ashes of the
Korean War. Prospects (00331538), 42(3), 303-318. Doi:10.1007/s11125-012-9239-5
Lee, C. J., Lee, H., & Jang, H. (2010). The history of policy responses to shadow education in
South Korea: Implications for the next cycle of policy responses. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 11(1), 97-108. doi:10.1007/s12564-009-9064-6
Lee, J., & Park, D. (2014). Do American and Korean education systems converge? Tracking
school reform policies and outcomes in Korea and the USA. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (15),
391-399.
EVALUATION OF GSS 188

Lee, C. J., Kim, S., & Adams, D. (2010). Sixty years of Korean education. Seoul: SNUPRESS.
Lee, M. K., Son, W. S., & No, U. K. (2007). The Results from PISA 2006. Seoul: Korea Institute
of Curriculum & Evaluation. (in Korean)
Lee, S. (2008). National development strategy and educational policies. Seoul: Korean
Educational Development Institute.
Leonard, W. H. (2000). How do college students best learn science? Journal of College Science
Teaching, 29(6), 385.
Lessons from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2014),
Program for International Students Assessment (PISA) for Korea, Strong Performers and
Successful Reformers in Education, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264190672-en
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(Vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Ma, Y., Lai, G., Williams, D. C., & Prejean, L. (2008). Teachers’ belief in a technology
enhanced pedagogical laboratory. Journal of Educational Technology Development and
Exchange, 1(1), 13e28.
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
McGinn, Noel. (1980). Education and Development in Korea. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard
University Press.
EVALUATION OF GSS 189

McGregor, D., & Ebrary, I. (2007). Developing thinking; developing learning: A guide to
thinking skills in education. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill: Open
University Press.
Merriam, S. B., Tisdell, E. J., & Ebooks Corporation. (2016;2015;). Qualitative research: A
guide to design and implementation (Fourth;4th;4; ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
a Wiley brand.
Meyers, N. M., & Nulty, D. D. (2009). How to use (five) curriculum design principles to align
authentic learning environments, assessment, students' approaches to thinking and
learning outcomes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(5), 565-577.
doi:10.1080/02602930802226502
Ministry of Education (1997). 7
th
National Curriculum in the Primary/Secondary School.
Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2009). The school curriculum of the Republic
of Korea. Seoul: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
Moran, J., & Brightman, B. (2000). Leading organizational change. Journal of Workplace
Learning: Employee Counseling Today, 12(2), 66–74.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (with J. F. Olson, C. Preuschoff, E. Erberber,
A. Arora, & J. Galia) (2008). TIMSS 2007 International mathematics report: Findings
from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth
grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Nielsen, L. (2012) Five reasons I’m not flipping over the flipped classroom. Technology and
EVALUATION OF GSS 190

Learning, P. 46.
Oh, J. (2011). High school diversification against educational equality: A critical analysis of
neoliberal education reform in South Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(3), 381-
392. doi:10.1007/s12564-011-9147-z
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2004). Learning for
tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2009). Creating effective
teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris: OECD
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2010a). PISA 2009 results:
Executive summary. Paris: OECD. http://www.pisa.oecd.org. Accessed 17 May 2013.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2010b). PISA 2009 results:
What students know and can do – Student performance in reading mathematics and
science (Volume I). doi:10.1787/9789264091450-en.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2010c). PISA 2009 results:
Learning to learn – Student engagement, strategies and practices (Volume III).
doi:10.1787/9789264091450-en.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2014). Lessons from
Program for International Students Assessment (PISA) for Korea, Strong Performers and
Successful Reformers in Education, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264190672-en
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
EVALUATION OF GSS 191

Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Park, H., & Kim, K-k. (2014). Korean education in changing economic and demographic
contexts. Singapore: Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-981-4451-27-7.
Park, H. S., & Jeon, M. N. (2007). The effect of student, teacher, and school characteristics on
middle school students’ Korean, English, and mathematics achievement outcomes. The
Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 21 (1), 145-168. (in Korean)
Park, J-H, & Jeong, D.W. (2013). School reforms, principal leadership, and teacher resistance:
evidence from Korea, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33:1, 34-52, DOI:
10.1080/02188791.2012.756392
Park, S. Y., & Min, B. C. (2008). The effects of authentic instruction on English achievement.
The Journal of Korean Education, 35(4), 131-151. (in Korean)
Patton, M. O. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3
rd
ed.) Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Perrow, C. (1972). Complex organizations: A critical essay. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and
Company, 3-15.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components
of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths-based leadership. New York: Gallup, Inc. 79-91.
Roh, W. K. (2009). Relationship among Students’ perception of teaching strategies, learning
EVALUATION OF GSS 192

strategies, and academic achievement. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 26 (4),
169-190. (in Korean)
Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4-36. doi:10.3102/0002831212463813.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Sams, A., Bergmann, J. (2013). Flip your students’ learning. Educational Leadership, 3, 16-20
Salili, F. (1996). Learning and Motivation: An Asian Perspective. Psychology and Developing
Societies, 8(1), 55-81.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
Schwandt, D., & Marquardt, M. (1999). Steps and strategies for bringing organizational learning
to your organization. In Organizational learning from world-class theories to global best
practices. New York: St. Lucie Press, 227–249.
Schmidt, S., & Ralph, D. L. (2016) The Flipped Classroom: A Twist On Teaching.
Contemporary Issues in Education Research, V9 (1)
Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 47(4), 83-90.
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7–23.
EVALUATION OF GSS 193

Seth, M.J. (2002). Education fever. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Siegle, D. (2014). Technology: Differentiating Instruction by Flipping the Classroom. Giftend
Child Today, 37(1), 51-55.
Shunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3 &
4), 207-231.
Smith, D. (2015). Tools & tips for flipped lesson development. Texas Library Journal, 91(2), 54-
55.
So, K., & Kang, J. (2014) Curriculum Reform in Korea: Issues and Challenges for Twenty-first
Century Learning. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(4), 795-803.
doi:10.1007/s40299-013-0161-2
So, K., Shin, J., & Son, W. (2010). A comparative study of classroom teaching in Korea and
Japan: a case study on reforming schools into learning communities. Asia Pacific
Education. Review, 11(3), 273-283. DOI: 10.1007/s12564-010-9075-3
Soenens, B., Park, S. Y, Vansteenkiste, M., & Mouratidis, A. (2012). Perceived parental
psychological control and adolescent depressive experiences: A cross-cultural study with
Belgian and South-Korean adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 261-272.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.05.001
Son, In-su. (1987). Han’guk kyoyuk sa (A history of Korean Education), 2 vol., p.728
Sorensen, C. W. (1994). Success and education in South Korea. Comparative Education Review,
38(1), 10-34. doi:10.1086/447223
EVALUATION OF GSS 194

Stoll, L., & Louis, K. (2007). Professional learning communities divergence: Depth and
dilemmas. Bershire, UK: Open University Press
Sung, Y., & Kang, M. (2012). The cultural politics of national testing and test result release
policy in South Korea: A critical discourse analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education,
32(1), 53-73.
Suwoncca.org. (n.d.). Mission and Vision statements/Employee statistics. Retrieved April 17,
2016, from (http://www.suwoncca/org/cca_etc/CCA_GUIDE_BOOK_20140825.pdf,
p.2-5). Suwon office of Education. www.goesw.kr
Wang, X., Su, Y., Cheung, S., Wong, E., & Kwong, T. (2013). An exploration of Biggs’
constructive alignment in course design and its impact on students’ learning
approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 477-491.
doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.658018
WENR (World Education News & Reviews) June 1, 2013. Clark, Nick & Park, Hanna.
Education in South Korea.
Wheeler, D., & Sillanpa’a, M. (1998). Including the stakeholders: The business case. Long
Range Planning, 31(2), 201–210.
The World Bank. (2002). Constructing knowledge societies: New challenges for tertiary
education. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Woo, Y., Herrington, J., Agostinho. S., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Implementing authentic tasks
in web-based learning environments. Educause Quarterly, 30(3), 36-43.
EVALUATION OF GSS 195

Yu, H. S. (2011a). Diversification of post-secondary education in Korea. In Diversification of
post- secondary education. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
Yu, H. S. (2011b). Korea’s national development strategies and educational policies. Paper
presented in the High Level Forum on Educational ODA, Busan
Yu, N. S. (2012). Meta-analysis of the effect of practical reasoning instruction on student
outcome in Home Economics education in Korea. Asia Pacific Education,13, 649-664.

EVALUATION OF GSS 196

APPENDIX A: Survey Items
1. I am currently integrating flipped instruction
___Yes ___No

2. I am currently teaching…
___3
rd

___4
th

___5
th

___6
th

___7
th

___8
th

___9
th

3. I am currently integrating flipped instruction to the following subjects
___Math
___Science
___Korean
___Humanities
___English
___Other

4. I believe that students benefit from flipped instruction.
___Strongly agree
___agree
___neither agree nor disagree
___disagree
___strongly disagree

5. I believe that flipped instruction provides a personalized (or differentiated) learning for
students.
___Strongly agree
___agree
___ neither agree nor disagree
___disagree
___strongly disagree

6. I believe that students improve in the mastery of new information when flipped
instruction is used.
___Strongly agree
___agree
EVALUATION OF GSS 197

___ neither agree nor disagree
___disagree
___strongly disagree

7. I often find it difficult to integrate flipped instruction in my classroom.
___Strongly agree
___agree
___ neither agree nor disagree
___disagree
___strongly disagree

8. I think that “Flipped” classroom allows for more active learning and increased higher
order thinking for students
___Strongly agree
___agree
___ neither agree nor disagree
___disagree
___strongly disagree

9. I find it difficult to prepare and provide pre-recorded video content for students to watch
outside of class time.
__ Strongly agree
___agree
___ neither agree nor disagree
___disagree
___strongly disagree

10. It is challenging to get students to watch recorded content before class.
___Strongly agree
___agree
___ neither agree nor disagree
___disagree
___strongly disagree

11. It is challenging to acquire new technology for flipped classroom.
___Strongly agree
___agree
___ neither agree nor disagree
___disagree
___strongly disagree

EVALUATION OF GSS 198

12. The classroom environment has a significant effect on my success of implementing
flipped instruction.
___Strongly agree
___agree
___ neither agree nor disagree
___disagree
___strongly disagree

13. I feel pressured to integrate flipped instruction in my classroom.
___Strongly agree
___agree
___ neither agree nor disagree
___disagree
___strongly disagree

14. How often is professional development offered regarding flipped instruction?
___Once a week
___Every other week
___Once a month
___Every quarter
___Once a year
___Never

15. How much time does it take per week to create a lesson that is flipped?
___0-1 hour
___1-2 hours
___2-4 hours
___4-6 hours
___6 or more hours

EVALUATION OF GSS 199

APPENDIX B: Survey Results

Yes
78%
No
22%

I am currently integrating flipped instruction
11%
11%
11%
14%
20%
22%
11%
...
I am currently teaching...(grade)
3rd grade
4th grade
5th grade
6th grade
7th grade
8th grade
9th grade
EVALUATION OF GSS 200

44%
5%
5%
9%
2%
20%
15%
...
( )
I am currently integrating flipped instruction to the
following subjects...
Math
Science
Korean
Humanities
English
Other
60%
36%
4%

I believe that students benefit from flipped instruction
Strongly Agree
Agree
Somewhat Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
EVALUATION OF GSS 201

5%
64%
22%
5%
4%

I believe that flipped instruction provides a personalized
(or differentiated) learning for students
Strongly Agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1.7
60
28.9
8.9
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree

I believe that students improve in the mastery of new
information when flipped instruction is used
EVALUATION OF GSS 202

7%
20%
44%
27%
2%

I often find it difficult to integrate flipped instruction in
my classroom
Strongly Agree
Agree
Somewhat Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
58%
23%
10%
9%

I think that flipped classroom allows for more active
learning and increased higher order thinking for students
Strongly Agree
Agree
Somewhat Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
EVALUATION OF GSS 203

9%
27%
49%
13%
2%
( )

I find it difficult to prepare and provide pre-recorded video
content for students to watch outside of class time
Strongly Agree
Agree
Somewhat Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
9%
29%
35%
27%
0%
( )
It is challenging to get students to watch recorded content
before class
Strongly Agree
Agree
Somewhat Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
EVALUATION OF GSS 204

7%
53%
38%
2%

It is challenging to acquire new technology for flipped
classroom
Strongly Agree
Agree
Somewhat Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
13%
47%
33%
7%

The classroom environment has a significant effect on my
success of implementing flipped instruction
Strongly Agree
Agree
Somewhat Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
EVALUATION OF GSS 205

13%
36%
38%
13%

I feel pressured to integrate flipped instruction in my
classroom
Strongly Agree
Agree
Somewhat Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2%
2%
4%
56%
34%
2%

?
How often is PD offered regarding flipped instruction?
Once a week
Twice a week
Once a month
Every three months
Once a year
None
EVALUATION OF GSS 206

40%
27%
24%
7%
2%
?
How much time does it take per week to create a lesson
that is flipped?

0-1 hrs
1-2 hrs
2-4 hrs
4-6 hrs
6 + hrs
EVALUATION OF GSS 207

APPENDIX C: Interview Protocol
1. How long have you been working at GSS?
2. Can you describe your role/relationship?
3. Can you tell me what you know about the mission of GSS?
4. Can you state the organizational goal? (K)
5. In the past, what are some creative and innovative teaching methods that have been used
at GSS? (OC)
6. Does GSS provide the necessary resources to help teachers successfully integrate these
instructional methods? (OS)
(Follow up Q: If so how? If not, what can they do to improve?)
7. Describe some ways GSS teachers collaborate together to share resources and ideas?
(OC)
8. In your own words, can you explain what ‘flipped instruction’ is? (K)
9. What is your perspective on the integration of ‘flipped instruction’ for student learning?
(M)
10. What do you think are some of the benefits or drawbacks to learning when flipped
instruction is used in the classroom? (K)
11. In the past, have you implemented ‘flipped instruction’ in your classroom?
If so, can you describe a lesson/unit where you flipped instruction? (K)
(If further clarification is needed: In other words, what does ‘flipped instruction’ look like
in your classroom? (K))
EVALUATION OF GSS 208

12. Can you describe any challenges you might have faced with “flipping” instruction in your
classroom? (M/O)
(Follow up Q: Can you recall a specific lesson or an incident? (K)
What do you think were some factors contributing to the challenge of
“flipping” instruction (K))
EVALUATION OF GSS 209

APPENDIX D: GSS Documents
PD Sessions on Flipped Instruction
Date PD
Training/Workshop
Focus of Sessions Participants
2013 Smart Learning TF
(연중)
5 teachers
2014 Smart Learning TF 5 teachers
(same participants as 2013)

6/8/2015

Online Instruction
(school closed due to a
virus epidemic)
-Digital recording of
teaching content on video
-Uploading teaching
content online for
students

All Elementary Staff
9/19/2015 Flipped Classroom
w/John Bergmann
(all day)
One day Seminar:
Intro to Flipped
Classroom

All Elementary Staff
10/28/2016 Presentation by
Elementary Teachers
on Flipped Teaching
(2 hrs)
Flipped Learning:
Extension of Blended
Learning.
K-6 Presentation
(Humanities, Math,
Science, English)

All Elementary Staff
6/8/2017 Video Production for
Flipped Teaching
(2 hrs)
Screencast-o-matic
program
Explaineverything
program

All Elementary Staff
6/12/2017 Demonstration of
Flipped Teaching
Examples of Flipped
Teaching by Peers

All Elementary Staff
10/23/2017 Open Class:
Flipped Teaching
(for parents)
Demonstrate Flipped
Teaching to Parents
through an open class

All Elementary Staff
EVALUATION OF GSS 210

APPENDIX E: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Attendance records During the workshop

Ask meaningful questions During the workshop

Discussion in grade teams 3-4, 5-6, & 7, 8, 9 (evaluate sample
lesson/unit; discuss the use of technology tools/resources)

During the workshop
Relevance
Pulse check with participants via survey (online) and discussion
(ongoing)

During break time or
immediately after workshop
Course evaluation (anonymous survey)

One week after workshop
Customer Satisfaction
Post program survey (online) and discussion (ongoing)

After training session
Course evaluation through focus groups or interviews to get
more in-depth information

1-2 weeks after the
workshop.

EVALUATION OF GSS 211

APPENDIX F: Evaluation Tools
Evaluation Tools
Levels 1 and 2 During & Immediately following the program implementation
Declarative Knowledge Item
Knowledge checks using multiple
choice (at the end of the workshop or
immediately following)
Which of the following is a technique used in “flipped”
instruction?
A) Pre-recorded video for students to view at home
B) Q & A regarding learning content
C) Discussion & group activities in class
D) All of the above
Procedural Knowledge
Skills that reflect participants
performance
Demonstrate how you would use the Google chrome book
to flip instruction.
(during workshop or immediately following)
Attitude
Discussions about the value and
rationale
What did you learn from this workshop that will be
helpful to you when you flip instruction for a specific
unit?
Confidence
Survey asking about their ability to
use technology in flipping lessons

I feel confident about using technology in flipping
instruction for my units.

Scale: 5 Strongly agree - 1 Strongly disagree
5 4 3 2 1
Commitment
Self-reports of the progress

I am committed to flipping instruction for my class.

Scale: 5 Strongly agree - 1 Strongly disagree
5 4 3 2 1
EVALUATION OF GSS 212

Engagement
Completion of practice scenarios Design a sample flipped lesson for the content given
during the workshop.
Relevance
Brief pulse check with participants

Survey item: I found the workshop to be very helpful in
flipping lessons

Scale: 5 Strongly agree - 1 Strongly disagree
5 4 3 2 1
Customer Satisfaction
Anonymous survey

I was satisfied with the training on the integration of
technology for flipped instruction.

Scale: 5 Strongly agree - 1 Strongly disagree
5 4 3 2 1

EVALUATION OF GSS 213

Sample Blended Evaluation Items
Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 Delayed for a period after the program implementation
Scale: strongly agree – strongly disagree Survey 4 weeks after the flipped workshop
Evaluation Item
L1: Reaction The workshop was valuable in helping me flip instruction for my units
Scale : 1 Strongly disagree- 5 Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
L2: Learning I know how to integrate technology when I am flipping lessons.
Scale : 1 Strongly disagree- 5 Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
L3: Behavior

I collaborate with my peers on successful strategies used to flip instruction
for a specific content.
Scale : 1 Strongly disagree- 5 Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
L4: Results

I have integrated flipped instruction for a unit in my class
Scale : 1 Strongly disagree- 5 Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Although a nationally centralized education system brought much growth to South Korea following the Korean war, the challenges facing a global knowledge economy in the twenty-first century require students to be intellectually competent with skills such as inquiry, creativity, problem-solving and collaboration. The Korean government is aiming to reform the education system from a highly test-driven, content learning environment with emphasis on rote memory of facts, to a more student-centered learning environment where meaningful and experiential learning is valued. However, teachers continue to face challenges in reforming their pedagogical practices within individual schools and classrooms, due to the lack of training and resources teachers need in bringing effective change to their classroom practices. This evaluation study of GSS adapted the gap analysis framework by Clark and Estes (2008) to evaluate the knowledge, motivation and organizational needs teachers have in reaching their organizational goal of integrating flipped instruction into five unit plans within their curriculum. The findings from this study concurred with prior research that ongoing support for classroom teachers through education, training, and PLC is crucial for teachers to continue deepening students’ learning experiences through various pedagogical practices that are effective.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

A gap analysis of the community school: an evaluation of the implementation of self-directed learning

PDF

Application of professional learning outcomes into the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Answering the call for shared leadership - the missing conditions for successful implementation of English language teacher leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: making two high schools highly effective

PDF

College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Evaluation study: building teacher efficacy in K8 computer science integration

PDF

The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Improving foundational reading skills growth in middle school: a promising practices study

PDF

Improving instructor skills (IIS): a Needs analysis

PDF

Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development

PDF

Professional development and building diversity inclusive educational settings in South Korea: an innovation study

PDF

One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China

PDF

Nourish to flourish: strengthening social emotional wellness of teachers to mitigate stress, enrich engagement, and increase efficacy: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Kim, Jenny Hong (author)

Core Title Approaches to teaching for twenty-first century learners in South Korea: An evaluation study of GSS

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 05/06/2018

Defense Date 03/19/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag building capacity in teachers,education reform efforts in South Korea,flipped instruction,gap analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional learning community (PLC)

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hyde, Corinne E. (committee chair), Kim, Joseph C (committee member), Min, Emmy (committee member)

Creator Email jennyhongkim@yahoo.com,kim761@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-501260

Unique identifier UC11266693

Identifier etd-KimJennyHo-6310.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-501260 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KimJennyHo-6310.pdf

Dmrecord 501260

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kim, Jenny Hong

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA