MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Is Flipped Classroom a Tendency or a Fad?

2016· book-chapter· en· W2491919445 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in mobile and distance learning book series · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlipped classroomRelevance (law)PedagogyPsychologyMathematics educationPerceptionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter presents an overview of the challenges facing teachers and education students with regard to the growing interest in the flipped classroom, and the results of an exploratory study, conducted in the Philippines, about the intention to adopt this pedagogy by students training to be teachers. After a brief definition and a description of this pedagogical approach, a review of recent research explores the relevance and effectiveness of this method. The chapter questions if it is to be a fad or a revolution and presents the pro and cons of its implementation. A survey has been conducted with 153 fourth year education students of to determine their knowledge of this pedagogical approach, portraying their perception of the flipped classroom and associated concepts as well as their future behavior intention.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it