Flipped Learning in the English as a Foreign Language Classroom: Outcomes and Perceptions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many educators have recently discussed the positive effects of flipped learning, there is little empirical evidence about whether this approach can actually promote students’ English learning. This study was undertaken in four sections of the same College English 1 (E1) course over two consecutive semesters at a South Korean university. A total of 79 students enrolled in the E1 course participated in the study. Of the participants, 39 learned English using a communicative language teaching approach, whereas 40 studied English in a flipped learning manner. Data were gathered from the students’ achievements in three major tasks, their responses to three surveys, and the instructor's notes on the students’ engagement in the process of their English learning. Findings demonstrate that the students in the flipped classroom achieved higher average scores in their final three tasks than those in the non‐flipped classroom, but only the final examination mean score indicated statistical significance. However, surveys indicated that most students in this study seemed to enjoy learning English in a flipped learning environment. Also, the instructor found the students in the flipped classroom to be more engaged in the learning process than those in the non‐flipped classroom. Pedagogical implications for effective English teaching are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it