Investigating Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages (ASOL) Lecturers’ Attitudes towards Utilizing Flipped Classroom Instruction (FCI): A Qualitative Study at Jordanian Public Universities
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 Flipped Classroom Instruction (FCI) is not a new concept, the practice is relatively new in the Arab region, especially, in Jordan, where the face-to face approach is still widely used. This qualitative study examined the attitudes of Arabic language lecturers at three Jordanian public universities towards utilizing FCI in their instruction. With the help of convenience sampling, eight lecturers were selected to participate in the study. To reach a clear understanding of this issue, the study utilized a qualitative design and semi-structured interviews were used as a tool to collect the data. The findings revealed that the attitudes of ASOL lecturers about using FCI in their instruction were generally positive. Through the analysis of the data, three main themes emerged from the interviews. The themes were: 1) increasing interaction and collaborative learning, 2) encouraging learning autonomy and independence, and 3) peer instruction and feedback. A key recommendation of the study is that further research needs to be conducted into the reasons why some teachers had negative attitudes towards FCI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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