Flipped Classroom, Flipped Teaching and Flipped Learning in the Foreign/Second Language Post–Secondary Classroom
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
The term “flipped classroom”, coined in 2007, represents a pedagogy aligned with long-established principles of student-centered learning. Over the last two decades, the flipped classroom has been adopted by instructors across a range of disciplines, from primary to post-secondary settings. During its development, the characteristics of the flipped classroom have evolved, as have the terminology used to reference it, leading practitioners and researchers to now address it as flipped classroom, flipped teaching or flipped learning. In this article, these terms will be used interchangeably. The article will examine the foundations of flipped learning, discuss its roots in learner-centered pedagogy, trace its development over the last two decades, profile its characteristics, and examine the feedback on its effectiveness and challenges as provided by flipped learning instructors and researchers. An attempt will be made to answer the following four questions. Where does flipped learning fit on the continuum of learner-centered pedagogies? How have educators responded, both positively and negatively, to the flipped learning/teaching approach? How has flipped learning been implemented in the foreign/second language (FL/L2) classroom? What are some considerations and recommendations for FL/L2 instructors contemplating using this approach in the FL/L2 post-secondary context? Finally, some suggestions will be made regarding next steps in research on flipped learning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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