The Impact of the Flipped Classroom Model on Students' Academic Achievement
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 aim of this study is twofold. First, it aims to investigate the impact of the Flipped Classroom (FC) Model on students’ academic achievement. Second, it reveals the students’ opinions about the model itself. For four weeks, the students in the experimental group were taught in a blended learning context where the FC Model was applied, while the lessons in the control group were carried out through traditional blended learning. Both groups were administered a test before and after the Flipped Classroom sessions. To analyze the data, a two-way ANOVA for Mixed Measures was conducted to compare the means of test scores of each group. The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the scores of the two groups. Coming to classes prepared and completing the assignments in class, so that students did not need to do assignments at home, were among the positive aspects of the FC Model. The problems encountered in this model, however, are categorized under three main titles: Motivation, Content, and Learning. At the end of the study, the advantages and disadvantages of the FC Model are identified in accordance with the participants’ opinions, and necessary suggestions made.
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 | 0.035 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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