The Effectiveness of Flipped Learning: A Quasi-Experimental Study of the Perceptions of Kuwaiti Pre-Service Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigated the effectiveness of flipped learning (FL) in pre-service teacher education, especially educational technology. Research on the effect of FL is still rare in student-teacher education, and little is known about it. This study was designed to explore students’ perspectives on the effectiveness of FL in the College of Basic Education situated within Kuwait’s Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET). This study used a quasi-experimental method; it used purposeful sampling to select 128 students from two classes taught using the FL approach (Experimental Group) and 67 students from one class taught using traditional in-class lectures (Control Group). Questionnaires, which comprised of closed-ended and open-ended questions, were administered to investigate students’ perceptions of flipped learning. Results showed that students in the experimental group had performed better. They had positive attitudes toward flipped learning; they perceived that the approach had a unique set of affordances and constraints. Findings suggest that FL may be a promising approach to enhance student-teachers’ learning in educational technology courses. The study provides insight into opportunities for further studies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".