Is it Worth Flipping? The Impact of Flipped Classroom on EFL Students’ Grammar
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
In light of contemporary pedagogical methods, the flipped classroom has been recognised as an effective pedagogy in English as a Foreign Language (EFL). This study employed a quasi-experimental one-group research design to investigate the impact of flipped learning on Omani EFL learners’ grammar and to examine students’ perceptions on the flipped classroom. An intact group of students (n=28) enrolled at the foundation programme in Arab Open University-Oman was randomly selected. Seven videos on English grammar were developed and shared with the students prior to the class. A varaiety of activities were conducted in the class following task-based language teaching. Students met for 8 lessons over the period of 8 weeks. Pre-test, post-test and semi-structured interviews were used in the study. The findings indicated that flipped learning had a positive impact on students’ understanding and usage of English grammar. Students’ perceptions on the flipped approach were positive. The study also provided pedagogical insights for the flipped classroom and recommendations for future research. 
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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