The Use of Flipped Classroom Technology Approach with E-Writing Program to Develop Writing and Promote Active Learning Environment of Thai EFL Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The utilization of technology and digitalization has ushered in substantial changes within the education system, exerting a profound influence on the processes of teaching and learning. This study introduces an innovative approach, the flipped classroom learning method, with the objective of enhancing the writing skills of learners. The research encompasses the following objectives: (1) To evaluate the impact of the flipped classroom learning approach, combined with the e-Writing instructional design program, on the writing skills of EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners. (2) To investigate the creation of an active learning environment for learners who have experienced the flipped classroom learning approach with the e-Writing instructional design program. (3) To explore the attitudes of EFL learners regarding the implementation of the flipped learning approach with the e-Writing instructional design program within a writing classroom. This study involved 30 participants enrolled in an Essay Writing course, selected through a purposive sampling method. Six research instruments were employed: (1) Flipped classroom lesson plans (2) Achievement tests (3) Questionnaires (4) Flipped classroom learning technology with a model for an e-Writing instructional design program (5) Interview questions (6) Focus group discussions Data collection took place during the second semester of the Academic Year 2022, with data analysis conducted using SPSS for quantitative data and coding and content analysis for qualitative data. The primary findings demonstrated that the flipped classroom learning approach effectively enhanced learners' writing tasks, bolstering motivation and cultivating a more favorable learning environment that positively impacted the quality of writing. Learners responded positively to the flipped classroom approach, reporting increased engagement in active learning. Consequently, it is recommended that the flipped classroom learning approach be considered as a viable instructional alternative to cultivate a more meaningful learning environment and elevate learners' academic performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".