Model of Flipped Classroom Environment for Mastery Learning Approach Using the “ZOOMRBT App”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the digital era that encourages innovation in educational technology, it is crucial to incorporate the use of technology into pedagogy. Since the inception of hybrid learning and other approaches that involve students and instructors in educational activities, the learning environment has undergone significant changes. By utilizing instructional resources such as textbooks and videos, it has become feasible to engage with students beyond the confines of the classroom and during evening hours. Research conducted on students in grades 8 and 9 in Ontario, Canada, revealed that due to their limited spare time, they opted to study and complete their homework after school. Moreover, they exhibited a clear prioritization of their depth of subject knowledge over other factors. The study aimed to adapt the existing learning environment to establish a new environment conducive to mastery learning. It involved fifteen student participants, including an expert teacher in the flipped classroom teaching method. The study employed qualitative techniques such as focus groups, document analysis, expert agreement percentages, and innovative flipping of the classroom. The study resulted in the identification of five thematic analyses: learning flexibility, application skills, usage of application skills, mastery assessment, and the human touch. Collectively, these qualitative findings provide compelling evidence that the research participants actively engage with various aspects of the flipped learning environment, as outlined by the aforementioned themes. The participants in the case study acted as both fresh and established elements within the flipped learning environment.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".