Using a flipped classroom teaching and learning approach to promote scientific literacy skill development and retention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of scientific literacy (SL) skills is critical in the life sciences. A flipped classroom reverses traditional learning spaces such that foundational knowledge is acquired by students independently through recorded lectures and/or readings in advance of the lecture period and knowledge is consolidated through active learning activities in the classroom. A flipped classroom learning environment can promote critical skill development and knowledge application, and therefore, could enhance SL skill development. The objectives here were to (a) determine the effect of a flipped classroom learning environment on SL skill development in second-year kinesiology students enrolled in a research methods course and (b) reassess SL skills 4 months later. SL skills were assessed using the validated test of scientific literacy skills (TOSLS) questionnaire at the start and end of the semester (n = 57) and reassessed 4 months later after the summer semester break (n = 46). During the flipped classroom semester, practical SL skills (TOSLS scores) were increased by 16.3% and TOSLS scores were positively correlated with the students' final grade (r = 0.526, P < 0.001). Four months later, average TOSLS scores significantly decreased compared to the levels at the end of the flipped classroom learning experience. Importantly, retention of SL skills (i.e., 4 months later TOSLS scores) were related to learning approach scores and were positively correlated with deep learning approach scores (r = 0.298, P = 0.044) and negatively correlated with surface learning approach scores (r = -0.314, P = 0.034). Therefore, SL skill retention was higher in students utilizing a deep learning approach (e.g., engaged, self-regulation in learning, and seeking a deeper understanding of concepts) and lower in students utilizing a surface learning approach (e.g., limited engagement, rote memorization of concepts). Collectively, the results demonstrate the value of a flipped classroom in promoting SL skills while highlighting the role of students' learning approach in critical skill retention.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".