Teachers' Perceptions of Using the Flipped Classroom Model in Inclusive High Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThe flipped classroom model is expanding rapidly in school districts across the United States and abroad. In a flipped classroom, students complete hands-on collaborative activities in class and watch instructional videos at home. This relatively new method has been tentatively linked to improved learning outcomes, especially for struggling students. However, there is limited literature on how teachers perceive the flipped classroom in inclusive settings. The purpose of this study was to fill that gap by exploring high school teachers’ perceptions to better understand how the flipped classroom model supports students in inclusive settings. The framework for this study was the concerns-based adoption model. The research design for this study was the basic qualitative design. The in-depth interview was used to investigate the perceptions of 11 high school teachers who used flipped classroom techniques in inclusive environments. Participants were from the United States of America, Australia, Canada, the UK, and Peru The thematic inductive technique was used to analyze data. Results indicated that although some students with disabilities struggled to focus, their teachers still found the flipped model effective. Teachers implemented accommodations to support those students. Results also indicated that teachers switched their roles, placing students at the center of their learning. At the students’ level, the flipped model gave them more responsibilities. This study contributed to social change by providing qualitative evidence for decision-makers and stakeholders to help them consider using the flipped model in inclusive settings. Future researchers may focus on obstacles related to the implementation of the flipped model.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".