Claims

Flipped classroom increases learning interest (pooled RR 1.42) but this pooled estimate shows significant publication bias

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? FC students showed significantly greater learning interest than LBL students (pooled RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.33–1.53), but Begg’s test detected significant publication bias for this outcome (P = 0.049). → Zheng Hui 2026

Evidence

Zheng Hui 2026

Zheng Hui, Ouyang Yun, Zeng Yifei, He Xinyu, Song Liping, Yu Xiangyuan. (2026). Systematic evaluation of the teaching effectiveness of flipped classroom mode in undergraduate preventive medicine courses in China. Frontiers in Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1896815

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Fixed-effects meta-analysis of 10 studies (low heterogeneity, I2 = 13.7%) comparing learning interest in FC vs LBL, reporting "a pooled RR of 1.42 (95% CI: 1.33–1.53)"; no standardized effect size was printed, so no magnitude is coded. A second analysis found "significant publication bias was detected for learning interest (PBegg’s = 0.049)", suggesting possible overestimation.

"The results showed that the FC group had significantly greater learning interest than the LBL group, with a pooled RR of 1.42 (95% CI: 1.33–1.53), indicating that FC increased students’ learning interest by about 42%"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.