Claims

Flipped classroom instruction produced higher achievement posttest scores than traditional instruction in an instructional technologies course for pre-service mathematics teachers

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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.

q2 i? Students taught with the flipped classroom method scored higher on the achievement posttest than students taught with the traditional method. → İlknur Özpinar 2016

Evidence

İlknur Özpinar 2016

İlknur Özpinar, Arzu Aydoğan Yenmez, Semirhan Gökçe. (2016). Application of Flipped Classroom Model in the Instructional Technologies and Material Development Course. Journal of Education and Training Studies, Vol. 4, No. 12. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i12.1934

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Quasi-experimental study with 25 students per group, groups formed by prior achievement scores. The flipped group's posttest mean was 64.00 versus 57.40 for the control group, with "[t (48)=2.42, p<.05]"; no effect size is printed.

"It is understood from Table 9 that students' achievement posttest scores differed by the method applied [[t (48)=2.42, p<.05]. The achievement posttest score averages of the students in the control and experimental groups are 57.40 and 64.00 respectively."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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