Claims

Flipped classroom instruction produced higher instructional material motivation scores than traditional instruction

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 in the flipped experimental group had higher Instructional Material Motivation Survey scores than control-group students. → 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

IMMS administered at the end of the eight-week application to both groups (25 per group). The experimental mean was 3.77 versus 3.55, with "(t(48)=2.16, p<.05)"; no effect size is printed.

"According to Table 7, there is a significant difference between the groups in terms of the scores they obtained in the Instructional Material Motivation Survey (t(48)=2.16, p<.05). The students in the experimental group had higher levels of motivation ( X =3.77), than those in the control group ( X =3.55)."

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.