Claims

No significant difference in teacher–student interaction ratings between the flipped and conventional OCW classroom groups

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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.

q2 i? A t-test found no significant difference between the two teaching methods on teacher–student interaction scores, though both groups rated interactions positively and highly. → Sun and Wu 2015

Evidence

Sun and Wu 2015

Sun and Wu. (2015). Analysis of Learning Achievement and Teacher–Student Interactions in Flipped and Conventional Classrooms. http://www.oeconsortium.org/about-oec/

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Independent t-test on post-course teacher–student interaction survey scores (6-point Likert scale): flipped classroom M = 4.46 (SD = .60, n = 68) versus conventional classroom M = 4.41 (SD = .75, n = 88). No effect size was printed; equivalence was not tested.

"As seen in Table 3, there was no significant difference between the teaching methods in terms of teacher–student interactions (t(154) = .44, p = .66)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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