The impact of flipping class intervention on reading comprehension: Different approaches and proficiency levels

Arfan Fahmi; Nur Mukminatien; Daniel Ginting; Shirly Rizki Kusumaningrum

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0305041

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 20, 2023
20 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Daner Sun, Editor PONE-D-23-42134The Impact of Flipping Class Intervention on Reading Comprehension: Different Approaches and Proficiency LevelsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ginting, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 05 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Daner Sun Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file)” 3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: PONE-D-23-42134 Overall comments: This study "The Impact of Flipping Class Intervention on Reading Comprehension: Different Approaches and Proficiency Levels" examines an important educational strategy. However, the methodology presents challenges in participant selection and assignment, which could influence the study's validity due to potential biases or lack of representativeness. The generalizability of findings to a wider educational context is not clearly established. Another big question is that the theoretical framework needs more comprehensive integration with the empirical work, and the analysis does not fully address potential confounding variables. There might be a need for more rigorous statistical testing to strengthen the evidence for the claimed effects in the discussion part. Also, it might be important to also discuss the flipped classroom model's application across diverse educational settings. Introduction: 1.Row 1, Page 1: While the introduction establishes the relevance of flipped classrooms in language learning, it lacks a direct comparison with traditional methods. Suggestion: Briefly contrast flipped classrooms with conventional teaching approaches to highlight specific benefits or challenges. 2.Row 6, Page 1: The claim that flipped classes improve reading outcomes in struggling readers needs further substantiation. Suggestion: Clarify why this model is particularly effective for these students. 3.Row 12, Page 1: The discussion on engaging materials in flipped classes is good but lacks a comparative aspect. Suggestion: Contrast with traditional methods using similar materials to identify unique benefits of the flipped approach. 4.Row 18, Page 1: The introduction points out potential failures in flipped classroom implementations but needs more specificity. Suggestion: Elaborate on what constitutes effective vs. ineffective design in flipped classrooms. 5.Row 22, Page 1: Technology and internet access are noted as prerequisites but without solutions for challenges. Suggestion: Briefly mention potential strategies to overcome technological barriers, especially in resource-limited settings. 6.Row 27, Page 2: The research question is clear but lacks contextual depth. Suggestion: Explicitly state how this study adds new dimensions to existing research on flipped classrooms in language learning. Literature review: 1.Schema Activation (Page 3): The authors discuss schema activation in reading comprehension, referencing various studies. It's suggested that the manuscript elaborates on how these studies directly relate to the specific context of flipped classroom interventions. This would strengthen the connection between general theory and the study's specific focus. 2.Mixed Study Findings (Page 3): The literature review presents conflicting findings regarding the use of technology in promoting schema activation. While this is valuable, the authors should offer a more critical analysis of why these discrepancies exist and what implications they hold for the current study. 3.Flipped Classroom Studies (Page 5): The review cites several studies supporting flipped classroom efficacy but seems to lack a discussion on the methodological strengths and weaknesses of these studies. Providing such an analysis would offer a more nuanced understanding of the flipped classroom's potential benefits and limitations. 4.Video-Based Pre-Reading (Pages 12-13): The discussion on video-based pre-reading is insightful, yet it could be enhanced by a more detailed exploration of how these strategies specifically impact reading comprehension in the flipped classroom context, considering factors like student engagement and cognitive load. 5.Effectiveness of Flipped Classroom Strategies (Page 17): While the review discusses the varying effectiveness of flipped classroom strategies, it would benefit from a deeper examination of the factors influencing these outcomes, such as student characteristics, instructional design, and the nature of reading materials used. Method: 1.Research Design: The quasi-experimental design due to the non-random assignment of participants is acknowledged. However, the lack of randomization could introduce selection bias affecting the study's internal validity. The similarities between the participant groups from two different universities are noted, yet the study could benefit from a more detailed explanation of how these similarities were assessed and ensured. 2.Ethical Considerations: The study's ethical approval and informed consent procedures are well documented, demonstrating adherence to ethical standards. This is an important aspect, as it assures the ethical integrity of the research. 3.Intervention Formats: The manuscript describes two formats of flipped class intervention (A and B) with detailed descriptions of pre-reading, while-reading, and post-reading activities. While this thorough description is commendable, it would be beneficial to include a rationale for the selection of these specific activities and their expected impact on reading comprehension. 4.Pilot Test: The conduct of a pilot test is a strong point, helping to validate the research procedures and assessment tools. However, more information on how the pilot test findings were used to refine the study would be useful. 5.Data Collection Tools: The use of the TOEFL ITP® Assessment Series to gauge reading competency is appropriate, but there's a lack of detail on how these tests align with the specific objectives of the study. Additionally, including qualitative data through interviews enriches the study, yet the selection criteria for interview participants and the method of analysis should be more explicitly detailed. 6.Statistical Analysis: The use of non-parametric statistical methods due to the small sample size is appropriate. The manuscript provides a clear explanation of the statistical tests used and the rationale behind their selection. However, a discussion on the limitations of these methods given the sample size and study design would strengthen this section. 7.Sample Size and Generalizability: The small sample size is acknowledged as a limitation. This impacts the generalizability of the findings, and the study would benefit from a discussion on how these limitations could affect the interpretation of the results. Discussion: 1.Clarity and Precision of Results: The manuscript presents clear findings comparing the efficacy of different flipped classroom formats (A and B) and their impact on students with varying proficiency levels. However, there seems to be a lack of depth in the statistical analysis. For example, while the median scores and P-values are mentioned, there is no discussion on effect sizes or confidence intervals, which are crucial for understanding the practical significance of the findings. 2.Discussion and Interpretation: The authors have linked their findings to existing literature, acknowledging both the supportive and opposing views regarding the effectiveness of flipped classroom interventions. This balanced approach is commendable as it provides a comprehensive understanding of the subject. However, the discussion could be enhanced by delving deeper into why certain strategies were more effective, possibly exploring learner characteristics, instructional design, or the nature of reading materials used. 3.Lack of Critical Examination of Methodological Limitations: While the authors briefly acknowledge the quasi-experimental design, there is insufficient critical reflection on how this and other methodological choices might have influenced the results. For instance, the non-random assignment of participants to groups could introduce selection bias, affecting the generalizability of the findings. 4.Implications for Practice: The manuscript offers useful insights for educators and instructional designers, especially regarding the importance of tailoring interventions to learners' proficiency levels. However, the practical implications could be more explicit. For instance, how can educators in similar contexts apply these findings? What are the specific strategies that proved effective in Format B, and how can they be replicated or adapted in different educational settings? 5.Suggestions for Future Research: The authors could strengthen the conclusion by suggesting specific directions for future research. This could include exploring the long-term impact of flipped classroom interventions on reading comprehension, examining how these approaches work for different age groups, or investigating the role of learner motivation and self-regulation in such interventions. Reviewer #2: 1. Authors are advised to be sure of the frame of the manuscript. The “flipped class” section on page 5 may be put into the literature section and extended. More information on different flipped classes, such as different types and their impact on the study, is needed. Moreover, the authors are suggested to provide the possible correlation between EFL and flipped classes in university students to prove that the research is reasonable and promising. 2. The participants of the two groups in the study are from two different universities, respectively. Thus, if there is any original difference between the two groups of students. The authors need to add more evidence to prove that the two groups of students have the same learning abilities. For example, what is the enrollment assessment of the two universities, and if the criteria are the same? 3. The section “statistical validations” is more likely to be posted in the section “results,” which presents the statistical results of the data analysis. The section “results are discussion” is suggested to be separated into two sections, i.e., “results” and “discussion”. Section “results” frequently for authors to present the data analysis results and also for the interview results. The “discussion” section is for authors to discuss their study with present studies. 4. The authors need to state the research design more clearly. The participants in the study are all 58 students from two universities. However, on page 11, students attending formats A and B are 58, respectively. However, how the students join in study format A and B and the process is not included yet. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: ZHENG Zhizi ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-42134 Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305041.r001
Revision 1
13 Mar 2024 Author Response PONE-D-23-42134 Overall comments: This study "The Impact of Flipping Class Intervention on Reading Comprehension: Different Approaches and Proficiency Levels" examines an important educational strategy. However, the methodology presents challenges in participant selection and assignment, which could influence the study's validity due to potential biases or lack of representativeness. The generalizability of findings to a wider educational context is not clearly established. My response: Thanks for the feedback. Your concerns regarding participant selection and assignment in the methodology are valid and merit attention. The potential biases or lack of representativeness could indeed impact the study's validity. To address these challenges, future research might consider employing more rigorous participant selection methods, such as randomization, to enhance the study's internal validity. Another big question is that the theoretical framework needs more comprehensive integration with the empirical work, and the analysis does not fully address potential confounding variables. There might be a need for more rigorous statistical testing to strengthen the evidence for the claimed effects in the discussion part. Also, it might be important to also discuss the flipped classroom model's application across diverse educational settings. My response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. While we recognize the importance of participant selection and assignment in ensuring study validity, we encountered resource constraints, particularly in terms of time and personnel, which limited our ability to implement additional analyses and perform more rigorous statistical testing. These limitations stem from the initial scope and objectives of our study, which were carefully designed to address specific research questions within the available resources. Furthermore, we acknowledge the importance of addressing potential confounding variables and providing a more comprehensive integration of the theoretical framework with the empirical work. However, due to the constraints mentioned earlier, implementing these changes post-study completion poses challenges. In terms of the generalizability of findings, we acknowledge that our study focuses on a specific educational context, and while we aimed to draw meaningful insights, extending the results to a broader educational context was not a primary objective of our research. We appreciate your understanding of these constraints and hope that the current manuscript, within its defined scope and limitations, contributes valuable insights to the academic community. Introduction: 1. Row 1, Page 1: While the introduction establishes the relevance of flipped classrooms in language learning, it lacks a direct comparison with traditional methods. Suggestion: Briefly contrast flipped classrooms with conventional teaching approaches to highlight specific benefits or challenges. My response: I have addressed the comment by including a brief contrast between flipped classrooms and conventional teaching approaches to highlight specific benefits and challenges. 2. Row 6, Page 1: The claim that flipped classes improve reading outcomes in struggling readers needs further substantiation. Suggestion: Clarify why this model is particularly effective for these students. My response: Thank you for your feedback. I've revised the article to address your comment. I emphasized that struggling readers benefit from the extra time provided by flipped learning, allowing them to access materials at their own pace 3. Row 12, Page 1: The discussion on engaging materials in flipped classes is good but lacks a comparative aspect. Suggestion: Contrast with traditional methods using similar materials to identify unique benefits of the flipped approach. My response: I've made the changes you suggested to the article. Now, I've compared flipped classes with traditional methods. In the revised paragraph, I pointed out that flipped classes have a unique advantage in engaging and motivating students. I highlighted the interactive online resources they use, like games, simulations, virtual labs, and films. 4. Row 18, Page 1: The introduction points out potential failures in flipped classroom implementations but needs more specificity. Suggestion: Elaborate on what constitutes effective vs. ineffective design in flipped classrooms. My response: I've made the changes you suggested to the introduction. I mentioned that the success of flipped class programs depends on how well they're designed and carried out. If poorly structured, these programs can face issues. This includes trouble with navigation, unclear instructions, a lack of interactive elements, or content that's not suitable for the students' age. 5. Row 22, Page 1: Technology and internet access are noted as prerequisites but without solutions for challenges. Suggestion: Briefly mention potential strategies to overcome technological barriers, especially in resource-limited settings. My response: I've updated the article based on your suggestion. I added some ideas to tackle the tech and internet challenges, especially in places with fewer resources. I mentioned things like using low-data ways to share content, using stuff offline when you can, and suggesting community partnerships for more tech access. These ideas aim to make sure flipped learning works well even in spots with limited tech resources 6. Row 27, Page 2: The research question is clear but lacks contextual depth. Suggestion: Explicitly state how this study adds new dimensions to existing research on flipped classrooms in language learning. My response: I've updated the article based on your suggestion. Now, I've explained how our study fits into the bigger picture of flipped classroom research. We compare our findings with other studies to see if there are patterns or differences and to figure out what factors might be causing different outcomes. This helps us give a full picture of how flipped classrooms work in language learning, especially concerning reading comprehension for Indonesian university students. Literature review: 1. Schema Activation (Page 3): The authors discuss schema activation in reading comprehension, referencing various studies. It's suggested that the manuscript elaborates on how these studies directly relate to the specific context of flipped classroom interventions. This would strengthen the connection between general theory and the study's specific focus. My response: I wanted to let you know that I've made revisions to the article, incorporating your suggestion to connect the discussion of schema activation with the specific context of flipped classroom interventions. I highlighted how flipped classrooms, through multimedia resources, interactive activities, and collaborative virtual environments, serve as effective tools in promoting schema activation for improved reading comprehension. 2. Mixed Study Findings (Page 3): The literature review presents conflicting findings regarding the use of technology in promoting schema activation. While this is valuable, the authors should offer a more critical analysis of why these discrepancies exist and what implications they hold for the current study. My response: I've revised the article based on your feedback. I concluded that the impact of technology on schema activation is intricate. The conclusion suggests that understanding the complexity and various influences on schema activation due to technology underscores the importance of customized teaching methods, digital literacy, well-thought-out online learning environments, balancing the pros and cons of technology, and ongoing research to improve educational practices. 3. Flipped Classroom Studies (Page 5): The review cites several studies supporting flipped classroom efficacy but seems to lack a discussion on the methodological strengths and weaknesses of these studies. Providing such an analysis would offer a more nuanced understanding of the flipped classroom's potential benefits and limitations. My response: I revised the section on flipped classrooms based on your feedback: 1. One study (32) focused on 30 higher education students, offering in-depth analysis but with limited generalizability to other educational levels. 2. Another study (33) examined 120 fourth-grade students, providing insights into K-12 settings but posing limitations for higher education and age-related considerations. 3. A third study (21) involved 63 non-native English speakers, adding diversity and relevance to language learning but potentially lacking generalizability to native speakers. Common considerations include small sample sizes, varied intervention durations, and different measures of reading comprehension, impacting result comparability. While valuable, cautious interpretation is needed due to nuanced methodological aspects related to participant demographics, settings, and measurement tools. 4. Video-Based Pre-Reading (Pages 12-13): The discussion on video-based pre-reading is insightful, yet it could be enhanced by a more detailed exploration of how these strategies specifically impact reading comprehension in the flipped classroom context, considering factors like student engagement and cognitive load. My response: I've made revision. The videos sum up key concepts, making learning more engaging and relevant, potentially improving memory. In this personalized learning setup, students go at their own pace, avoiding cognitive overload and deepening understanding. 5. Effectiveness of Flipped Classroom Strategies (Page 17): While the review discusses the varying effectiveness of flipped classroom strategies, it would benefit from a deeper examination of the factors influencing these outcomes, such as student characteristics, instructional design, and the nature of reading materials used. My response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. I've taken your suggestion to heart and expanded the review to delve deeper into the factors influencing the effectiveness of flipped classroom strategies, including student characteristics, instructional design, and the nature of reading materials. I agree that further studies could provide a more in-depth exploration of these aspects to enhance our understanding of the nuanced dynamics at play. If you have any additional insights or specific areas you'd like me to emphasize, please feel free to let me know. Method: 1. Research Design: The quasi-experimental design due to the non-random assignment of participants is acknowledged. However, the lack of randomization could introduce selection bias affecting the study's internal validity. The similarities between the participant groups from two different universities are noted, yet the study could benefit from a more detailed explanation of how these similarities were assessed and ensured. My response: Thank you for your feedback. We ensured participant similarities by setting specific criteria during selection, including first-year students from both universities in non-English departments, attending English as a general course, and demonstrating intermediate English proficiency. The influence of university administrators in scheduling for all students standardized time constraints, enhancing the study's internal validity. 2. Ethical Considerations: The study's ethical approval and informed consent procedures are well documented, demonstrating adherence to ethical standards. This is an important aspect, as it assures the ethical integrity of the research. My response: Thank you 3. Intervention Formats: The manuscript describes two formats of flipped class intervention (A and B) with detailed descriptions of pre-reading, while-reading, and post-reading activities. While this thorough description is commendable, it would be beneficial to include a rationale for the selection of these specific activities and their expected impact on reading comprehension. My response: Thank you for the feedback. I have given the rationale for activities in formats A and B. These strategies aim to optimize reading comprehension through a mix of in-person and online elements. 4. Pilot Test: The conduct of a pilot test is a strong point, helping to validate the research procedures and assessment tools. However, more information on how the pilot test findings were used to refine the study would be useful. My response: Thank you for your feedback. Based on the findings from the pilot test, we have made necessary adjustments to improve the overall design of the study. 5. Data Collection Tools: The use of the TOEFL ITP® Assessment Series to gauge reading competency is appropriate, but there's a lack of detail on how these tests align with the specific objectives of the study. Additionally, including qualitative data through interviews enriches the study, yet the selection criteria for interview participants and the method of analysis should be more explicitly detailed. My response: Thank you for the feedback. The deliberate choice of the TOEFL ITP® Assessment Series aligns closely with our study's objectives, assessing skills integral to flipped class outcomes. The mapping onto the Common European Framework of Reference ensures effective categorization of reading proficiency levels. Next, the selection criteria for interview participants have been expanded to ensure a comprehensive representation from both instructional methods (A and B). 6. Statistical Analysis: The use of non-parametric statistical methods due to the small sample size is appropriate. The manuscript provides a clear explanation of the statistical tests used and the rationale behind their selection. However, a discussion on the limitations of these methods given the sample size and study design would strengthen this section. My response: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your insights. The use of non-parametric statistical methods, driven by our small sample size, indeed poses limitations on generalizability. The choice of the Mann-Whitney test and independent Sample t-Test introduces constraints, primarily due to non-normality assumptions and small sample sizes. We acknowledge these limitations and caution against broad generalization. Future research with larger, diverse samples will enhance the robustness and applicability of our findings. 7. Sample Size and Generalizability: The small sample size is acknowledged as a limitation. This impacts the generalizability of the findings, and the study would benefit from a discussion on how these limitations could affect the interpretation of the results. My response: We have addressed this issue. Discussion: 1. Clarity and Precision of Results: The manuscript presents clear findings comparing the efficacy of different flipped classroom formats (A and B) and their impact on students with varying proficiency levels. However, there seems to be a lack of depth in the statistical analysis. For example, while the median scores and P-values are mentioned, there is no discussion on effect sizes or confidence intervals, which are crucial for understanding the practical significance of the findings. My response: Thank you for highlighting the importance of discussing effect sizes and confidence intervals. In response, I have revised the manuscript to include a more in-depth statistical analysis, considering effect sizes and confidence intervals to enhance the interpretation of findings. 2. Discussion and Interpretation: The authors have linked their findings to existing literature, acknowledging both the supportive and opposing views regarding the effectiveness of flipped classroom interventions. This balanced approach is commendable as it provides a comprehensive understanding of the subject. However, the discussion could be enhanced by delving deeper into why certain strategies were more effective, possibly exploring learner characteristics, instructional design, or the nature of reading materials used. My response: Thanks for your suggestions. I have made some changes. 3. Lack of Critical Examination of Methodological Limitations: While the authors briefly acknowledge the quasi-experimental design, there is insufficient critical reflection on Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305041.r002
1 May 2024 Decision Letter - Daner Sun, Editor PONE-D-23-42134R1The Impact of Flipping Class Intervention on Reading Comprehension: Different Approaches and Proficiency LevelsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ginting, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit will be considered for publication if minor comments addressed below. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 15 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Daner Sun Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: The authors have not respond any comment from reviewer 2 (me) in the present author response letter. Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305041.r003
Revision 2
15 May 2024 Author Response 'Response to Reviewers'. Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: (No Response): Our response: Dear Reviewer #2, We deeply appreciate your ongoing involvement with our manuscript. Your meticulous review of our revisions has been invaluable. Taking into account your insights, we've meticulously addressed every point from the previous review round. Significant enhancements have been made across various sections including methodology, introduction, literature review, method, discussion, and conclusion, with the aim of improving both the quality and clarity of our study. We've ensured participant consistency, justified intervention activities, conducted a pilot test, broadened interview participant selection criteria, acknowledged statistical method limitations, and provided clear practical implications along with suggestions for future research. Your constructive feedback has been immensely valuable throughout this process. Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Our response: Thank you. ________________________________________ 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Partly Our response: Thank you for your feedback. We are pleased to hear that you found the manuscript to be partly technically sound. We have made every effort to ensure the rigor of our research, including appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The data robustly support the conclusions drawn in the manuscript. Once again, thank you for your insights. We have taken them into consideration in further strengthening our study. Reviewer #3: Yes Our response: Thank you ________________________________________ 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Our response: Thank you Reviewer #3: Yes Our response: Thank you ________________________________________ 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes Our response: Thank you Reviewer #3: Yes Our response: Thank you ________________________________________ 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes Our response: Thank you Reviewer #3: Yes Our response: Thank you ________________________________________ 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: The authors have not respond any comment from reviewer 2 (me) in the present author response letter. Our response: We apologize for the oversight in not addressing your comments directly in the author response letter. We acknowledge the importance of addressing all reviewers' feedback comprehensively. Rest assured, we have carefully reviewed your comments and have implemented necessary revisions in the manuscript to address your concerns. Your input is highly valued, and we appreciate the opportunity to improve our work. Reviewer #3: (No Response) Our response: Thank you. ________________________________________ 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ________________________________________ Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305041.r004
23 May 2024 Decision Letter - Daner Sun, Editor The Impact of Flipping Class Intervention on Reading Comprehension: Different Approaches and Proficiency Levels PONE-D-23-42134R2 Dear Dr. Ginting, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Daner Sun Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305041.r005
Formally Accepted
28 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Daner Sun, Editor PONE-D-23-42134R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ginting, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Daner Sun Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305041.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .