The Effect of the Flipped Classroom Strategy on Learning Some Basic Football Skills for Second Grade Middle School Students

ERCT Criteria Breakdown

• Level 1 Criteria

  • C

    Class-level RCT

    • Allocation was at the intact division (class) level via a lottery rather than at the individual-student level, meeting the minimal class-level requirement despite a weak description.
    • "the research sample consisted of (60) students who were selected through the lottery system for the two divisions (A, C)"
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The research population consisted of (90) students of the secondgrade intermediate entrepreneurship intermediate students distributed over three divisions (A, B, and C), while the research sample consisted of (60) students who were selected through the lottery system for the two divisions (A, C)" (p. 33) 2) "The experimental method was used with pre- and post-tests for adapting the nature of the research problem to achieve its aims." (p. 33) 3) "Table (1) the equivalence of the control and experimental groups in the study variables" (p. 33) Detailed Analysis: Criterion C requires randomisation at the class level (whole classes) rather than at the level of individual students within a single class. The paper describes a lottery ("lottery system") used to select the two intact divisions (A and C) from the three existing divisions (A, B, C), and these two divisions then formed the control and experimental groups. The unit involved is therefore the intact class/division, not individual students split within one classroom, which avoids within-class contamination and satisfies the spirit of the class-level requirement. However, the description is weak: the paper does not clearly state that the two divisions were themselves randomly ASSIGNED to the flipped-classroom versus command conditions (the lottery is described only for selecting the sample divisions), and no randomisation procedure beyond the "lottery system" is documented. Because the randomisation nonetheless operates at the class/division level rather than the individual-student level, the minimal class-level requirement is treated as met. Criterion C is met because allocation was carried out at the intact division (class) level via a lottery rather than at the individual-student level within a single class, though the description of assignment to conditions is weak.
  • E

    Exam-based Assessment

    • The study used custom, researcher-adapted football skill-performance tests validated only by an expert panel, not a recognised standardised exam.
    • "Rolling Test (Mashreq, 2025, p. 7) Test Name/ Ball Slalom Test Objective/ Agility Measurement"
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Rolling Test (Mashreq, 2025, p. 7) Test Name/ Ball Slalom Test Objective/ Agility Measurement" (p. 36) 2) "The students stand behind the starting line with the ball with him upon hearing the start signal. They run the ball back and forth between the markers for a distance of (10 meters)" (p. 36) 3) "Handling Accuracy Measurement Test ... Test/Handling Name for Small Target 15 Meters Away ... Purpose of the test/ measurement of handling accuracy" (p. 36) 4) "Honesty: Apparent honesty was taken through showing the tests to a group of experts in the field of sports as described in Appendix (1)." (p. 34) Detailed Analysis: Criterion E requires standardised, widely recognised exam-based assessments that are not custom-built for the study. The outcome measures here are two motor-skill performance tests: a "Ball Slalom" dribbling/rolling time test and a handling accuracy test aimed at a small goal. These are practical skill tests adapted from sport-science sources (Mashreq/Hamdoush, 2025) and were validated only by showing them to a panel of local sports experts ("apparent honesty"), which is a study-specific validation rather than use of a national or widely recognised standardised examination. There is no standardised national or state-wide exam involved; the measures are researcher-selected/adapted practical skill tests tailored to the two skills taught. This is precisely the type of custom, study-aligned assessment the criterion is designed to exclude. Criterion E is not met because outcomes were measured with custom, researcher-adapted football skill tests rather than a recognised standardised exam.
  • T

    Term Duration

    • The intervention-to-measurement interval is not clearly documented and the reported window (under three months) does not clearly establish a full academic term.
    • "Temporal Limits / 12/8/2024 until 7/11/2024"
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Temporal Limits / 12/8/2024 until 7/11/2024" (p. 33) 2) "It was implemented on Wednesday, 26/8/2024 ... Then the exploratory experiment was conducted on (10) students" (p. 37) 3) "On Wednesday, 10/3/2024, after confirming the validity of the tests, the study was conducted." (p. 37) Detailed Analysis: Criterion T requires that outcomes be measured at least one full academic term (approximately 3-4 months) after the intervention begins, with the interval clearly documented by quotes marking the intervention start and the measurement date. The paper gives an overall temporal limit of 12/8/2024 until 7/11/2024, a window of roughly 2.9 months, and reports an exploratory experiment on 26/8/2024 and a main experiment date given inconsistently as 10/3/2024. The paper never clearly documents the intervention start date, the intervention duration, or the post-test measurement date as a distinct interval; the football skill-learning programme (two skills: rolling and handling) appears to be a short skill-acquisition intervention with pre/post tests bracketing it. The only quoted window is under three months and, more importantly, the interval from intervention start to outcome measurement is not clearly established as covering at least one full term. Criterion T is not met because the interval from intervention start to outcome measurement is not clearly documented and the reported study window (under three months) does not clearly establish a full academic term of tracking.
  • D

    Documented Control Group

    • The control group's size, baseline scores and command-method condition are documented, with baseline equivalence reported in Table 1.
    • "Table (1) the equivalence of the control and experimental groups in the study variables"
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Table (1) the equivalence of the control and experimental groups in the study variables" (p. 33) 2) "1 Rolling Time / s 54.833 3.957 55.8 4.088 0.881 2.010 Insignificant / 2 Handling Degree 7.433 4.099 8.3 3.668 0.861 Insignificant" (Table 1, p. 34) 3) "The tabular value of (v) is against the degree of freedom (2-60 = 58) and the significance level (0.05)" (p. 34) 4) "The command method participates in the learning process but focuses on the teacher in making decisions and helps learners to acquire basic motor skills." (p. 31) 5) "Freedom score (29) under error ratio (0.05)" (Table 2, p. 36) Detailed Analysis: Criterion D requires the control group to be well-documented, including its composition, size, baseline performance and the conditions it received. The paper identifies the control (officer) group as second-grade intermediate students taught by the command method, of equal size to the experimental group (freedom score 29 implies n = 30 per group, from a sample of 60). Table 1 reports the control group's baseline (pre-test) means and standard deviations for both outcome variables (rolling 54.833; handling 7.433) alongside the experimental group, and demonstrates baseline equivalence between groups. The control condition is described (traditional command method of instruction), its baseline scores and size are tabulated, and equivalence testing is reported, which collectively provides adequate documentation of the control group even though richer demographic detail (e.g., age breakdown) is limited. Criterion D is met because the control group's size, baseline performance and treatment (command method) are documented and its baseline equivalence with the experimental group is tabulated.

• Level 2 Criteria

  • S

    School-level RCT

    • The trial was run within a single school with allocation at the division level, so no school-level randomisation occurred.
    • "Spatial Boundaries / Sports Arena in Entrepreneurship Medium"
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The research population consisted of (90) students of the secondgrade intermediate entrepreneurship intermediate students distributed over three divisions (A, B, and C)" (p. 33) 2) "Spatial Boundaries / Sports Arena in Entrepreneurship Medium" (p. 33) 3) "the research sample consisted of (60) students who were selected through the lottery system for the two divisions (A, C)" (p. 33) Detailed Analysis: Criterion S requires randomisation at the school level, i.e. whole schools (or equivalent institutions/sites) assigned to conditions. Here the entire study was conducted within a single school (the "Entrepreneurship" intermediate school), and the randomisation/selection unit was the division (class) within that one school, not multiple schools. Only one institution is involved and there is no assignment of schools to conditions. Because allocation was within a single school at the class/division level, the school-level requirement is not satisfied. Criterion S is not met because the study was conducted in a single school with allocation at the division (class) level rather than randomising whole schools.
  • I

    Independent Conduct

    • The same researchers designed, delivered, measured and analysed the intervention, with no independent evaluator.
    • "The study prepared an educational program in the flipped learning method to learn the basic skills in football."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The study prepared an educational program in the flipped learning method to learn the basic skills in football." (p. 32) 2) "It was implemented on Wednesday, 26/8/2024, and its purpose was to identify the most important events faced by the two researchers" (p. 37) 3) "The researchers used SPAS software" (p. 37) 4) "Appendix (1) Showing the names of the experts to whom the tests were presented" (p. 38) Detailed Analysis: Criterion I requires that the study be conducted independently of those who designed the intervention, to reduce bias in implementation, measurement and analysis. In this paper the same researchers designed the flipped learning educational programme, ran the intervention, administered the tests and performed the statistical analysis ("the two researchers", "The researchers used SPAS software"). The only external parties mentioned are a panel of experts who reviewed the tests' face validity (Appendix 1), which is not an independent evaluation team conducting the trial. There is no statement of any third-party or external evaluator responsible for data collection or analysis, and no indication that the implementers were separate from the intervention designers. Criterion I is not met because the same researchers designed the intervention and also implemented, measured and analysed the study, with no independent evaluator involved.
  • Y

    Year Duration

    • The study spanned under three months, far below 75% of an academic year, and the prerequisite T criterion is not met.
    • "Temporal Limits / 12/8/2024 until 7/11/2024"
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Temporal Limits / 12/8/2024 until 7/11/2024" (p. 33) 2) "The experimental method was used with pre- and post-tests for adapting the nature of the research problem to achieve its aims." (p. 33) Detailed Analysis: Criterion Y requires outcomes to be measured at least 75% of a full academic year (roughly 9-10 months, i.e. about 7 months or more) after the intervention begins. The entire documented study window (12/8/2024 to 7/11/2024) is under three months, far short of even a single term, let alone most of an academic year. In addition, per the standard, if the weaker Term Duration criterion (T) is not met, the stronger Year Duration criterion (Y) cannot be met, and here T is not met. Criterion Y is not met because the study window is under three months, well below 75% of an academic year, and the prerequisite term-duration criterion (T) is not met.
  • B

    Balanced Control Group

    • The only extra resource (home video content delivery) is integral to the flipped classroom strategy being tested, and in-class time is comparable, so the groups are balanced.
    • "the teacher explains the educational content through videos ... and the student reviews the material at his home instead of the classroom."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The flipped learning strategy is considered as an educational one in which students exchange roles in the learning process. Here, the teacher explains the educational content through videos ... and the student reviews the material at his home instead of the classroom." (p. 31) 2) "The command method participates in the learning process but focuses on the teacher in making decisions ... Yet, it often negatively affects the time allocated to the lesson by consuming a large amount of it in theoretical explanation" (p. 31) 3) "Showing the Flipped Classroom Strategy impact and the Command Method on Learning Some Basic Football Skills for Second Grade Students in the Middle Stage." (p. 33) 4) "the strategy is considered a time-saving, especially during the class, as it is designed for application and discussion only." (p. 32) Detailed Analysis: Criterion B asks whether any additional time, budget or materials given to the intervention group are matched in the control group, unless the additional resource is itself the treatment variable being tested. Both groups here study the same two football skills within the same physical-education class time: the experimental group via the flipped classroom method (content delivered by video at home, class time used for application and discussion), and the control group via the command method (in-class teacher explanation). The distinguishing feature of the flipped condition is that content delivery is shifted to out-of-class video viewing, which does add a home-study component not present for the control group. However, this out-of-class video component is not a separable add-on: it is the defining, integral feature of the flipped classroom strategy, which is exactly the treatment variable under investigation (the study's stated aim is to compare the flipped classroom strategy against the command method). The in-class instructional time is comparable across the two conditions, and the flipped design deliberately relocates the explanatory content that the command method delivers in class. Applying the criterion B decision tree, the extra resource (home video study) is integral to the intervention being tested, so the control group's business-as-usual command instruction does not constitute an unbalancing confound. Criterion B is met because the only additional resource in the intervention group (out-of-class video content delivery) is the integral, defining feature of the flipped classroom strategy being tested, while in-class time is comparable to the command-method control.

• Level 3 Criteria

  • R

    Reproduced

    • No independent replication of this specific trial exists; the cited works are related prior studies, not reproductions.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The study prepared an educational program in the flipped learning method to learn the basic skills in football. The experimental method was used along with the pre- and posttests on (122) students of the Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Al-Qadisiyah ... (Dia, 2023, p. 50)" (p. 32) 2) "A harmonic exercises was used to learn the skill of dribbling in football for female students ... at Dhi Qar University ... (Ali, 2023, p. 1)" (p. 32) Detailed Analysis: Criterion R requires that this specific study be independently replicated by a different research team in a different context and published in a peer-reviewed journal. The paper cites several related flipped-learning studies (e.g., Thamer/Dia 2023, Jassim/Ali 2023, Shaheen 2018), but these are separate prior studies on different populations and skills, not independent replications of this specific second-grade middle-school football-skills trial. This is a 2026 study in a small journal; no independent replication of this particular trial is reported in the paper. Internet searches (publisher landing page, DOI, author names, and title) identified no independent replication of this specific 2026 trial by other authors. Related studies on the general flipped classroom approach do not constitute reproduction of this specific study's design, population and outcomes. Criterion R is not met because no independent replication of this specific study exists; the cited works are related prior studies, not reproductions of this trial.
  • A

    All-subject Exams

    • Only two football skills were measured with custom tests and the prerequisite E criterion is not met, so A fails.
    • "The skills used in the research were identified namely rolling and handling that fit the research sample."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The skills used in the research were identified namely rolling and handling that fit the research sample." (p. 34) 2) "Rolling Test (Mashreq, 2025, p. 7) ... Handling Accuracy Measurement Test" (p. 36) 3) "1 Rolling Time / s ... 2 Handling Degree" (Table 2, p. 36) Detailed Analysis: Criterion A requires that the study measure impact across all main subjects using standardised exam-based assessments, and it explicitly depends on criterion E: if E is not met, A cannot be met. Here the study measures only two football skills (rolling and handling) within physical education, using custom skill-performance tests rather than standardised exams. No other core school subjects are assessed, and the assessments are not standardised exams. Since criterion E (standardised exam-based assessment) is not met and only a single narrow domain (two football skills) is measured, the all-subject requirement is necessarily failed. Criterion A is not met because only two football skills were assessed with custom tests, and the prerequisite exam-based assessment criterion (E) is not met.
  • G

    Graduation Tracking

    • Outcomes were measured only with immediate post-tests, with no graduation tracking, and the prerequisite Y criterion is not met.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Temporal Limits / 12/8/2024 until 7/11/2024" (p. 33) 2) "On Wednesday, 10/3/2024, after confirming the validity of the tests, the study was conducted." (p. 37) Detailed Analysis: Criterion G requires follow-up tracking of participants through to their graduation from the relevant educational stage, and it depends on criterion Y: if Y is not met, G cannot be met. The study measured outcomes only via immediate post-tests at the end of a short intervention window (under three months) and reports no follow-up beyond that, let alone tracking of the second-grade middle-school students through to graduation. Internet searches for subsequent follow-up publications by the same authors (Ammar Odeh/Oudah, Waad Mohammed Atallah) tracking this cohort to graduation returned no such papers. Because there is no long-term follow-up and the prerequisite year-duration criterion (Y) is not met, this criterion fails. Criterion G is not met because outcomes were measured only with immediate post-tests, with no graduation tracking, and the prerequisite Y criterion is not met.
  • P

    Pre-Registered

    • The paper provides no evidence of any pre-registration of the study protocol on a public registry.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The experimental method was used with pre- and post-tests for adapting the nature of the research problem to achieve its aims." (p. 33) 2) "Statistical methods / The researchers used SPAS software" (p. 37) Detailed Analysis: Criterion P requires that the full study protocol be pre-registered on a public registry before data collection begins, with hypotheses and analysis plans specified in advance. The paper contains no mention of any pre-registration, registry platform, trial-registration identifier, or protocol publication. The methods section simply describes an experimental pre/post design and the statistical software used. With no registry reference in the paper, there is no registration entry to verify online. With no reference to pre-registration anywhere in the paper, the criterion cannot be satisfied. Criterion P is not met because the paper provides no evidence of any pre-registration of the study protocol.