In recent years, the flipped classroom has been proposed as an alternative paradigm of teaching, and has been demonstrated to improve the students' knowledge and skills, engagement, and self-efficacy. At the same time, as the number of students seeking higher education is growing and the needs of these students are rapidly evolving, it has become necessary to improve their cognitive holding power and enhance equity among them. The goal of this study is to investigate the impact of the flipped classroom on improving the students' cognitive holding power and enhancing equity.

We conducted a comparative study to evaluate the efficacy of synchronous and asynchronous interaction modes when providing feedback for improving academic writing, achievement motivation and critical thinking. The participants undertook an academic writing task, and were given feedback by a mentor using one of three interaction modes: asynchronous, synchronous e-feedback, and face to face. Data was collected from the participants via an assessment rubric applied to their writing after each stage of interaction, along with pretest and posttest questionnaires, and a semi-structured interview at the end. We found that synchronous feedback is more effective in increasing the quality of academic writing and achievement motivation, but for critical thinking we did not find any significant difference. We suggest that a strategy combining the advantages of each mode of interaction, considering the writers’ experience, may be the most effective way to promote academic writing, achievement motivation and critical thinking.

We present here an approach to the deployment of social robots in a science laboratory to monitor the behavior of students with respect to safety regulations to prevent accidents. Our vision is that the social robot should act as a friendly companion for students and encourage them to follow safe laboratory practices. Towards this goal, we developed a Laboratory Safety Assistant Framework (LSA) using a Misty II Plus robot and designed three dashboards within it as interventions. This LSA framework was evaluated using a participatory design (PD) study with twenty university students (eleven from Japan and nine from Egypt). For this study, we designed a questionnaire that contains 42 questions on the prior knowledge of students about socially assistive robots and their expectations about how socially assistive robots can create a secure environment in the scientific laboratory. The chi-square test revealed that there are no differences between groups in their perceptions of using Misty II to achieve safety inside science laboratories. In their perception of the capabilities of social robots and the sharing of feelings, students believe that using social robots like Misty II inside the science laboratory can make the lab safe and decrease risk inside the science laboratory without using the three dashboards of the LSA framework. However, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed that there is a significant improvement in students’ perceptions ((Median = 106.5, Z = −2.39, p < 0.05, r = 0.53)) between students’ expectations of using social robots to achieve safety in scientific laboratories before and after they interacted with the social robot and knew about the feasibility of the three dashboards we designed. Furthermore, the t-test revealed participants’ experiences of sharing feelings with a social robot, and the intervention suggested by the LSA framework was to design a system integrating this into a social robot to enhance safety within the scientific laboratory (t (19) = 3.39, p = 0.003).