Dear Author,

I have carefully reviewed the feedback provided by the three reviewers, and based
my own reading, I would like to offer my guidance to ensure that the revisions lead
to an improvement in the clarity, coherence, and contribution of your manuscript.

1. Abstract.
All reviewers commented that your abstract is generally well-written but lacks
certain critical details. Specifically, it should better highlight the specific research
questions and more effectively communicate the significance of the findings,
including practical implications. Adding quantitative insights could make it more
compelling for readers. I recommend addressing these points by providing a brief
mention of key outcomes and emphasizing the novelty of your study.

The introduction has been modified for clarity. A sentence has been added to the
methods for better comprehension. Results has been expanded and the novelty of
the study has been included. The key outcome of the study has been highlighted.

2. Introduction.
The reviewers agree that the introduction clearly presents the research problem, but
they suggest a stronger emphasis on the gap in the literature. I concur with their
suggestion to explicitly state your research questions or objectives early in the
introduction and to more robustly establish the novelty of your study, especially in
comparison to prior research on flipped learning. Linking your study more closely
to the practical implications for educators will also strengthen the introduction.
The introduction has presented an argument for the necessity of the study while
briefly highlighting the findings from previous systematic reviews on flipped
learning. So that the introduction does not become too lengthy, a summary of the
results of the review has only been given in the introduction. We have dedicated
eight lines of the introduction for the research gap, which has been followed up by
the aim and objectives for the study as concluded from the research gap. No
changes have been done.
3. Literature Review.
Your literature review is comprehensive but could be streamlined. Reviewers
found some redundancy, especially in the discussion of the benefits of flipped
learning. To enhance the review, I recommend consolidating these points and
offering a deeper critique of past studies, particularly in addressing inconsistencies
or gaps. Furthermore, expanding the discussion on challenges such as
technological barriers or learning diversity will provide a more balanced review.
The literature review has been expanded to accommodate the above mentioned
points. The discussion on the challenges of flipped classrooms has been
extensively covered in the results and discussion, hence has not been expansively
covered here.
4. Methodology.
The methodology was well-received, though reviewers suggest elaborating on
certain areas, such as how studies were selected and how coding was conducted.
Expanding on why a narrative synthesis was chosen over a meta-analysis would
add further justification to your approach. Additionally, providing more
information on how inter-coder reliability was ensured will enhance the
transparency and rigor of your methodology.
Justification for a narrative synthesis has been given. In addition to how thr
reliability was ensured. In terms of more information about how studies were
selected and coded I belive that enough information were given about this.so, no
further ifo were added.
5. Results.
While the results section is clear and well-structured, reviewers suggest
incorporating more quantitative summaries to better illustrate the trends across the
studies you reviewed. They also recommend providing a clearer link between the
results and the research questions. Addressing inconsistencies in the findings more
thoroughly would strengthen this section, as well as offering more detailed
comparisons of the self-efficacy measurement tools used in the studies.
Since the results section is very lengthy, we have put in a paragraph summarizing
the trends across the studies, which also provides a link between the results and
research questions. A detailed comparison of self-efficacy measurement tools has
not been done as this will require a detailed evaluation of each tool which is out of
purview of the current manuscript.

6. Discussion.
The discussion successfully integrates the literature with your findings. However,
reviewers believe that you should more explicitly address the limitations of the
study and provide a deeper analysis of inconsistent or negative findings.
Expanding on practical applications for educators and offering more specific
suggestions for future research will add significant value to this section. I suggest
revisiting your research questions at the end of the discussion to ensure that the
answers are clearly highlighted.
The discussion has been modified to include the above suggestions. The answers to
the research questions have been addressed in the conclusion, and hence has not
been repeated here.

7. Conclusion.
Reviewers found the conclusion adequate but noted that it could be more thorough.
To improve this section, I recommend clearly articulating the unique contributions
of your study and its practical relevance. Summarizing the key findings in a way
that explicitly links back to the research questions and offering more detailed
recommendations for future research will strengthen the conclusion.
The conclusion has been modified to reflect the given suggestions.

8. Title.
The reviewers suggested minor revisions to the title to make it more specific and
engaging. Including the methodology (systematic review) and mentioning key
elements like age groups or subject domains could make it more attractive to
readers.
The title has all the elements mentioned above and hence remains unchanged.

9. Language and Grammar.

All reviewers noted some issues with sentence structure and grammar, especially
with long, complex sentences and passive voice. Simplifying sentences, using
active voice, and ensuring subject-verb agreement will improve the readability and
flow of the paper. Proofreading for minor errors and ensuring consistent
terminology throughout the paper will also be beneficial.

Please revise the manuscript accordingly and resubmit for further review. I look
forward to seeing the improved version of your paper.