Face‐to‐face, blended, flipped, or online learning environment? Impact on learning performance and student cognitions. (5th March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Thai, Ngoc Thuy Thi; De Wever, Bram; Valcke, Martin
• Is Part Of: Journal of computer assisted learning. Volume 36:Number 3(2020)
• Page Start: 397
• Page End: 411
• Publication Date: 2020-03-05
• Subjects: blended learning -- e‐learning -- face‐to‐face -- flipped classroom -- learning performance -- student characteristics; Computer-assisted instruction -- Periodicals; 371.334
• DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12423
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0266-4909

Abstract

Abstract: This study compares four learning environments: face‐to‐face learning (F2F), fully e‐learning (EL), blended learning (BL), and flipped classroom (FC) with respect to students' learning performance. Moreover, this present research studies changes in perceived flexibility, intrinsic motivation, self‐efficacy beliefs of students, and the interaction effects in these student variables on learning performance. Two learning environment design elements: (1) lectures (2) group discussions building on guiding questions, were manipulated to create the four learning environments. Third‐year undergraduate students ( n = 106), enrolled in the "Animal and Human Physiology" course at CanTho University (Vietnam), were randomly assigned to one of the four learning environments. The results suggest a significant positive differential effect on learning performance when studying in a FC and BL setting. No significant interaction effects could be observed regarding changes in perceived flexibility, intrinsic motivation and self‐efficacy. However, significant differences between learning conditions were observed in perceived flexibility. Analysis of focus group data corroborate the finding that students experience more flexibility in time and place when studying in FC, BL and EL environments. In addition, students in a FC environment reflect significantly larger positive changes in their self‐efficacy. But, the qualitative data show how positive perceptions about flexibility, motivation and self‐efficacy are often cancelled out by negative perceptions. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Research shows that blended learning – mixing online and face‐to‐face instruction – results in higher achievement, higher student satisfaction, stronger student persistence and larger flexibility in teaching and learning. But comparing research about alternative designs is marred by the weak controlled instructional design. What this paper adds: We compared four learning environments and controlled specific instructional design elements to be able to track specific differences: lectures, guiding questions, collaboration, and feedback. Theoretical assumptions are being put forward to underpin the alternative design of these instructional elements. We set up a qualitative study to triangulate the quantitative study. The specific impact of studying in a flipped classroom setting could be identified as being superior to the other alternative designs. The qualitative analysis explains why the expected interaction effect of motivation, flexibility and self‐efficacy is not found at this stage. Implications for practice and/or policy: Designing a successful flipped classroom requires a theory‐grounded blend of instructional design elements. Implementation of alternative instructional designs should consider the broader context to guarantee student familiarity with the new design elements.