Face-to-face, blended, flipped, or online learning environment? Impact on learning performance and student cognitions

Ngoc Thuy Thi Thai, B. Wever, M. Valcke
{"title":"Face-to-face, blended, flipped, or online learning environment? Impact on learning performance and student cognitions","authors":"Ngoc Thuy Thi Thai, B. Wever, M. Valcke","doi":"10.1111/JCAL.12423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":350985,"journal":{"name":"J. Comput. Assist. Learn.","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"47","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"J. Comput. Assist. Learn.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/JCAL.12423","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 47

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
面对面、混合式、翻转式还是在线学习环境?对学习表现和学生认知的影响
本研究比较了四种学习环境:面对面学习(F2F)、全电子学习(EL)、混合学习(BL)和翻转课堂(FC)对学生学习绩效的影响。此外,本研究还研究了学生的感知灵活性、内在动机、自我效能感信念的变化,以及这些变量对学习绩效的交互作用。两种学习环境设计元素:(1)讲座;(2)以引导问题为基础的小组讨论,通过操纵来创造四种学习环境。106名参加越南CanTho大学“动物与人体生理学”课程的三年级本科生被随机分配到四种学习环境中的一种。结果表明,在FC和BL环境下学习对学习成绩有显著的正向影响。在感知灵活性、内在动机和自我效能感的变化方面,没有观察到显著的交互效应。然而,在不同的学习条件下,在感知灵活性方面存在显著差异。对焦点小组数据的分析证实了学生在FC、BL和EL环境下学习时在时间和地点上更有灵活性的发现。此外,在FC环境中,学生自我效能感的正向变化显著更大。但是,定性数据显示,对灵活性、动机和自我效能的积极看法往往被消极看法所抵消。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The transfer effects of computational thinking: A systematic review with meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis Evaluating a learning analytics dashboard to detect dishonest behaviours: A case study in small private online courses with academic recognition Correction for 'Personalized refutation texts best stimulate teachers' conceptual change about multimedia learning' by Dersch et al. (2022) Looking through Sherlock's eyes: Effects of eye movement modelling examples with and without verbal explanations on deductive reasoning The influences of a virtual instructor's voice and appearance on learning from video lectures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1