To Flip or Not to Flip? A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Flipped Learning in Higher Education

IF 8.3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Review of Educational Research Pub Date : 2021-06-28 DOI:10.3102/00346543211019122
C. Bredow, P. Roehling, Alexandra J. Knorp, Andrea M. Sweet
{"title":"To Flip or Not to Flip? A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Flipped Learning in Higher Education","authors":"C. Bredow, P. Roehling, Alexandra J. Knorp, Andrea M. Sweet","doi":"10.3102/00346543211019122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although flipped classroom pedagogies have been widely touted for their ability to foster diverse 21st-century learning objectives, previous syntheses of flipped learning have focused almost exclusively on outcomes related to academic achievement. Using data from 317 studies, our research addresses this deficit by providing a comprehensive meta-analysis of the effects of flipped versus lecture-based learning on academic, intra-/interpersonal, and satisfaction-related outcomes in higher education. Overall, flipped classroom interventions produced positive gains across all three learning domains, and we found significant advantages of flipped over lecture-based instruction for seven out of eight outcomes (gs = 0.20–0.53). At the same time, there was substantial heterogeneity in flipped learning effects, and we identified several variables that influenced the relative efficacy of flipped versus traditional courses. Of the three types of moderators examined (contextual, design-based, and methodological), educational context (e.g., discipline, location) accounted for the most variability in flipped learning outcomes.","PeriodicalId":21145,"journal":{"name":"Review of Educational Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"47","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211019122","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 47

Abstract

Although flipped classroom pedagogies have been widely touted for their ability to foster diverse 21st-century learning objectives, previous syntheses of flipped learning have focused almost exclusively on outcomes related to academic achievement. Using data from 317 studies, our research addresses this deficit by providing a comprehensive meta-analysis of the effects of flipped versus lecture-based learning on academic, intra-/interpersonal, and satisfaction-related outcomes in higher education. Overall, flipped classroom interventions produced positive gains across all three learning domains, and we found significant advantages of flipped over lecture-based instruction for seven out of eight outcomes (gs = 0.20–0.53). At the same time, there was substantial heterogeneity in flipped learning effects, and we identified several variables that influenced the relative efficacy of flipped versus traditional courses. Of the three types of moderators examined (contextual, design-based, and methodological), educational context (e.g., discipline, location) accounted for the most variability in flipped learning outcomes.
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
翻还是不翻?高等教育翻转学习效果的元分析
尽管翻转课堂教学法因其培养21世纪多样化学习目标的能力而受到广泛推崇,但之前对翻转学习的综合研究几乎只关注与学业成就相关的结果。利用来自317项研究的数据,我们的研究通过对翻转学习与基于讲座的学习在高等教育中对学术、内部/人际关系和满意度相关结果的影响进行全面的荟萃分析,解决了这一缺陷。总体而言,翻转课堂干预在所有三个学习领域都产生了积极的收益,我们发现翻转课堂教学在八个结果中的七个方面具有显著优势(gs = 0.20-0.53)。与此同时,翻转学习的效果存在很大的异质性,我们确定了影响翻转课程与传统课程相对效果的几个变量。在研究的三种类型的调节因素(情境、基于设计和方法)中,教育情境(如学科、地点)对翻转学习结果的影响最大。
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
Review of Educational Research
Review of Educational Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
24.10
自引率
2.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The Review of Educational Research (RER), a quarterly publication initiated in 1931 with approximately 640 pages per volume year, is dedicated to presenting critical, integrative reviews of research literature relevant to education. These reviews encompass conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of scholarly work across fields broadly pertinent to education and educational research. Welcoming submissions from any discipline, RER encourages research reviews in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided the review addresses educational issues. While original empirical research is not published independently, RER incorporates it within broader integrative reviews. The journal may occasionally feature solicited, rigorously refereed analytic reviews of special topics, especially from disciplines underrepresented in educational research.
期刊最新文献
Teachers’ Beliefs About Language Diversity and Multilingual Learners: A Systematic Review of the Literature Studying the Effectiveness of Team Teaching: A Systematic Review on the Conceptual and Methodological Credibility of Experimental Studies Leveraging Physical Activities to Support Learning for Young People via Technologies: An Examination of Educational Practices Across the Field Robot-Assisted Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis Does Aid Matter? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Grant Aid on College Student Outcomes
×
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