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

被引:59
作者
Thai, Ngoc Thuy Thi [1 ]
De Wever, Bram [1 ]
Valcke, Martin [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ghent, Dept Educ Studies, H Dunantlaan 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
关键词
blended learning; e-learning; face-to-face; flipped classroom; learning performance; student characteristics; COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION; SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY; UNIVERSITY-STUDENTS; INTRINSIC MOTIVATION; GUIDING QUESTIONS; SOCIAL PRESENCE; EFFICACY; FEEDBACK; PERCEPTIONS; INSTRUCTION;
D O I
10.1111/jcal.12423
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:397 / 411
页数:15
相关论文
共 114 条
[21]   Identity Shift III: Effects of Publicness of Feedback and Relational Closeness in Computer-Mediated Communication [J].
Carr, Caleb T. ;
Foreman, Ashley C. .
MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY, 2016, 19 (02) :334-358
[22]  
Chen W, 2016, U J ED RES, V4, P1667, DOI 10.13189/ujer.2016.040719
[23]   Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? [J].
Chen, Yunglung ;
Wang, Yuping ;
Kinshuk ;
Chen, Nian-Shing .
COMPUTERS & EDUCATION, 2014, 79 :16-27
[24]   Flexibility as a key construct in European training: experiences from the TeleScopia Project [J].
Collis, B ;
Vingerhoets, J ;
Moonen, J .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 1997, 28 (03) :199-217
[25]  
Culnan M.J., 1987, HDB ORG COMMUNICATIO, P420
[26]   What Works for Whom? The Effects of Gender Responsive Programming on Girls and Boys in Secure Detention [J].
Day, Jacob C. ;
Zahn, Margaret A. ;
Tichavsky, Lisa P. .
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CRIME AND DELINQUENCY, 2015, 52 (01) :93-129
[27]   Self-determined blended learning: a case study of blended learning design [J].
De George-Walker, Linda ;
Keeffe, Mary .
HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, 2010, 29 (01) :1-13
[28]   Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review [J].
De Wever, B ;
Schellens, T ;
Valcke, M ;
Van Keer, H .
COMPUTERS & EDUCATION, 2006, 46 (01) :6-28
[29]   Applying multilevel modelling to content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups [J].
De Wever, Bram ;
Van Keer, Hilde ;
Schellens, Tammy ;
Valcke, Martin .
LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION, 2007, 17 (04) :436-447
[30]   Roles as a structuring tool in online discussion groups: The differential impact of different roles on social knowledge construction [J].
De Wever, Bram ;
Van Keer, Hilde ;
Schellens, Tammy ;
Valcke, Martin .
COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 2010, 26 (04) :516-523