Research Article

Evaluating face-to-face and online flipped learning on performance and satisfaction in marketing and communication students

Niurka Guevara-Otero 1 , Elena Cuevas-Molano 2 , Ana M. Vargas-Perez 1 * , María Teresa Sánchez Rivera 3
More Detail
1 Department of Business Economics, Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, SPAIN2 Department of Audiovisual Communication and Advertising, Rey Juan Carlos University, Fuenlabrada, SPAIN3 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Technical University of Manabí, Manabí, ECUADOR* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(1), January 2024, ep490, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14100
Published: 05 January 2024
OPEN ACCESS   1324 Views   1041 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The research evaluates the impact of face-to-face and online flipped learning (OFL) on the academic performance in students of single-degree (SD) and double-degree (DD), compared to that achieved in the traditional methodology. A descriptive, quasi-experimental, cross-sectional, quantitative study was carried out with a sample of 223 university marketing and communication students. The study was conducted in three phases: before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Results align with previous studies, which find that flipped learning (FL) face-to-face yields higher performance than traditional methodology. Like other studies, the highest scores in asynchronous activities were found for DD students. However, this study reveals that those adopting FL, both online and face-to-face, demonstrated superior academic performance compared to SD students using the traditional method in practical assessments. Notably, DD students who used OFL methodology outperformed their SD peers who used the traditional method in the overall subject score and in the synchronous and asynchronous activities. Furthermore, although modality did not influence the ratings of FL methodology; DD students who experienced this methodology online or face-to-face reported more positively on their attitudes, perceptions, interactions, academic results, and perceived satisfaction than SD students. These findings contribute to understanding of how the adoption of diverse learning methods and modalities influence the performance, attitudes, perceptions, interactions, results, and satisfaction of SD and DD students in the fields of marketing and communication. In conclusion, university business education institutions can enhance student performance and satisfaction by expanding DDs offerings and integrating active learning methods.

CITATION (APA)

Guevara-Otero, N., Cuevas-Molano, E., Vargas-Perez, A. M., & Sánchez Rivera, M. T. (2024). Evaluating face-to-face and online flipped learning on performance and satisfaction in marketing and communication students. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(1), ep490. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14100

REFERENCES

  1. Aidoo, B., Vesterinen, V.-M., Macdonald, M. A., Gísladóttir, B., & Pétursdóttir, S. (2022). Perceptions of Ghanaian student teachers on benefits and challenges of the flipped classroom: A case study. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(4), ep377. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12163
  2. Al-Samarraie, H., Shamsuddin, A., & Alzahrani, A. I. (2020). A flipped classroom model in higher education: A review of the evidence across disciplines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 1017-1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09718-8
  3. American Psychological Association. (2023). Active learning. APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/active-learning
  4. Beriain, A., & Fondevila Gascón, J. F. (2012). La doble titulación en la universidad: Estudio de caso en España [The double degree at the university: Case study in Spain]. Revista Internacional de Ciencias Sociales, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.37467/gka-revsocial.v1.1207
  5. Blaich, R., Pather, N., Prvan, T., Engel, R., Hulme, A., & Strkalj, G. (2021). Anatomy knowledge retention in Australian osteopathic training: A comparative study. European Journal of Anatomy, 25(4), 433-445.
  6. Borsetto, E., & Saccon, C. (2022). The value-added experience of international Double Degree Program: A survey of students’ perceptions and motivations. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4121547
  7. Buil-Fabregá, M., Martínez Casanovas, M., Ruiz-Munzón, N., & Filho, W. L. (2019). Flipped classroom as an active learning methodology in sustainable development curricula. Sustainability, 11(17), 4577. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174577
  8. Calvert, C. (2022). Are dual-degree STEM programs effective? An intramajor, comparative study of the success of students in a dual-degree engineering and business program. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 23(1), 25-34.
  9. Chen, N., Lin, K., & Kinshuk. (2008). Analyzing users’ satisfaction with e-learning using a negative critical incidents approach. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(2), 115-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290801950286
  10. Chen, W. S., & Tat Yao, A. Y. (2016). An empirical evaluation of critical factors influencing learner satisfaction in blended learning: A pilot study. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(7), 1667-1671. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040719
  11. Colomo-Magaña, E., Soto-Varela, R., Ruiz-Palmero, J., & Gómez-García, M. (2020). University students’ perception of the usefulness of the flipped classroom methodology. Education Sciences, 10(10), 275. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100275
  12. Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563-580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6
  13. Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E. (2020). COVID-19 and learning loss-disparities grow and students need help. Mckinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/covid-19-and-learning-loss-disparities-grow-and-students-need-help
  14. Drozdikova-Zaripova, A. R., & Sabirova, E. G. (2020). Usage of digital educational resources in teaching students with application of “flipped classroom” technology. Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), ep278. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/8582
  15. Durrani, U. K., Al Naymat, G., Ayoubi, R. M., Kamal, M. M., & Hussain, H. (2022). Gamified flipped classroom versus traditional classroom learning: Which approach is more efficient in business education? The International Journal of Management Education, 20(1), 100595. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJME.2021.100595
  16. El-Banna, M. M., Whitlow, M., & McNelis, A. M. (2017). Flipping around the classroom: Accelerated Bachelor of Science in nursing students’ satisfaction and achievement. Nurse Education Today, 56, 41-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.003
  17. Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. (2016). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An update*. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(2), 185-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12097
  18. EURASHE. (2020). Entering a decade of flexibility and diversity: A new momentum for professional higher education. www.eurashe.eu
  19. European Commission. (2023). Glossary of terms–Higher education. https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/programme-guide/part-d/glossary-higher-education
  20. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2020). The European higher education area in 2020: Bologna process implementation report. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2797/756192
  21. Eurostat. (2023). Tertiary education statistics–Statistics explained. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Tertiary_education_statistics
  22. Fisher, R., Perényi, Á., & Birdthistle, N. (2021). The positive relationship between flipped and blended learning and student engagement, performance and satisfaction. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(2), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418801702
  23. Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American customer satisfaction index: Nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299606000403
  24. Förster, M., Maur, A., Weiser, C., & Winkel, K. (2022). Pre-class video watching fosters achievement and knowledge retention in a flipped classroom. Computers & Education, 179, 104399. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2021.104399
  25. García-Alonso, J. M., Soriano-Heras, E., Blaya, F., & Rubio, H. (2019). Didactic methodologies used in industrial design and mechanical engineering for the implementation of the marked competencies and their professional insertion. In J. García-Prada, & C. Castejón (Eds.), New trends in educational activity in the field of mechanism and machine theory (pp. 177-185). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00108-7_20
  26. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2009). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple study guide and reference, 17.0 update. Allyn & Bacon.
  27. Guevara-Otero, N., Cuevas-Molano, E., & Vargas-Pérez, A. M. (2023). Estudio de la percepción de las experiencias de aprendizaje de los jóvenes universitarios en un contexto post COVID-19 [Study of the perception of learning experiences of young university students in a post-COVID-19 context]. Revista Cognosis, 8(3), 25–51. https://doi.org/10.33936/cognosis.v8i3.5998
  28. Guevara-Otero, N., Diaz-Iglesias, S., & Cuevas-Molano, E. (2023). The role of asynchronous and synchronous activities in university academic performance: A comparative study of traditional and inverted class methodologies. Intangible Capital, 19(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2110
  29. Gutiérrez, C. J. L., Salmerón, F. S., Garcés, T. E., & Rivero, A. J. S. (2020). Análisis de satisfacción en estrategias metodológicas en relación a los ambientes de aprendizaje [Analysis of satisfaction in methodological strategies in relation to learning environments]. Journal of Sport and Health Research, 12(2).
  30. Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986006002107
  31. Hong, Y., Wu, J., Wu, J., Xu, H., Li, X., Lin, Z., & Xia, J. (2023). Semi-flipped classroom-based learning interventions in a traditional curriculum of oral medicine: Students’ perceptions and teaching achievements. BMC Medical Education, 23, 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04017-6
  32. Jeong, J. S., Cañada-Cañada, F., & González-Gómez, D. (2018). The study of flipped-classroom for pre-service science teachers. Education Sciences, 8(4), 163. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040163
  33. Jia, C., Hew, K. F., Jiahui, D., & Liuyufeng, L. (2023). Towards a fully online flipped classroom model to support student learning outcomes and engagement: A 2-year design-based study. Internet and Higher Education, 56, 100878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2022.100878
  34. Jöreskog, K. G. (2001). Analysis of ordinal variables 2: Cross-sectional data. https://ssicentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Cross_sectional_ordinal_data.pdf
  35. Kocsis, Z., & Pusztai, G. (2021). A double road to success? Impact of dual education on effectiveness. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 26(2), 164-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2021.1909923
  36. Koh, J. H. L. (2019). Four pedagogical dimensions for understanding flipped classroom practices in higher education: A systematic review. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 19(4), 14-33. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2019.4.002
  37. Kurucay, M., & Inan, F. A. (2017). Examining the effects of learner-learner interactions on satisfaction and learning in an online undergraduate course. Computers & Education, 115, 20-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.010
  38. Lambert, C. G., & Rennie, A. E. W. (2021). Experiences from COVID-19 and emergency remote teaching for entrepreneurship education in engineering programs. Education Sciences, 11(6), 282. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060282
  39. Lapitan, L. DS., Tiangco, C. E., Sumalinog, D. A. G., Sabarillo, N. S., & Diaz, J. M. (2021). An effective blended online teaching and learning strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education for Chemical Engineers, 35, 116-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2021.01.012
  40. Latorre-Cosculluela, C., Suárez, C., Quiroga, S., Sobradiel-Sierra, N., Lozano-Blasco, R., & Rodríguez-Martínez, A. (2021). Flipped classroom model before and during COVID-19: Using technology to develop 21st century skills. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18(2), 189-204. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-08-2020-0137
  41. Leighton, M., & Speer, J. D. (2020). Labor market returns to college major specificity. European Economic Review, 128, 103489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103489
  42. Li, R., Lund, A., & Nordsteien, A. (2021). The link between flipped and active learning: A scoping review. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(8), 1993-2027. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1943655
  43. Lin, G. Y., Wang, Y. S., & Lee, Y. N. (2022). Investigating factors affecting learning satisfaction and perceived learning in flipped classrooms: The mediating effect of interaction. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(9), 5759-5780. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2018616
  44. López Rodríguez, M. I., Palací López, D. G., & Palací López, J. (2015). Disminución del rendimiento académico con el plan Bolonia respecto al plan anterior en España [Decrease in academic performance with the Bologna plan compared to the previous plan in Spain]. Revista Complutense de Educación, 27(2), 633-651. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_RCED.2016.v27.n2.46915
  45. López-Martín, E., & Ardura-Martínez, D. (2023). The effect size in scientific publication. Educación XX1, 26(1), 9-17. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.36276
  46. Martínez-Jiménez, R., & Ruiz-Jiménez, M. C. (2020). Improving students’ satisfaction and learning performance using flipped classroom. The International Journal of Management Education, 18(3), 100422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100422
  47. Ministerio de Universidades. (2022). Estadísticas de educación [Education statistics]. http://estadisticas.mecd.gob.es/EducaDynPx/educabase/index.htm?type=pcaxis&path=/Universitaria/EUCT/2021/Titulaciones/&file=pcaxis
  48. Monteiro, K. A., Dietrich, K., Borkan, J., Dumenco, L., Tunkel, A. R., Dollase, R., & George, P. (2018). Contrasting incoming medical students’ attitudes. Family Medicine, 50(5), 372-375. https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2018.631070
  49. Moore, J. C. (2005). The Sloan Consortium quality framework and the five pillars. The Sloan Consortium. http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/books/qualityframework.pdf
  50. Murillo-Zamorano, L. R., López Sánchez, J. Á., & Godoy-Caballero, A. L. (2019). How the flipped classroom affects knowledge, skills, and engagement in higher education: Effects on students’ satisfaction. Computers & Education, 141, 103608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103608
  51. Orenes Lucas, M. J., & Sánchez Martín, M. (2021). Determinantes para la elección de los grados de educación en la Universidad de Murcia [Determinants for the choice of education degrees at the University of Murcia]. ReiDoCrea: Revista Electrónica de Investigación Docencia Creativa, 10(9), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.66301
  52. Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 292-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.004
  53. Price, C., & Walker, M. (2021). Improving the accessibility of foundation statistics for undergraduate business and management students using a flipped classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 46(2), 245-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1628204
  54. Reflianto, Setyosari, P., Kuswandi, D., & Widiati, U. (2021). Reading comprehension skills: The effect of online flipped classroom learning and student engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(4), 1613-1624. https://doi.org/10.12973/EU-JER.10.4.1613
  55. Ruiz-Jiménez, M. C., Martínez-Jiménez, R., Licerán-Gutiérrez, A., & García-Martí, E. (2022). Students’ attitude: Key to understanding the improvement of their academic RESULTS in a flipped classroom environment. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(2), 100635. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJME.2022.100635
  56. Saglam, D., & Arslan, A. (2018). The effect of flipped classroom on the academic achievement and attitude of higher education students. World Journal of Education, 8(4), 170. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v8n4p170
  57. Salas-Rueda, R.-A. (2021). Use of flipped classroom in the marketing career during the educational process on financial mathematics. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4261-4284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10470-x
  58. Salas-Velasco, M. (2021). Mapping the (mis)match of university degrees in the graduate labor market. Journal for Labor Market Research, 55, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12651-021-00297-x
  59. Senali, M. G., Iranmanesh, M., Ghobakhloo, M., Gengatharen, D., Tseng, M.-L., & Nilsashi, M. (2022). Flipped classroom in business and entrepreneurship education: A systematic review and future research agenda. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(1), 100614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100614
  60. Stratton, E., Chitiyo, G., Mathende, A. M., & Davis, K. M. (2020). Evaluating flipped versus face-to-face classrooms in middle school on science achievement and student perceptions. Contemporary Educational Technology, 11(1), 131-142. https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.646888
  61. Strelan, P., Osborn, A., & Palmer, E. (2020). The flipped classroom: A meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines and education levels. Educational Research Review, 30, 100314. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EDUREV.2020.100314
  62. Talan, T., & Gulsecen, S. (2019). The effect of a flipped classroom on students’ achievements, academic engagement and satisfaction levels. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(4), 31-60. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.640503
  63. Tsai, P. S., Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., Hung, C. M., & Huang, I. (2012). An electronic library-based learning environment for supporting web-based problem-solving activities. Educational Technology and Society, 15(4), 252-264.
  64. UNESCO. (2018). Leveraging ICT to achieve education 2030: UNESCO-WeiDong group funds-in-trust project. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/notice?id=p::usmarcdef_0000265598
  65. Wu, J. H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55(1), 155-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2009.12.012
  66. Xiao, N., Thor, D., & Zheng, M. (2021). Student preferences impact outcome of flipped classroom in dental education: Students favoring flipped classroom benefited more. Education Sciences, 11(4), 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11040150
  67. Xu, L. J., Yu, S. Q., Chen, S. D., & Ji, S. P. (2021). Effects of the flipped classroom model on student performance and interaction with a peer-coach strategy. Educational Studies, 47(3), 292-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1701991
  68. Young, T., Bailey, C., Guptill, M., Thorp, A., & Thomas, T. (2014). The flipped classroom: A modality for mixed asynchronous and synchronous learning in a residency program. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 15(7), 938-944. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2014.10.23515
  69. Yunusa, A. A., & Umar, I. N. (2021). A scoping review of critical predictive factors (CPFs) of satisfaction and perceived learning outcomes in E-learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 1223-1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10286-1
  70. Zhai, X., Gu, J., Liu, H., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2017). An experiential learning perspective on students’ satisfaction model in a flipped classroom context. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 198-210.
  71. Zhu, C. (2017). University student satisfaction and perceived effectiveness of a blended learning course. International Journal of Learning Technology, 12(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2017.083996