flipped classroom
type of blended learning, where online learning is specifically before face-to-face learning. (and f2f focusses on active instead of lecture-form)
weblecture before tutorial = apply, discussions, collaborative etc.
flex model: content and instruction is online
move individual schedule pick modalities(?) teachers use dashboard to track progress needs support? -> more offline learning
is blended learning effective?
key conditions:
- online and offline alignment (no disconnect, that reduecs understanding and engagement)
- active learning (activities, collaborative etc.)
- teacher presence & guidance; teacher as mentor, gives feedback etc. (also online, via ie. discussion boards)
- clear expectations and communications: what is expected; participations, deadlines, feedback, assesment.
- student motivation + regulation: more autonomy
- quality of tech & infra: reliable, user-friendly, available support etc.
- feedback & assesment intr. -> frequent/continuous, formative ^increase understanding & engagement
how do we measure effectivity?
dependent variable = learning outcome (final grade) indep. variable = blended learning vs face-to-face-only
important:
- what did they study? -> effect of blended classroom vs f2f-only
- why did they study this?
- how did they study this? (context, design, impl, measures etc.)
- what are main findings? (2 rq, what are they? - something with growth vs assesment)
- limitations?
- implications? (theoretical and practical?)
^relate anwsers to ICT course
how many positive findings are sufficient to say type shit works??
(anwser: second article explains that probs)
meta-analysis to get a better picture. because single article is not reliable enough to make conclusion about effectivity.
3 dep. variables:
- assesed learnigns outcomes = grade (114 studies)
- perceived learning outcomes = self-report (8 studies)
- student satisfaction (22 studies)
flipped = intervention, traditional = control
results:
assessed outc. g = 0.36 (p < .001) perceived outc. g = 0.36 (p = .13) student satisf. g = 0.05 (p = .73)
last two both underpowered due to small sample size -> more research needed maybe.
student satisf. high variety; effect close to zero and NOT significant at all. conclusion: the specifics of impl matter a lot.
(digital natives myth??)
moderator analysis: does effect/variance depend on:
- instruction design
- educational context
- study quality
spanjers et al. heeft een soortgelijke meta-analyse over blended learning in general
ook assessed (objective) en perceived (subjective) effectiveness + satisfaction. komt op hele soortgelijke waardes uit.
geen overlap in geanalyseerde studies verder, dus echt twee onafhankelijke overeenkomende resultaten.
effect size interpretation??
according to hattie d < .4 => teacher effects or maturity effects only relevant (‘desired’) if d > .4