The positive relationship between flipped and blended learning and student engagement,performance and satisfaction

Abstract

Flipped and blended learning pedagogies are increasingly being adopted by institutions that see in these novel pedagogies, mechanisms that might contribute to improved student outcomes and, in the case of the institutions, student retention. However, the as yet limited research does not definitively demonstrate the empirical link between flipped and blended learning pedagogies and the desirable student outcomes of engagement, performance and satisfaction. During four semesters, 348 responses were collected and analysed. The findings are that flipped and blended learning do positively influence perceptions of engagement, performance and satisfaction, but that flipped learning mediates the effects of blended learning, underscoring that blended learning pedagogies are delivery mechanisms that do not influence learning. Furthermore, the engagement stimulated by flipped learning pedagogy is inherently satisfying to students independent of their perceptions of performance. These findings contribute to closing the gap between what we believe and what we confirm with respect to flipped learning pedagogies, and provide additional evidence that the financial, cultural and individual investment by education institutions in flipped learning pedagogies will lead to the outcomes sought.

Keywords

blended learning flipped learning student engagement student performance student satisfaction

Flipped and blended learning

Students today need an education that equips them for the unknown, yet increasingly digitally focused jobs of the near future (World Economic Forum, 2016). The universities that prepare them for this near future face increasing pressures to stay competitive by delivering higher quality learning experiences and outcomes to students (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004; O’Flaherty and Phillips, 2015), which are frequently measured through student engagement, performance and satisfaction. However, traditional learning pedagogies sit uncomfortably with the connected and digital world of our students and are increasingly criticised for failing to: (1) engage students, (2) contribute to good learning outcomes and (3) contribute to student satisfaction (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004; Monash University, 2016; O’Flaherty and Phillips, 2015; Pye et al., 2015). To address the challenges faced by both universities and students, flipped and blended learning are increasingly being implemented (O’Flaherty and Phillips, 2015; Yarbro et al., 2014). It is the perceived relationship between the pedagogies that characterise flipped and blended learning, and the desired outcomes of improved student engagement and satisfaction, that is thought to positively influence retention and new enrolments (Burke and Fedorek, 2017; Garrison and Kanuka, 2004; O’Flaherty and Phillips, 2015).

In part seen as a panacea for the disengaged learner, as a student-centred pedagogy the well-flipped classroom is thought to contribute to deeper richer learning, leading in turn to the development of lifelong learning skills (O’Flaherty and Phillips, 2015). Flipped learning splits the achievement of learning objectives between those that are lower order (such as remembering and understanding) and can be achieved through at-home preparation, and those that are higher order (such as analysing and evaluating), which are better achieved through in-class interaction with others including the teacher. Blended learning refers to the combination of learning methods (Yuping et al., 2015) through the incorporation of digital technology into teaching practice and lies on a continuum between fully online and fully face-to-face courses (Allen and Seaman, 2006; Garrison and Kanuka, 2004). Increasingly, scholars see flipped learning as a form of blended learning because it combines teaching modalities including digital technologies (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004) to transfer direct instruction of students from the group into the individual learning space (Yarbro et al., 2014).

Blended learning

Blended learning is a contentious catchall term for a heterogeneous and developing area of design and inquiry (Halverson et al., 2014), which focuses on the relationships between learning modalities (Bliuc et al., 2007). Often accepted as ‘… the thoughtful integration of classroom face-to-face learning experiences with online learning experiences’ (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004: 96), blended learning is a form of pedagogy rather than of learning (see Bliuc et al., 2007 for a review) in which pedagogy not technology should drive the educator’s decision-making (JISC, 2009). Following Yuping et al. (2015), we accept blended learning to be an adaptive, dynamic, self-organising, co-evolving complex system that seamlessly fuses face to face with technology-mediated learning.

Blended learning is attractive to institutions and has untapped potential (Yuping et al., 2015), but some students have expressed concerns with the design of courses that blend online with in-class delivery (Bruff et al., 2013). Furthermore, the adoption by students of the technology that delivers blended learning, typically the Learning Management System (LMS), is variable (Henderson et al., 2017), and there is evidence that it is student achievement levels that influence satisfaction with blended learning (Owston et al., 2013). Blended learning is said to be an important predictor of academic success, satisfaction and retention rates (Pye et al., 2015). These conflicting research results about the value of blended learning to students underscore the importance of continued research into this.

Flipped learning

Flipped learning is a

pedagogical approach in which direct instruction moves from the group learning space to the individual learning space, and the resulting group space is transformed into a dynamic, interactive learning environment where the educator guides students as they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter. (Yarbro et al., 2014: 5)

Thus, prior to attending class, students individually engage with content materials often via pre-recorded lectures, prescribed readings, study guides, interactive videos, simulations and cases, and in class pedagogies such as interactive engagement, just-in-time teaching and peer instruction (Berrett, 2012). They then build on the prepared learning to construct knowledge using (for example) presentations, discussions, role plays and debates (Abeysekera and Dawson, 2015; O’Flaherty and Phillips, 2015; Sohrabi and Iraj, 2016).

The use of digital technology, both inside and outside the classroom, is a common feature of the flipped class (O’Flaherty and Phillips, 2015). When used to deliver content, technology can increase the class time available for in-class discussions and other active learning (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004). However, completion of the preparatory work is critical for the flipped class to succeed and the challenge of encouraging student preparation is an acknowledged problem (Masika and Jones, 2016; Pye et al., 2015; Yearwood et al., 2016). As educators we observe, and the literature supports, our observations, that many students will not engage with the preparatory work necessary for a subsequent class (Michaelson, 2008; Yearwood et al., 2016), making the use of external motivators a common practice in flipped learning (Bowen, 2006).

Research into flipped learning generates mixed results. It is understood to contribute to increased student engagement, satisfaction and learning outcomes (Hung, 2015; Mason et al., 2013; O’Flaherty and Phillips, 2015; Schultz et al., 2014), and to positive feelings about, or preference for, flipped learning (Brooks, 2014; Sohrabi and Iraj, 2016). Flipped learning’s reliance on and development of autonomy, relatedness and competence is believed to provide students with increased motivation (Abeysekera and Dawson, 2015) and self-efficacy (Enfield, 2013). In combination with other learning strategies, flipped learning contributes to the instillation of deep content knowledge and critical thinking skills (Capaldi, 2015; Kong, 2014), and improved attendance and study effort (Chen et al., 2014). However, there is limited understanding of which type of learning activity benefits students or why they benefit from flipped learning (Chen et al., 2014; Nouri, 2016; Wasserman et al., 2015). Some studies report student resistance to the uptake of flipped learning (Burke and Fedorek, 2017; Herreid and Schiller, 2013) and lack of satisfaction with the pedagogy (Missildine et al., 2013) despite evidence of reduced cognitive load and higher achievement levels for students taught using the flipped classroom model (Turan and Goktas, 2016).

The rise in flipped learning in higher education institutions is driven by the interest in adopting and utilising effective and efficient pedagogies in the classroom. The potential of flipped and blended learning to drive positive student experiences and, therefore, ultimately student satisfaction, retention and enrolment numbers (Chong and Ahmed, 2015; Garrison and Kanuka, 2004; Pye et al., 2015) represents a holy grail worth pursuing in this era of fierce and potentially disruptive competition in the tertiary sector. However, scoping reviews of both the blended and flipped learning literature highlight the relative newness of these concepts with research demonstrating diverse definitions and models, and limited empirical evidence in support of the efficacy of these pedagogies (Abeysekera and Dawson, 2015; DeSantis et al., 2015; Halverson et al., 2014; O’Flaherty and Phillips, 2015; Yuping et al., 2015). Performance and satisfaction drive desirable consequences for both students and universities (Chong and Ahmed, 2015). Students satisfied with their performance and experience of university are likely to be more self-determined, recommend that university to others, remain with their studies and engage in additional higher education study (Chong and Ahmed, 2015; Douglas et al., 2014). However, flipped learning is associated with both challenges to and mixed responses from students (Fisher et al., 2017) in contrast to the seeming acceptance of blended learning (Yuping et al., 2015). Therefore, demonstrating the link between flipped and blended learning and good learning outcomes is important as it will add to our knowledge about the effectiveness of nascent pedagogies.

Thus, a gap exists between what we believe and what we know, of the contribution of flipped and blended learning to desirable student outcomes. Our research asks the question: Does the combination of flipped and blended learning positively influence student engagement, performance and satisfaction? It is important to confirm if these benefits exist as the implementation of both flipped and blended learning represent significant shifts in pedagogy and technology platforms with consequent implications for financial, cultural and individual investment.

The relationship between engagement, performance, satisfaction and flipped and blended learning

Engagement

Student engagement is a multidimensional construct influenced by the interplay of a complex array of influences and factors (Hagel et al., 2012; Kahu, 2013). Student engagement appears to be a cornerstone construct for delivering quality higher education and is related to academic success (Kahu, 2013), favourable educational outcomes (Yearwood et al., 2016) and student satisfaction (Pye et al., 2015). Whichever delivery mode is used (face-to-face, blended or virtual), student engagement is characterised or nurtured by enthusiasm, interest, belonging (Cramp and Lamond, 2016; Kahu, 2013; Masika and Jones, 2016), deep learning (Kahu, 2013; O’Flaherty and Phillips, 2015), self-regulation, time and effort invested in studying, interaction and participation (Cavanagh, 2011; Kahu, 2013; Pye et al., 2015; Zepke and Leach, 2010), feelings of autonomy, and choice and control (Hagel et al., 2012; Kahu, 2013; Zepke and Leach, 2010). Thus, we accept student engagement to be a multidimensional construct that comprises these characteristics.

Intensive and strategic engagement with LMS materials prior to class is characteristic of students who perform well in a flipped class (Jovanovic et al., 2017). Therefore, the benefits that blended activities within the class provide students, should be of importance to them and influence their perceptions of engagement with the subject. However, there is little direct research into the relationship between learner engagement and blended learning (Halverson et al., 2014). Thus:

H1. Student perceptions of the benefits of blended learning activities positively influence their engagement with flipped learning (EFL).

Performance

The performance of students in a subject indicates the extent to which they gained and applied the knowledge and skills to achieve the subject’s learning outcomes as indicated by their grades. There is evidence across several studies that students perform better on average in blended learning contexts (see Means et al., 2010) and a strong relationship has been found between positive perceptions of blended learning and grades (Owston et al., 2013). Therefore:

H2. Student perceptions of the benefits of blended learning positively influence perceptions of their performance.

Equally, flipped learning contexts have demonstrated that some students experience better results than traditional classroom learning contexts (O’Flaherty and Phillips, 2015; Wasserman et al., 2015), while Jovanovich et al. (2017) find better results depend on the learning strategy adopted by the student. Therefore:

H3. Student perceptions of their EFL positively influence perceptions of their performance.

Satisfaction

Satisfaction is generally understood to be the extent to which students have enjoyed their studies (Bedggood and Donovan, 2012), and is the product of factors including engagement and skills development. Satisfaction with learning is used to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of that learning, including for both blended (Arbaugh, 2014; Rahman et al., 2015) and flipped learning modalities (see O’Flaherty and Phillips, 2015 for a review). Students who feel good about their academic results perceive satisfaction with their academic experience, and key satisfiers for university students include experiencing a sense of achievement with what they have learnt (Douglas et al., 2012). As performance in a subject is judged by the marks gained in the assessment items, which measure the achievement of learning outcomes, a student’s perception of their achievement of the learning outcomes will influence their satisfaction. Thus:

H4. Students’ perceptions of their performance positively influence their overall satisfaction (OSAT).

Furthermore, as above, student engagement with the blended delivery method has been found to enhance satisfaction. Thus:

H5. Student perceptions of their EFL positively influence their OSAT with flipped and blended classes.

And finally, evidence has been presented that student perception of the benefits of the blended learning environment also influences their OSAT. Thus:

H6. Student perceptions of the benefits of blended learning positively influence their OSAT with flipped and blended classes.

We present a conceptual model in which blended learning partially mediates performance through engagement in flipped learning, and how students perceive their performance in a subject influences their perceptions of OSAT with a subject (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

Methods

The study uses a questionnaire to seek student perceptions of their engagement, performance and satisfaction as a consequence of participating in the flipped and blended activities of this subject.

Context

During four semesters, 714 students from Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia, were invited to participate in a quantitative survey probing student perceptions of engagement, satisfaction and learning outcomes arising from their experience of this third-year flipped and blended subject. The subject used digital technologies to blend asynchronous online materials and tasks with face-to-face workshops designed to build upon that knowledge. Direct submission of group work during class time was captured using the LMS; feedback to students was delivered via rubrics viewed in the LMS and the My Grades function. This 36-hour class was conducted as seven 3-hour face-to-face workshops (assessment value 35%) and seven online tutorial modules (assessment value 40%). In all, 15 of the 36 hours were allocated to students to complete the online tutorial modules, in addition to students’ own private study time. Feedback indicates tutorial modules took between 4 and 8 hours to complete. Tutorial module tasks included several of the following: journal article or video and response; quiz; reflection; student-sourced media article and response. Workshop tasks built on the theme of the tutorial modules and used group work to complete quizzes, discussions and written responses.

As the preparatory tutorial modules (40%) and in-class activities (25% of 35% workshop assessment) were submitted and assessed on a continuous basis, at the time of completing the survey instrument students had access to the majority of their grades for these components, giving them a strong indicator of their objective performance to date.

Participants

A total of 16 participants volunteered for the pilot study and a further 364 participated in the research providing 348 usable responses (49% response rate). Data was collected on the last day of classes held in Semester 2, 2014, Semesters 1 and 2, 2015 and Semesters 1 and 2, 2016.

Of the respondents the majority were male (53.5%), aged between 18 and 23 years of age (72.3%), third-year students (66%), majored in accounting, followed by business, marketing, human resources management, international business and other areas of specialisation. At the time of completing the survey, 51.7% perceived their marks to date at 70/100 or higher.

Survey instrument and measures

OSAT

A global indicator was used to capture student perception of their satisfaction with the subject (‘Overall, Class X was a satisfying learning experience for me’), and measured on a 5-point scale (M = 3.55, SD = 1.46).

Control variables

Age, gender, current year of study and perception of marks to date were included. Gender was collected as a dichotomous variable and the remaining as interval scales that were dichotomised around the median as the cut-off point.

New constructs

Three constructs are proposed that require the development of scales to operationalise them. These constructs capture the student’s perception of: (1) the benefits of the blended learning activities, (2) their EFL and (3) their performance against learning objectives. These constructs are necessary in order to capture and measure the perceived experience of participants with respect to underlying assumptions about the effectiveness of flipped and blended learning. The scale development process included the identification and development of constructs, unambiguous selection and identification of items that capture the nature of the construct, separation of construct items within the instrument, pilot testing and administration of the measure (Kline, 1993; Saunders et al., 2007; Spector, 1992). All scale items were reviewed by academics involved in this project (n = 6), and subsequently tested in a pilot study (n = 16). Minor revisions were made to the layout, grammar and removal of one redundant item.

Factor analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify the dimensionality and alignment of survey items, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the scales. The sample was randomly split with 63 observations capturing 20% of the sample for EFA, and the remaining 285 observations for CFA (Hair et al., 2006). Reliability is confirmed where Cronbach’s α > 0.70.

Engagement with flipped learning scale

Scale items were derived from the literature articulating the components of student engagement (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Engagement with flipped learning items.

Looking back over this semester the structure of Class X (online tutorial modules followed by a workshop) enabled me to:
Q1 Achieve a good understanding of course materials (Kahu, 2013; O’Flaherty and Phillips, 2015) Q2 Be motivated to do the work (Kahu, 2013; Pye et al., 2015; Salamonson et al., 2009; Zepke and Leach, 2010) Q3 Be engaged with the subject (Kahu, 2013; Pye et al., 2015; Salamonson et al., 2009; Zepke and Leach, 2010) Q4 Get to know more students than I otherwise might in a subject (Cramp and Lamond, 2016; Kahu, 2013; Masika and Jones, 2016). Q5 Have an enjoyable learning experience (Cramp and Lamond, 2016; Kahu, 2013; Masika and Jones, 2016) Q6 Make better use of my study/learning time (Hagel et al., 2012; Kahu, 2013; Zepke and Leach, 2010) Q7 Put me in control of my learning (Hagel et al., 2012; Kahu, 2013; Zepke and Leach, 2010)

Looking back over this semester the structure of Class X (online tutorial modules followed by a workshop) enabled me to:

Q1 Achieve a good understanding of course materials (Kahu, 2013; O’Flaherty and Phillips, 2015)
Q2 Be motivated to do the work (Kahu, 2013; Pye et al., 2015; Salamonson et al., 2009; Zepke and Leach, 2010)
Q3 Be engaged with the subject (Kahu, 2013; Pye et al., 2015; Salamonson et al., 2009; Zepke and Leach, 2010)
Q4 Get to know more students than I otherwise might in a subject (Cramp and Lamond, 2016; Kahu, 2013; Masika and Jones, 2016).
Q5 Have an enjoyable learning experience (Cramp and Lamond, 2016; Kahu, 2013; Masika and Jones, 2016)
Q6 Make better use of my study/learning time (Hagel et al., 2012; Kahu, 2013; Zepke and Leach, 2010)
Q7 Put me in control of my learning (Hagel et al., 2012; Kahu, 2013; Zepke and Leach, 2010)

A seven-item factor emerged from EFA explaining 48.24% of the total variance, and sufficient loadings to suggest the underlying factors (see Table 2 a).

Table 2a.

Engagement with flipped learning EFA (n=63).

Item description (n = 63)	Loading
Q3 Be engaged with the subject	0.86
Q5 Have an enjoyable learning experience	0.78
Q2 Be motivated to do the work of the unit	0.72
Q7 Put me in control of my learning	0.69
Q6 Make better use of my study/learning time	0.66
Q4 Get to know more students than I otherwise might in a subject	0.56
Q1 Achieve a good understanding of course materials	0.52

After CFA analysis and evaluation of modification indices, two items (Q4 and Q6) were removed to improve convergent validity. The remaining five items demonstrated a good model fit: χ²(5) = 9.90, p = 0.08, Bollen-Stine p = 0.13, standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.02, root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06 [0.00, 0.11], Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.99, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.99. Factor loadings are significant at p < 0.001, Cronbach’s α = 0.88. Items removed from the final CFA (Table 2b) address individual student conduct; while retained items measure students’ learning experience in terms of engagement, experience, motivation, effectiveness and efficiency.

Table 2b.

Engagement with flipped learning CFA (n=285).

Item description (n = 285).	Loading
Q3 Be engaged with the subject	0.84*
Q2 Be motivated to do the work of the unit	0.83*
Q5 Have an enjoyable learning experience	0.76*
Q1 Achieve a good understanding of course materials	0.74*
Q7 Put me in control of my learning	0.72*

Significant at p < 0.001.

Perceived performance scale

The learning outcomes for this subject were adapted to become indicators for the perceived performance (PPERF) scale (see Table 3). EFA resulted in one factor explaining 60.25% of the variance and CFA confirmed the measurement model. Factor loadings are significant at p < 0.001, Cronbach’s α = 0.83 (see Table 4).

Table 3.

Perceived performance indicators.

Learning outcome: students who successfully complete this unit should be able to:	Matched survey question: having completed Class X I believe:
Define and integrate theoretical principles applicable to entrepreneurship and innovation and apply these to problems and opportunities that might arise in the business and/or social context	Q3 I understand how entrepreneurship and innovation could be used to solve a range of problems that might arise in the business context
Systematically review and critically evaluate research from a range of sources in order to make informed judgements on options for using entrepreneurship and innovation in the business context to address problems, opportunities and/or commercialise solutions	Q1 I could use entrepreneurship and innovation tools to generate commercialisation opportunities
Build on and continuously develop the intellectual independence to be critical and reflective learners, who are cognisant of the relevance of entrepreneurship and innovation to their business discipline	Q2 I can see the relevance of entrepreneurship and innovation to my business discipline

Table 4.

Perceived performance EFA (n = 63) and CFA (n = 285).

Item description	EFA (n = 63)Loading	CFA (n = 285)
Q1 I could use entrepreneurship and innovation tools to generate commercialisation opportunities	0.85	0.78*
Q2 I can see the relevance of entrepreneurship and innovation to my business discipline	0.74	0.82*
Q3 I understand how entrepreneurship and innovation could be used to solve a range of problems that might arise in the business context	0.73	0.79*

Significant at p < 0.001.

Blended learning benefits scale

Twelve scale items (see Table 5) were developed to test student perceptions of the benefit to them of activities that make tangible the blended learning system of this subject. One indicator (Q5) was eliminated during EFA, due to insufficient loading to any factor, resulting in a two-factor solution explaining 45.65% of the variance (see Table 6 a and b). Factor 1 relates to the personal convenience of the online method to deliver materials and submit responses, and factor 2 the efficient use of time in the context of online learning and on-campus presence.

Table 5.

Blended learning benefits items.

The self-paced, online tutorial modules:

Q1 Were easy to use
Q2 Enabled me to make better use of my study/learning time
Q3 Put me in control of my learning
Q4 Enabled me to work at times that I found convenient
Q5 Prepared me to participate in the workshops

Having completed Class X I believe:

Q6 Completing online self-paced tutorial modules is preferable to attending weekly face-to-face tutorials
Q7 A 3-hour workshop 6 times a semester is preferable to attending weekly lectures

In general:

Q8 I regularly monitored the marks I received for Tutorial Modules to see how I was going with this assessment item
Q9 I liked using electronic devices (e.g. computers, laptops, tablets, mobile phones) to carry out the work of this subject
Q10 Reducing my environmental footprint is important to me
Q11 Reducing the time I spend travelling to and from university is important to me
Q12 Reducing the time I spend on campus is important to me

Table 6a.

Blended Learning Benefits EFA (n=63).

Item description (n = 63)	PCON	TIMEFF
Q1 Were easy to use	0.881
Q3 Put me in control of my learning	0.841
Q2 Enabled me to make better use of my study/learning time	0.751
Q8 I regularly monitored the marks I received for TM to see how I was going with this assessment item	0.696
Q4 Enabled me to work at times that I found convenient	0.547
Q9 I liked using electronic devices (e.g. computers, laptops, tables, mobiles phones) to carry out the work of this subject	0.511
Q10 Reducing my environment footprint is important to me	0.452
Q12 Reducing the time I spend on campus is important to me	0.439
Q6 Completing online self-paced tutorials modules is preferable to attending weekly face-to-face tutorials		0.764
Q7 A 3-hour workshop 6 times a semester is preferable to attending weekly lectures		0.617
Q11. Reducing the time I spend travelling to and from university is important to me		0.492
PCON: personal convenience; TIMEFF: time efficiency.
	0.65
	0.65
	0.47

Table 6b.

Blended Learning Benefits EFA (n=285).

Item description (n = 285)	PCON	TIMEFF
Q1 Were easy to use	0.65
Q3 Put me in control of my learning	0.65
Q8 I regularly monitored the marks I received for TM to see how I was going with this assessment item	0.47
Q10 Reducing my environment footprint is important to me	0.72
Q12 Reducing the time I spend on campus is important to me	0.60
Q6 Completing online self-paced tutorials modules is preferable to attending weekly face-to-face tutorials		0.78
Q7 A 3-hour workshop 6 times a semester is preferable to attending weekly lectures		0.73
Q11 Reducing the time I spend travelling to and from university is important to me		0.47

PCON: personal convenience; TIMEFF: time efficiency.

CFA resulted in the removal of indicators demonstrating low factor loadings (Q2, Q6, Q9), improving model fit: χ²(16) = 32.20, p = 0.00, Bollen-Stine p = 0.06, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.06, TLI = 0.96, CFI = 0.97. Factor loadings are significant at p < 0.001, Cronbach’s α = 0.78 (personal convenience), 0.70 (time efficiency).

Path model analysis

To test the hypotheses proposed, a path model was constructed, reflecting the conceptual model shown in Figure 1. Scale scores were calculated as simple means of the indicator values (Hair et al., 2006), and average indicator scores used for evaluation of the path model.

First, a full path model including OSAT and all control variables was examined. The results provided poor fit, and none of the control variables were significant. The model was re-estimated excluding control variables resulting in a good fit: χ²(2) = 6.96, p = 0.03, Bollen-Stine p = 0.12, SRMR = 0.02, RMSEA = 0.09, TLI = .97, CFI = 0.99; see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Path model results.

Results

H1 predicts that the benefits of blended learning would positively influence student EFL. Thus, this hypothesis is supported (0.84, p < 0.001).

H2 predicts that the benefits of blended learning will positively influence the students’ perception of their performance. However, this hypothesis is not supported (0.09, not significant).

H3 predicts that EFL would positively influence perceptions of performance, and this is supported (0.57, p < 0.001).

H4 predicts that students’ perception of their performance will positively influence their OSAT. In this subject the positive, not negative, sign for this result suggests students believed themselves to be doing well in the subject (0.22, p < 0.001). This is consistent with the control variable that asked students to indicate their understanding of their grade at the time of completing the survey. In all, 51.7% students across the four semesters believed their marks to be 70/100 or higher.

H5 predicts that perceptions of EFL will positively influence OSAT, and this is supported (0.40, p < 0.001).

H6 is supported (0.29, p < 0.01). That is, student perceptions of the benefits of blended learning will positively influence their OSAT (Table 7).

Table 7.

Hypothesis testing results.

Hypothesis	Standardised model path	Estimate	p	Result
H1	BLB > FLE	0.835	***	Supported
H2	BLB > PPERF	0.092	0.418	Rejected
H3	FLE > PPERF	0.570	***	Supported
H4	PPERF > OSAT	0.219	***	Supported
H5	FLE > OSAT	0.397	***	Supported
H6	BLB > OSAT	0.295	**	Supported

n = 285.

p < 0.01.

***

p < 0.001.

There are significant and positive direct relationships between blended learning benefits (BLB), EFL, PPERF and OSAT. Furthermore, the results suggest the presence of mediation effects, demonstrating the importance of recognising the joint impact of the independent variables (BLB, EFL, PPERF) on the dependent (OSAT) variable.

It can be established that the non-significant result between BLB and PPERF indicates that there is no explanatory relationship between blended learning and OSAT. BLB do not contribute to perceptions of performance (i.e. achieving learning outcomes), and thus the impact of the blended system on OSAT is not through perceptions of performance. While BLB (personal convenience and time efficiency) explain 70% of variance in student perceptions of EFL, EFL explains only 42% of the variance in PPERF. The lack of a significant direct relationship between student perceptions of the benefits of a blended learning system and attainment of learning outcomes (PPERF) implies that students only perceive they achieve the learning outcomes for the subject because they are engaged in flipped learning and not because of the benefits of the blended system. This result is contrary to our expectations and is further elaborated upon below.

The path model analysed (see Figure 2) displays a strong model fit, thus demonstrating that (1) BLB, (2) EFL and (3) PPERF explain 67% of the variance in the OSAT experienced by students in this flipped and blended class. That is, 33% of the OSAT is due to other variables not specified in this research. This is a strong result. For comparison, prior studies seeking to explore factors driving student satisfaction explain 42%–56% of the variance (Diep et al., 2017; Ke and Kwak, 2013), demonstrating the contribution of this model to the body of knowledge.

Discussion and conclusion

The potential of flipped and blended learning strategies to deliver cost-effective education for both the student and the institution makes them of considerable interest. Consistent with the results of other research, we find that blended and flipped learning contribute to perceptions of student engagement, performance and satisfaction.

However, in this research it is flipped learning that mediates the effects of blended learning on performance (i.e. the achievement of learning outcomes). The lack of a significant relationship between blended learning and PPERF underscores that the term blended learning may be a misnomer. Learning refers to the acquisition of knowledge which is indicated by the achievement of learning outcomes or performance. At the core of our accepted definition of blended learning (see Yuping et al., 2015) is a system, a complex whole that includes seamlessly fused face-to-face and technology-mediated elements. The system necessarily organises or delivers the presentation or receipt of its elements for the purposes of learning, but does not necessarily influence the acquisition of knowledge on the part of the learner. In this research, the factors that emerged as conceputalsing blended learning suggest to us that, from the perspective of students in this class, blended learning is associated with time efficiency and personal convience. Therefore, we suggest blended learning is akin to a hygiene factor (Herzberg, 2008), something that can be problematic if not appropriately designed and utilised; but when appropriately designed and utilised, it does not necessarily lead to the desired state (i.e. acquisition of knowledge or learning). Thus, time efficiency and personal convenience influence perceptions of satisfaction, but not perceptions that learning objectives have been achieved.

Being engaged emerges as important in explaining the performance and satisfaction of students. Thus, our results support the literature that finds a well-flipped class is engaging and can improve learning (performance), which in turn leads to satisfaction (Fritz, 2013; Hung, 2015; Mason et al., 2013; O’Flaherty and Phillips, 2015; Schultz et al., 2014).

In addition, it emerged that EFL is directly linked to student satisfaction independent of performance, suggesting that the characteristics of flipped learning are appreciated by students as a form of teaching and learning independent of how it impacts their performance. This direct relationship between flipped learning and satisfaction is likely due to the active learning environment of the flipped class (Burke and Fedorek, 2017). The indicators in the scale developed to capture the flipped learning construct articulate how flipped learning engages students (by engaging and motivating them, providing an enjoyable learning experience, helping them achieve a good understanding of materials and putting them in control of their learning). These indicators also suggest why it is that students perceive themselves as having acquired the knowledge and skills of a subject as articulated by the learning outcomes. That is, the good feelings and affect engendered by the experience of the flipped class contribute to the students’ feelings of self-efficacy. Thus, students believe in their ability to achieve the complex learning outcomes that comprised the performance indicators, even while the achievement of these can really only be tested by the passage of time.

The limitations to this research offer further avenues for research. The scales developed should be verified by correlation with similar scales, and practical validity established through further empirical studies. The participants in this study were from only one discipline (business and management), from only one university, in only one country. Accordingly, the results should be read with caution and may not be generalisable. As the results from any study are always context dependent, future work is needed to look at flipped and blended learning in other disciplines, with students at different/other levels (e.g. postgraduates or those in their first year of undergraduate studies) and those from other cultures/countries. In addition, studies that incorporate objective measures of performance could shed interesting insights as student perceptions of their own performance can be flawed. These results offer opportunities for further research, particularly to examine if flipped and blended learning positively impact good student outcomes only in conjunction with one another, or if they do so independent of each other. In addition, further research could test if or how the individual flipped activities influence student performance.

Overall, the results statistically demonstrate that blended and flipped learning do contribute to student perceptions of engagement, performance and satisfaction, and that being engaged with flipped learning contributes directly to feelings of satisfaction even without perceptions of improved performance. Given the implied relationship between performance, satisfaction and student retention, these positive results and can be used by university decision-makers and government funding agencies to defend investment in up-skilling the academic workforce in blended and flipped learning philosophy and pedagogies. Furthermore, while designing and implementing such pedagogies requires a large investment on the part of educators, these results clearly underscore the value of doing so for our students.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Rosemary Fisher is a lecturer and researcher in entrepreneurship and innovation, and has a particular interest in teaching and learning for non-traditional students and the potential value of new pedagogies. Address: Department of Business Technology and Entrepreneurship, Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology, John Street, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia. [Email: rlfisher@swin.edu.au]

Áron Perényi is a lecturer in international business and conducts research in international business and entrepreneurship. His teaching portfolio includes preparing students to meet the challenges of the 21st century workplace, focusing on application of technology in teaching material design. Address: Department of Business Technology and Entrepreneurship, Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology, John Street, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia. [Email: aperenyi@swin.edu.au]

Naomi Birdthistle is an associate professor of Entrepreneurship and has been an academic for over 20 years. For her research, her PhD won a worldwide award given by the Family Firm Institute. She has published extensively on the area of entrepreneurship education; high growth firms and family business management issues and is recognised as a Government of Ireland Scholar. Address: Department of Business Technology and Entrepreneurship, Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology, John Street, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia. [Email: nbirdthistle@swin.edu.au]

References

Abeysekera

Dawson

(2015) Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research and Development 34(1): 1–14.

Allen

Seaman

(2006) Making the Grade: Online Education in the United States. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.

Arbaugh

(2014) System, scholar or students? Which most influences online MBA course effectiveness? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 30(4): 349–62.

Bedggood

Donovan

(2012) University performance evaluations: What are we really measuring? Studies in Higher Education 37(7): 825–42.

Berrett

(2012) How ‘flipping’ the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. The Chronicle of Higher Education 24 February. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/How-Flipping-the-Classroom/130857

Bliuc

A-M

Goodyear

Ellis

(2007) Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education 10(4): 231–44.

Bowen

(2006) Teaching naked: Why removing technology from your classroom will improve student learning. The National Teaching and Learning Forum 16(1): 1–15.

Brooks

(2014) Information literacy and the flipped classroom: Examining the impact of a one-shot flipped class on student learning and perceptions. Communications in Information Literacy 8(2): 225–35.

Bruff

Fisher

McEwen

, et al. (2013) Wrapping a MOOC: Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 9(2): 187–99.

10.

Burke

Fedorek

(2017) Does ‘flipping’ promote engagement? A comparison of a traditional, online and flipped class. Active Learning in Higher Education 18(1): 11–24.

11.

Capaldi

(2015) Including inquiry-based learning in a flipped class. PRIMUS 25(8): 736–44.

12.

Cavanagh

(2011) Students’ experiences of active engagement through cooperative learning activities in lectures. Active Learning in Higher Education 12(1): 23–33.

13.

Chen

Wang

Kinshuk Chen

(2014) Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers & Education 79: 16–27.

14.

Chong

Ahmed

(2015) Student motivation and the ‘feel good’ factor: An empirical examination of motivational predictors of university service quality evaluation. Studies in Higher Education 40(1): 158–77.

15.

Cramp

Lamond

(2016) Engagement and kindness in digitally mediated learning with teachers. Teaching in Higher Education 21(1): 1–12.

16.

DeSantis

Van Curen

Putsch

, et al. (2015) Do students learn more from a flip? An exploration of the efficacy of flipped and traditional lessons. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 26(1): 39–63.

17.

Diep

A-N

Zhu

Struyven

, et al. (2017) Who or what contributes to student satisfaction in different blended learning modalities? British Journal of Educational Technology 48(2): 473–89.

18.

Douglas

McClelland

, et al. (2014) Understanding student satisfaction and dissatisfaction: An interpretive study in the UK higher education context. Studies in Higher Education 40(2): 329–49.

19.

Douglas

Thomson

Zhao

(2012) The learning outcomes race: The value of self-reported gains in large research universities. Higher Education 64(3): 317–35.

20.

Enfield

(2013) Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia students at CSUN. TechTrends 57(6): 14–27.

21.

Fisher

Ross

Laferriere

, et al. (2017) Flipped learning, flipped satisfaction, getting the balance right. Teaching & Learning Inquiry 5(2): 114–27.

22.

Fritz

(2013) Using analytics at UMBC: Encouraging student responsibility and identifying effective course designs. EDUCASE Research Bulletin, 30 April. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.

23.

Garrison

Kanuka

(2004) Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education 7(2): 95–105.

24.

Hagel

Carr

Devlin

(2012) Conceptualising and measuring student engagement through the Australasian survey of student engagement (AUSSE). Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37(4): 475–86.

25.

Hair

Black

Babin

, et al. (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education International.

26.

Halverson

Graham

Spring

, et al. (2014) A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. The Internet and Higher Education 20: 20–34.

27.

Henderson

Selwyn

Aston

(2017) What works and why? Student perceptions of ‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education 42(8): 1567–79.

28.

Herreid

Schiller

(2013) Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching 42(5): 62–7.

29.

Herzberg

(2008) One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

30.

Hung

(2015) Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning 28(1): 81–96.

31.

JISC (2009) Effective Practice in a Digital Age: A Guide to Technology Enhanced Learning and Teaching. Bristol: University of Bristol.

32.

Jovanovic

Gasevic

Dawson

, et al. (2017) Learning analytics to unveil learning strategies in a flipped classroom. The Internet and Higher Education 33: 74–85.

33.

Kahu

(2013) Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 38(5): 758–73.

34.

Kwak

(2013) Constructs of student-centered online learning on learning satisfaction of a diverse online student body: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research 48(1): 97–122.

35.

Kline

(1993) The Handbook of Psychological Testing. London: Routledge.

36.

Kong

(2014) Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers & Education 78: 160–73.

37.

Masika

Jones

(2016) Building student belonging and engagement: Insights into higher education students’ experiences of participating and learning together. Teaching in Higher Education 21(2): 138–50.

38.

Mason

Shuman

Cook

(2013) Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Transactions on Education 56(4): 430–35.

39.

Means

Toyama

Murphy

, et al. (2010) Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Available at: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf (accessed 15 January 2016).

40.

Michaelson

(2008) First-day questions for the learner-centred classroom. The National Teaching & Learning Forum 17(5): 1–2.

41.

Missildine

Fountain

Summers

, et al. (2013) Flipping the classroom to improve student performance and satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Education 52(10): 597–9.

42.

Monash University (2016) An inside look at how Monash University’s blended learning transformation is improving student outcomes. Blended Learning, 20–21 October. Available at: https://blended-learning.iqpc.com.au/downloads/an-inside-look-at-how-monash-universitys-blended-learning-transformation-is-improving-student-outcomes

43.

Nouri

(2016) The flipped classroom: For active, effective and increased learning – Especially for low achievers. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 13(1): 1–10.

44.

O’Flaherty

Phillips

(2015) The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education 25: 85–95.

45.

Owston

York

Murtha

(2013) Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. The Internet and Higher Education 18: 38–46.

46.

Pye

Holt

Salzman

, et al. (2015) Engaging diverse student audiences in contemporary blended learning environments in Australian higher business education: Implications for design and practice. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 19: 1–20.

47.

Rahman

NAA

Hussein

Aluwi

(2015) Satisfaction on blended learning in a public higher education institution: What factors matter? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 211: 768–75.

48.

Saunders

Lewis

Thornhill

(2007) Research Methods for Business Students. London: Pearson Education Limited.

49.

Schultz

Duffield

Rasmussen

, et al. (2014) Effects of the flipped classroom model on student performance for advanced placement high school chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education 91(9): 1334–39.

50.

Sohrabi

Iraj

(2016) Implementing flipped classroom using digital media: A comparison of two demographically different groups perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior 60: 514–24.

51.

Spector

(1992) Summated Rating Scale Construction: An Introduction. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

52.

Turan

Goktas

(2016) The flipped classroom: Instructional efficiency and impact of achievement and cognitive load levels. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society 12(4): 51–62.

53.

Wasserman

Quint

Norris

, et al. (2015) Exploring flipped classroom instruction in calculus III. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 15(3): 1–24.

54.

World Economic Forum (2016) The future of jobs; Employment, skills and workforce strategy for the forth industrial revolution. Challenge Global Insight Report. Available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf (accessed 15 January 2016).

55.

Yarbro

Arfstrom

McKnight

, et al. (2014) Extension of a review of flipped learning. Flipped Learning Network. Available at: https://flippedlearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Extension-of-FLipped-Learning-LIt-Review-June-2014.pdf (accessed 12 February 2016).

56.

Yearwood

Cox

Cassidy

(2016) Connection-engagement-empowerment: A course design model. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal 8(3): 1–15.

57.

Yuping

Xibin

Juan

(2015) Revisiting the blended learning literature: Using a complex adaptive systems framework. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 18(2): 380–93.

58.

Zepke

Leach

(2010) Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education 11(3): 167–77.