The role of asynchronous and synchronous activities in university academic performance: A comparative study of traditional and inverted class methodologies

Purpose: The objective of this work is to investigate the effect of synchronous and asynchronous activities on the academic performance of university students. For this purpose, the academic results obtained and the involvement and motivation of the student and the teacher in the different learning methodologies involved are analyzed. Students’ perception of the effectiveness of the flipped class with the face-to-face classroom and online methodologies is compared to that of the traditional learning methodology. Design/methodology/approach: Data were collected from undergraduate students in three marketing courses and were analyzed through a quantitative descriptive, quasi-experimental and cross-sectional study. Academic performance with the different learning methodologies and the effect of synchronous and asynchronous activities on academic performance were compared using logistic regression on each course and methodology. Findings: The results showed that academic performance in synchronous and asynchronous activities was better in the flipped class, except for synchronous activities in the online flipped class. In addition, the best academic performance was obtained in the face-to-face inverted classes. The explanatory effect of asynchronous activities on academic performance was also identified. The greatest predictive capacity and the best prognosis were obtained in the online inverted classes. Students expect to obtain satisfactory results with the inverted class methodology and perceive it as effective, although they prefer a mixture of inverted classes and the traditional methodology. Originality/value: We contribute to theoretical and practical research with this new model to study the influence of the flipped learning methodology and asynchronous and synchronous activities on academic performance. We believe that these results, despite the specific and limited scope of the study, will be of great interest to the teaching community and contribute to improving the motivation and performance of students, which constitutes a main challenge in the higher education systemPeer Reviewe

E-Learning in Postsecondary Education

Over the past decade postsecondary education has been moving increasingly from the class room to online. During the fall 2010 term 31 percent of U.S. college students took at least one online course. The primary reasons for the growth of e-learning in the nation\u27s colleges and universities include the desire of those institutions to generate new revenue streams, improve access, and offer students greater scheduling flexibility. Yet the growth of e-learning has been accompanied by a continuing debate about its effectiveness and by the recognition that a number of barriers impede its widespread adoption in higher education

Student Satisfaction and Performance in an Online Teacher Certification Program

The article presents a study which demonstrates the effectiveness of an online post baccalaureate teacher certification program developed by a Wisconsin university. The case method approach employing multiple methods and multiple data sources were used to investigate the degree to which pre-service teachers were prepared to teach. It was concluded that the study supports online delivery as an effective means of teacher preparation, but it was limited in the number of students followed into their first year of teaching

Student Evaluation of Teaching: The Inequity of Faculty Scores in Online versus Face-to-Face Courses

Researchers have conducted a multitude of studies over the last century on Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET); however, very few have been conducted in the new digital age (Loveland, 2007). More work is in progress as researchers try to define the differences in student responses and thoughts about the online teaching environment. The unfortunate side of this can be the administrative decision to use a one-size-fits-all mentality when many authors including Dziuban and Moskal (2011) have outlined several research-based alternatives for evaluation of online instructional effectiveness. SETs are important to faculty because they often are the determining factor in merit pay and tenure/promotion. Faculty use SETs to guide decision-making about their curriculum and instructional strategies used to deliver the course (Sheehan & DuPrey, 1999). The power of the SET is recognized as a driving force in academia. What are often not discussed are the differences between SET for face-to-face courses versus SET for online courses

Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies

A systematic search of the research literature from 1996 through July 2008 identified more than a thousand empirical studies of online learning. Analysts screened these studies to find those that (a) contrasted an online to a face-to-face condition, (b) measured student learning outcomes, (c) used a rigorous research design, and (d) provided adequate information to calculate an effect size. As a result of this screening, 51 independent effects were identified that could be subjected to meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found that, on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction. The difference between student outcomes for online and face-to-face classes—measured as the difference between treatment and control means, divided by the pooled standard deviation—was larger in those studies contrasting conditions that blended elements of online and face-to-face instruction with conditions taught entirely face-to-face. Analysts noted that these blended conditions often included additional learning time and instructional elements not received by students in control conditions. This finding suggests that the positive effects associated with blended learning should not be attributed to the media, per se. An unexpected finding was the small number of rigorous published studies contrasting online and face-to-face learning conditions for K–12 students. In light of this small corpus, caution is required in generalizing to the K–12 population because the results are derived for the most part from studies in other settings (e.g., medical training, higher education)