Elsevier

Computers & Education

Volume 175, December 2021, 104318
Computers & Education

A multilevel investigation of factors influencing university students’ behavioral engagement in flipped classrooms

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104318Get rights and content

Highlights

  • This study examines the cross-level interaction of student- and class-level factors.

  • Teaching quality and platform quality are positively related to behavioral engagement.

  • Platform quality plays a moderating role between controlled motivation and engagement.

  • Platform quality plays a moderating role between autonomous motivation and engagement.

  • Self-efficacy plays a moderating role between autonomous motivation and engagement.

Abstract

Students’ behavioral engagement is critical for flipped classroom success. Research on flipped and non-flipped classrooms has provided mixed findings regarding students’ behavioral engagement. Using the motivation-opportunity-ability perspective and self-determination theory, in this study, we aim to empirically test how student-level motivation (i.e., autonomous and controlled), student-level ability (i.e., perceived self-efficacy), and class-level opportunity (i.e., perceived teaching quality and perceived platform quality) influence students’ behavioral engagement in flipped classrooms. Data were collected with a survey completed by 1002 students in 30 classes with flipped classrooms at public and private universities and tested using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). The results revealed that autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, perceived self-efficacy, and perceived teaching quality were critical determinants of university students’ behavioral engagement in flipped classrooms. When perceived self-efficacy was high, the positive relationship between autonomous motivation and behavioral engagement became stronger. Moreover, when perceived platform quality was high, the positive relationship between autonomous motivation and behavioral engagement became stronger. In addition, when perceived platform quality was low, the negative relationship between controlled motivation and behavioral engagement became stronger. Follow-up interviews with the students emphasized five contradictions in flipped classrooms that hindered behavioral engagement—there was tension between types of learning, the videos were boring, not all students actually participated in the discussions, students lacked sufficient time for in-class activities, and teachers did not have good interaction skills. Implications of flipped classrooms are also discussed.

Introduction

Recently, implementation of flipped classrooms in higher education has accelerated in response to the demand for technology-enhanced and student-centered learning environments (Kim, Kim, Khera, & Getman, 2014; Steen-Utheim & Foldnes, 2018; Sun, Xie, & Anderman, 2018). The flipped classroom is a blended teaching method that combines online learning and face-to-face classroom activities (Thai, De Wever, & Valcke, 2017). The idea is to change the order of the education process: The classroom is mainly for knowledge assimilation and is a place for doing homework, learning cooperatively, and solving problems. Out-of-class time is mainly for transmitting knowledge, and students complete learning tasks independently, such as watching instructional videos, reading, and collecting data from websites at a convenient time and place (Fidalgo-Blanco, Martinez-Nuñez, Borrás-Gene, & Sanchez-Medina, 2017).

The flipped classroom model offers students four benefits for learning: reading flexibility, active learning, rich material availability, and technology utilization. (1) Regarding reading flexibility, students are required to complete learning activities outside the classroom. These learning activities are facilitated through technological resources (O’Flaherty & Phillips, 2015), such as learning management systems (LMSs), self-made instructional videos, or open video resources. These resources also allow students to pause or review material, control the pace and frequency, and print slides as additional notes. (2) Regarding active learning, the flipped classroom promotes students’ active, cooperative, and problem-based learning (Mason, Shuman, & Cook, 2013). In-class interaction in a flipped classroom creates a meaningful learning interaction between teachers and students (Lundin, Rensfeldt, Hillman, Lantz-Andersson, & Peterson, 2018). (3) Regarding rich material availability, instructional material can be presented in various formats and cover more course material without sacrificing content than with the traditional classroom method (Mason et al., 2013). (4) Concerning technology utilization, it is much easier for teachers to use online instructional videos and assessment systems, making the flipped classroom effective and scalable (Davies, Dean, & Ball, 2013). The reasons above show that the flipped classroom model offers many advantages over the traditional lecture model.

To be successful, flipped classrooms need student engagement (Lai, 2021). Therefore, improving student engagement in and outside the classroom is imperative (O’Flaherty & Phillips, 2015). Student engagement is multidimensional and typically, conceptualized in three domains: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). A meta-analysis by Lei, Cui, and Zhou (2018) revealed that behavioral engagement is associated with higher academic achievement, followed by cognitive and emotional engagement. Student engagement was most frequently measured from the behavioral perspective—behavioral engagement (Bond, Buntins, Bedenlier, Zawacki-Richter, & Kerres, 2020; Henrie, Halverson, & Graham, 2015)—with indicators such as participation, attendance, assignments completed, time spent online, and on-task behavior (Henrie et al., 2015). A review of the existing literature revealed two justifications for using the flipped classroom approach and students’ behavioral engagement. First, the growing literature indicates that this approach is related to increased behavioral engagement levels (Bond, 2020) compared to behavioral engagement in the traditional classroom approach (Elmaadaway, 2018). However, some researchers (Hodgson, Cunningham, McGee, Kinne, & Murphy, 2017; Lo & Hew, 2021; Subramaniam & Muniandy, 2019) found no significant difference in behavioral engagement between flipped and non-flipped classrooms. Thus, the results found have been inconclusive.

Second, educational data are typically represented at multiple levels, including the class and student levels. Every student is nested within a particular class, and the teacher and students influence one another (Young, Reynolds, & Walberg, 1996). To ensure the persistence of university students’ behavioral engagement in flipped classrooms, it is important to explore how students’ behavioral engagement can be promoted. Their behavioral engagement depends on student- and class-level factors (Gasiewski, Eagan, Garcia, Hurtado, & Chang, 2012). The efficiency of the flipped classroom lies in instructor implementation in a classroom setting (DeLozier & Rhodes, 2017; Hew, Bai, Dawson, & Lo, 2021). Variation in flipped classroom quality must be accounted for; class-level factors may reflect the variation.

The aim of this study is to address the research gaps in previous studies. Thus, the following research questions guided this study:

  • (1)

    How do student- and class-level factors jointly promote students’ behavioral engagement in flipped classrooms?

  • (2)

    What contradictions, if any, arise in students’ behavioral engagement in flipped classrooms?

To address the first question, we investigated student- and class-level factors based on the motivation-opportunity-ability (MOA) perspective and self-determinant theory (SDT) that can help understand how to promote students’ behavioral engagement in flipped classrooms. Our rationale is based on the MOA perspective: Students may have adequate motivation, but ability is needed to perform well in a flipped classroom. Moreover, although students may have adequate motivation, the classroom environment creates the opportunity for engagement. An important implication is that students’ behavioral engagement is enhanced by adequate motivation, readiness to engage in flipped learning, and high perceived teaching quality or perceived platform quality. According to SDT, engagement in human behavior is motivated by autonomous and controlled motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Specifically, student-level motivation (autonomous and controlled motivation), student-level ability (perceived self-efficacy), and class-level opportunity (perceived teaching quality and perceived platform quality) may operate as co-determinants of students’ behavioral engagement in a flipped classroom. To address the second question, we used follow-up interviews and drew on Engeström’s (1987) activity theory to find contradictions that arise in students’ behavioral engagement in flipped classrooms.

Section snippets

Factors influencing students’ behavioral engagement in flipped classrooms

The term “student engagement” originated from school engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004). Student engagement refers to “the energy and effort that students employ within their learning community” (Bond et al., 2020, p. 3). In a systematic review of flipped classrooms in K–12 contexts, Bond (2020) proposed that student engagement in a flipped classroom is influenced by the teacher, curriculum, technology, student, family, and peers. Teacher factors include teachers’ presence, feedback, support,

Research model

To understand how student- and class-level factors promote students’ behavioral engagement in flipped classrooms, we developed a cross-level moderation model (Fig. 2).

Level 1 model

Self-efficacy can be regarded as a self-regulation mechanism (Maricuțoiu & Sulea, 2019). People accomplish tasks depending on their skills and beliefs in efficacy (Bandura, 1993). Individuals with the same knowledge and skills may perform differently depending on fluctuations in individuals self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1993).

Data collection

Before we conducted a formal survey, we performed a pretest and a pilot test to ensure the suitability of the instrument used. Most items were based on previous research (see Appendix B) and pre-tested with a panel of four e-learning professionals to ensure that all items were appropriately adjusted for a flipped classroom and that there were no semantic biases in the translation process from English to Chinese. We made minor changes based on the professionals’ comments. We then pilot tested

Reliability and validity

Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability were used to evaluate the internal consistency of all variables. Table 2 shows that the Cronbach’s alpha values exceeded the 0.7 cutoff values (Nunnally, 1978), and the composite reliability surpassed the 0.70 threshold values (Fornell & Larcker, 1981); thus, adequate reliability of all variables was confirmed. A six-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed that included controlled motivation, autonomous motivation, perceived

Effect of perceived self-efficacy, autonomous motivation, and controlled motivation

We contribute to the literature by offering evidence that students who perceive high self-efficacy or have autonomous motivation may engage in flipped classrooms. These findings confirm previous research that showed perceived self-efficacy is a significant factor in student engagement (Maricuțoiu & Sulea, 2019). Moreover, the findings parallel previous research that autonomous motivation or self-motivation induces more behavioral effort and persistence (Reinholt, Pedersen, & Foss, 2011),

Conclusions and suggestions for future research

In this study, we developed and tested a theoretical model that explores how students’ behavioral engagement can be promoted in flipped classrooms and what contradictions arise. This study contributes to theory and practice in three ways. First, we used a survey to explore the potential antecedents and interaction factors for university students’ behavioral engagement in flipped classrooms. Second, we used the MOA perspective and SDT to select potential factors for student-level motivation

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C ( MOST 106-2511-S-270-001-MY2 and MOST Add-on Grant for International Cooperation).

References (99)

  • W. He et al.

    The effects of flipped instruction on out-of-class study time, exam performance, and student perceptions

    Learning and Instruction

    (2016)
  • C.R. Henrie et al.

    Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review

    Computers & Education

    (2015)
  • K.F. Hew et al.

    Meta-analyses of flipped classroom studies: A review of methodology

    Educational Research Review

    (2021)
  • D.A. Hofmann et al.

    Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations

    Journal of Management

    (1998)
  • H. Jang et al.

    Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model

    Learning and Instruction

    (2016)
  • M.K. Kim et al.

    The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles

    Internet and Higher Education

    (2014)
  • S.C. Kong

    Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy

    Computers & Education

    (2014)
  • S.C. Kong

    An experience of a three-year study on the development of critical thinking skills in flipped secondary classrooms with pedagogical and technological support

    Computers & Education

    (2015)
  • H.-M. Lai

    Understanding what determines university students' behavioral engagement in a group-based flipped learning context

    Computers & Education

    (2021)
  • H.-M. Lai et al.

    The role of motivation, ability, and opportunity in university teachers’ continuance intention of flipped teaching

    Computers & Education

    (2018)
  • D. Li et al.

    Understanding energy-saving behaviors in the American workplace: A unified theory of motivation, opportunity, and ability

    Energy Research & Social Science

    (2019)
  • L.P. Maricuțoiu et al.

    Evolution of self-efficacy, student engagement and student burnout during a semester. A multilevel structural equation modeling approach

    Learning and Individual Differences

    (2019)
  • A. Mouratidis et al.

    It is autonomous, not controlled motivation that counts: Linear and curvilinear relations of autonomous and controlled motivation to school grades

    Learning and Instruction

    (2021)
  • L.R. Murillo-Zamorano et al.

    How the flipped classroom affects knowledge, skills, and engagement in higher education: Effects on students' satisfaction

    Computers & Education

    (2019)
  • J. O'Flaherty et al.

    The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review

    The Internet and Higher Education

    (2015)
  • J. Ranellucci et al.

    Comparing the roles and correlates of emotions in class and during online video lectures in a flipped anatomy classroom

    Contemporary Educational Psychology

    (2021)
  • R.M. Ryan et al.

    Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions

    Contemporary Educational Psychology

    (2000)
  • E. Siemsen et al.

    How motivation, opportunity, and ability drive knowledge sharing: The constraining-factor model

    Journal of Operations Management

    (2008)
  • Y. Sun et al.

    Understanding sustained participation in transactional virtual communities

    Decision Support Systems

    (2012)
  • Z. Sun et al.

    The role of self-regulated learning in students' success in flipped undergraduate math courses

    The Internet and Higher Education

    (2018)
  • N.T.T. Thai et al.

    The impact of a flipped classroom design on learning performance in higher education: Looking for the best “blend” of lectures and guiding questions with feedback

    Computers & Education

    (2017)
  • D.C.D. van Alten et al.

    Effects of flipping the classroom on learning outcomes and satisfaction: A meta-analysis

    Educational Research Review

    (2019)
  • F.H. Wang

    On the relationships between behaviors and achievement in technology-mediated flipped classrooms: A two-phase online behavioral PLS-SEM model

    Computers & Education

    (2019)
  • Z. Wan et al.

    Why people benefit from e-learning differently: The effects of psychological processes on e-learning outcomes

    Information & Management

    (2008)
  • M. Zhou

    Chinese university students' acceptance of MOOCs: A self-determination perspective

    Computers & Education

    (2016)
  • I. Alvarez et al.

    The value of feedback in improving collaborative writing assignments in an online learning environment

    Studies in Higher Education

    (2012)
  • R. Amstelveen

    Flipping a college mathematics classroom: An action research project

    Education and Information Technologies

    (2019)
  • A. Bandura

    Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change

    Psychological Review

    (1977)
  • A. Bandura

    Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning

    Educational Psychologist

    (1993)
  • M. Blumberg et al.

    The missing opportunity in organizational research: Some implications for a theory of work performance

    Academy of Management Review

    (1982)
  • M. Bond et al.

    Facilitating student engagement through educational technology: Towards a conceptual framework

    Journal of Interactive Media in Education

    (2019)
  • M. Bond et al.

    Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map

    International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education

    (2020)
  • A.S. Bryk et al.

    Advanced qualitative techniques in the social sciences, 1. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods

    (1992)
  • A.S. Burke et al.

    Does “flipping” promote engagement?: A comparison of a traditional, online, and flipped class

    Active Learning in Higher Education

    (2017)
  • S.-C. Cheng et al.

    Critical research advancements of flipped learning: A review of the top 100 highly cited papers. Interactive learning environments

    (2020)
  • Y. Chen et al.

    Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead?

    Computers & Education

    (2014)
  • J.G.A. Churchill et al.

    Basic marketing research

    (2010)
  • R.E. Clark

    Media will never influence learning

    Educational Technology Research & Development

    (1994)
  • R.S. Davies et al.

    Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course

    Educational Technology Research & Development

    (2013)
  • Cited by (27)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text