A meta-analysis of online learning, blended learning, the flipped classroom and classroom instruction for pre-service and in-service teachers
Open accessAbstract
This is a study of two populations of learners/teachers: Pre-service teacher students (i.e., formal education for teaching certification) and In-service teachers (i.e., engaged in professional development), and involves an examination of their use of internet-based instructional applications. In these studies, the technologies are: a) Online Learning [OL]; b) Blended Learning [BL] and c) Flipped Classrooms [FC]. Treatments were compared to standard face-to-face classroom instruction (CI) on three dependent measures analysed separately to produce 77 achievement measures in the first meta-analysis, 21 attitude/satisfaction measures in the second, and 22 studies of self-efficacy in the third. Achievement data yielded a statistically significant, moderate effect size (i.e., g+= 0.44) in favor of the combined OL, BL and FC approaches versus CI, although OL showed only a small positive effect versus CI. Attitude yielded a non-significant effect size comparing CI with technology-supported strategies (g+= 0.12). Interestingly, self-efficacy produced a significant and moderate average random effect size of g+ = 0.45. Perhaps the most impactful finding of this analysis is related to improved performance of BL/FC when contrasted with OL, yielding significantly positive differences in all three measures. This confirms that improved outcomes are the result of better pedagogy, not the mere presence of technology. Finally, self-efficacy was found to be meaningfully improved when using BL/FC. This is the first meta-analysis with this target population implicating self-efficacy. These two outcomes offer important implications for institutions regarding the future design of instructional delivery for both pre- and in-service teachers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Online courses, especially in asynchronous and self-paced formats, allow participants to access learning content and materials on their own and to learn independently of time and place.
“Online courses, especially in asynchronous and self-paced formats, allow participants to access learning content and materials on their own and to learn independently of time and place (Schmid et al., 2023).”
From Artificial intelligence in higher education: exploring faculty use, self-efficacy, distinct profiles, and professional development needs (2024) · cites this paper as Schmid et al., 2023
Cites
Media will never influence learning
Clark, R. E. (1994) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/bf02299088 · Cited by 1,893 · see citing works
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543074003379 · Cited by 1,761 · see citing works
Self-citationThe effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013) · Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1177/016146811311500307 · Cited by 1,638 · see citing works
Sources of Self-Efficacy in School: Critical Review of the Literature and Future Directions
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654308321456 · Cited by 1,514 · see citing works
Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654310393361 · Cited by 1,029 · see citing works
Self-citationHow Methodological Features Affect Effect Sizes in Education
Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2016) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x16656615 · Cited by 529 · see citing works
Cheng, L., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Antonenko, P. (2019) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-018-9633-7 · Cited by 494 · see citing works
Pigott, T. D. (2012) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2278-5 · Cited by 453 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mah, D.-K., & Groß, N. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00490-1 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
“Online courses, especially in asynchronous and self-paced formats, allow participants to access learning content and materials on their own and to learn independently of time and place (Schmid et al., 2023).”
- Authors
- Schmid, R. F., Borokhovski, E., Bernard, R. M., Pickup, D. I., & Abrami, P. C.
- Affiliations
- Concordia University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Schmid, Richard F.
- Venue
- Computers and Education Open
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-12
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 100142
- ISSN
- 2666-5573 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4380886849
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 5
- FWCI
- 4.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers and Education Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- International Development Research Centre
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Keywords
- online learning, blended learning, flipped classroom, pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, teacher professional development, professional development, self-efficacy, academic performance, student attitudes, face-to-face teaching, educational technology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review