Cited by 70Online and Blended LearningTechnology-Enhanced Education StudiesInnovative Teaching Methods

A meta-analysis of online learning, blended learning, the flipped classroom and classroom instruction for pre-service and in-service teachers

Open access
Schmid, Richard F., Borokhovski, Eugene, Bernard, Robert M., Pickup, David I., Abrami, Phillip C.·2023·Computers and Education Open

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100142

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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