Next Article in Journal
Health Information Systems in the Digital Health Ecosystem—Problems and Solutions for Ethics, Trust and Privacy
Next Article in Special Issue
A Longitudinal Study of a Multicomponent Exercise Intervention with Remote Guidance among Breast Cancer Patients
Previous Article in Journal
New Insights about Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome (CPPS)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Vibrotactile Feedback on Sedentary Behaviors in Adults: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Dietary Intervention through Flipped Learning as a Techno Pedagogy for the Promotion of Healthy Eating in Secondary Education

Juan Antonio López Núñez
Jesús López-Belmonte
Antonio-José Moreno-Guerrero
José Antonio Marín-Marín
Department of Didactics and School Organization, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(9), 3007;
Submission received: 27 March 2020 / Revised: 22 April 2020 / Accepted: 24 April 2020 / Published: 26 April 2020


Technological progress in the educational field has led to the application of active and innovative teaching methods, such as flipped learning, including in the field of dietary education. This is considered a mixed formative approach that combines face-to-face and outside the classroom education. The objective of this research was to analyze the effectiveness of flipped learning methodology on a traditional training practice in dietary training, both in the sixth grade of primary education and in the fourth level of secondary education. A quasi-experimental design was adopted with two experimental groups, two control groups and only posttest. The final sample was composed of 115 students divided into four groups, two of each educational stage mentioned. A didactic unit consisting of six sessions in all groups was applied. Two different training methodologies were followed according to the nature of the group (control-traditional; experimental-flipped learning). The results reveal that flipped learning is effective both in primary education and in secondary education, being more influential in student development in this last stage. It is concluded that the flipped learning approach has meant an improvement of the academic indicators evaluated after a diet education program.

1. Introduction

The advancement of information and communication technologies (ICT) is generating new trends and ways of acting in people’s daily lives. This fact does not go unnoticed in the various social sectors, specifically in education [1], where a process of constant digitalization is taking place [2]. Technological innovations in teaching are generating new training processes, thus promoting innovative educational praxis [3]. Training actions linked to the use of ICT [4], also called techno-pedagogical [5], promote a series of potentials such as the exchange of roles between educational agents [6], the emergence of new teaching methods [7], the use of new resources and educational materials [8], training development anywhere and at any time [9], and access to a large amount of information [10].
All this generates new scenarios in teaching and learning processes [11], which cause improvements in attitudinal, aptitude, and performance aspects in the students themselves [12]. Therefore, we are facing a process of pedagogical renewal [13]. An example of technopedagogy is flipped learning (FL) teaching method [14].

1.1. The Use of Flipped Learning in the Educational Field

FL can be defined as a teaching-learning method or process that combines the face-to-face plane with the outside the classroom [15]. This techno-pedagogical praxis is booming in the academic world [16], since it is being used at all educational levels [17], allowing for structuring of academic experiences to achieve a greater learning result [18] due to the effectiveness, the practicality, and the dynamism that it generates in the instructive processes [19]. This method is increasingly used by teachers, who are getting better results in their students with this innovative methodology than with the use of a traditional approach [20].
The configuration of FL tries to turn the traditional teaching acts [21,22], allocating the outside the classroom period to acquire, assimilate, and settle the theoretical contents proposed for the subject [23] and dedicating the face-to-face period to solving problems and developing practical actions [24] through direct and continuous interaction of the teacher with the students and of the students themselves [25] (Table 1). Although this does not ensure a greater connection and awareness by parents of their children’s teaching and learning processes, it can lead to an improvement in the training process, obtaining advantages and reporting potentialities at the academic level [26].
This teaching method requires an effort by the teacher [27], since they must generate educational content, sometimes under audiovisual support [5], host them on a digital platform with easy access for students [28], and propose work dynamics for the face-to-face period [29], promoting high quality teaching and learning activities in the classroom based on the autonomous study of the students. Students also make an effort to take an active formative action and are responsible for their own learning [17]. However, the research results focus on specific contexts, the evidence for which must be treated with caution [30].
The use of FL can promote and generate a range of advantages at the academic level, such as an increase in the interaction between students [31] and between the teacher and the student [23], an increase in motivation [32], increased participation [33], improved attitude towards the training process [34], greater commitment to the task [35], adaptation of the pedagogical act to the individual characteristics of the students [36], greater autonomy on the part of the student [37], increased socialization between educational agents [38], and increased academic performance [39]. All this can generate improvements in student ratings [40], a positive effect on learning outcomes [41], and greater assimilation of the curricular elements proposed for the subject [42].

1.2. Dietary Habits as a Factor of Health and Development in School Children

Nutrition has a high impact on the health status of people [43], since a diet based on its quality can prevent diseases [44] or cause them [45]. In this sense, the fact of being overweight or obese can generate serious public health problems [46], affecting the increase in the mortality rate [47]. In the educational field, the assimilation of good eating habits in students [48] acquires great relevance, given that the actions developed through transversal treatment or nutritional education programs promote adequate dietary guidelines [49,50] while avoiding bad praxis, among which is the intake of sugars and other substances harmful to health [51,52], especially in those people who have various diseases, such as diabetes or cardiovascular problems [53,54].
Currently, educational actions related to nutrition are increasing through the use of innovative methodologies such as distance education [55] or emerging technologies such as augmented reality [56], which are turning out to be effective methods both in learning and in changing dietary habits [57]. In addition, pedagogical actions in which healthy diets are promoted and associated with moderate physical activity lead to improvements in the organism at the arterial level, in the body mass index, in the decrease of the fat index, and in the decrease of cholesterol [58]; it is even determined that it has a positive impact on students’ academic performance [59].

1.3. Justification and Objectives

Recent studies support the use of active methodologies such as FL to carry out a training action where students are the main protagonist and builder of their own knowledge through the use of educational technology that is constantly evolving as a consequence of the incidence of an increasingly digital society [11,60].
To verify the different findings postulated by experts in this field of knowledge, this research is presented—with an exploratory nature—on dietary education, justified in the absence of studies certifying the effectiveness of a methodological contrast (FL-traditional) to training level in two different educational stages (primary and secondary education). This experimentation allows us to offer new findings to the scientific community about the state of the matter. In addition, this work reduces the gap in this field of knowledge found in the impact literature, establishing a starting point for future studies.
In addition, there are few studies that analyze active teaching methods for the training of dietetic education, focusing mainly on the collaborative method [61], thus this study aims to provide a pedagogical proposal for training in dietetic education from an innovative perspective in a branch of education that is reaching great relevance today due to eating disorders that occur in today’s society [62].
After analyzing various recent impact studies that carried out training practices and experiences using FL in different subjects and educational levels, it was verified that they all follow the same methodological pattern, that is, the application of this approach mostly uses a similar instructional procedure [63,64,65,66,67,68]. The processes are synthesized in the previous visualization of videos outside the school environment, followed by the carrying out of practical activities in the educational center, then ending with a reinforcement again in digital media to solve doubts that have arisen and to visualize new audiovisual content of the next sessions formative [21,22,23,24,25]. Therefore, the literature reflects how FL implementation process does not differ according to subjects, content, or educational levels. The scientific and teaching community follows the steps, the principles, and the methodological guidelines established by the forerunners of this innovative teaching approach, Jonathan Bergmann and Aaron Sams [21], in order to carry out an optimal teaching and learning process adapted to new times through which education runs and, above all, respecting the raison d’être of this approach. However, FL approach, when presenting some intrinsic formative peculiarities by nature, as previously mentioned, does change with respect to other instructional methods, since each one has its characteristics, tools, and methodological processes that make them different and unique [60]. The present study, despite not having previous literature in which to lean within the field of dietetic education due to the absence of works that have experienced FL in contents alluding to said field of knowledge, aims to explore the potentialities of this focus on dietary education versus traditional teaching, as it has already been revealing in other knowledge and areas of knowledge.
The purpose of this research is to continue the path initiated by other studies conducted on FL in different formative contexts [69,70,71,72,73,74], where it is demonstrated that the potential of FL is better in secondary education than in primary education [5,14,17,75]. The staging of FL helps to carry out training practices typical of an era where technology and methodologies based on its use acquire a relevant value in the educational field [76]. In this study, there is a contrast between an innovative methodology such as FL with a traditional exhibition methodology based on the transmission of content by the teacher and orally, without the use of digital resources [77].
The objectives of this research focused on: (1) checking the effectiveness of FL on a traditional methodology in sixth grade primary education and fourth year of secondary education; (2) determining the course that obtained the best results in the experimentation. The specific objectives that conducted the investigation were the following:
  • To specify the level of motivation of the students.
  • To find out the level of interaction.
  • To know the level of autonomy of the students.
  • To discover the level of collaboration of students.
  • To determine the level of deepening of the didactic contents.
  • To find out the level of problem solving.
  • To discover the level of class time.
  • To determine the influence in the qualifications.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design and Data Analysis

The study was carried out through a quasi-experimental design of a descriptive and correlational type based on a quantitative methodology of statistical treatment of the data, according to the specialists in this field of analysis [78,79]. Likewise, the investigative structure of recent studies of the impact literature was followed in order to follow a validated research model [5,14,80].
The design used required the establishment of two types of groups (control = CG; experimental = EG). The difference between groups was established at the formative level. The CG followed a traditional instructional action. The EG developed the training through FL approach. This group configuration established as an independent variable the type of training methodology and as a dependent variable the effectiveness obtained in the academic items used in the experimentation.
All information collected was managed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) v25 program (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). To extract the results, several statistics were used, such as mean (M) and standard deviation (SD). The distribution trend was determined with skewness (Skw) and kurtosis (Kme). The comparison of the means between CG-EG was carried out with the t-Student test (tn1 + n2-2). The effect size was obtained with Cohen’s d and biserial correlation (rxy). A p < 0.05 was established as a level of statistical significance.d

2.2. Participants

The experimentation was carried out with a sample of 115 students from an educational center in Spain. For this, an intentional non-probabilistic sampling technique was used. Regarding the volume of participation, the literature states that the number of subjects in this type of study does not affect their performance and does not obtain significant results [81,82].
Of the students chosen, 57.39% were boys and the rest girls with an average age of 14 years (SD = 2.91). Students were enrolled in sixth grade of primary education and fourth year of secondary education. These courses were chosen because they are the last level of each educational stage. This favors the comparison between stages because the students have already reached the last year and have worked on the different skills of each stage in its entirety. These aspects taken into account justify the choice of the chosen courses and favor the generalization of the results achieved.
With the sample reached, four groups were established. Two control groups (primary education = CGP1; secondary education = CGP2) and two experimental (primary education = EGP1; secondary education = EGP2). As indicated in Table 2, the applied treatment (innovative FL methodology) was carried out in a probabilistic way in the experimental groups, and only a single final measurement was made in each of the groups.

2.3. Instrument

The data were collected by an ad hoc questionnaire. This tool was made according to different instruments found in the expert literature on FL [5,14,78,81,82]. At a structural level, the questionnaire is articulated in nine dimensions (socio-educational, motivation, interactions, autonomy, collaboration, content deepening, problem solving, class time, and ratings) with a total of 35 items that follow a response format in Likert scale (from 1 = none to 4 = completely). In addition, the qualifications collected by the teacher were taken into account.
The validity of the questionnaire was achieved in two processes, both qualitatively and quantitatively. The Delphi method was the procedure used for qualitative validity. Eight university doctors’ experts in active and emerging methodologies were selected. These professionals analyzed the format, the structure of the questionnaire, and the various items. The assessment was positive (M = 4.64; SD = 0.37; min = 1; max = 6). The observations and the proposals for improvement were focused on the reduction and the grouping of some issues and on the modification of the lexical level of certain items, with the intention of improving the understanding of the issues. All expert recommendations were made to optimize the instrument and reduce bias due to participants’ misunderstanding.
For quantitative validity, the Kappa of Fleiss and W of Kendall tests were used to analyze the judgments offered by the specialists. These statistics revealed an adequate level of concordance and relevance of the feedback delivered (K = 0.84; W = 0.86).
An exploratory factor analysis by the principal component’s method was the procedure used for the quantitative validation of the questionnaire. For this purpose, several tests were carried out, such as the Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which determined dependence between the variables (2613.28; p < 0.001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test, which revealed a relevant adequacy of the sample (KMO = 0.87).
To obtain the reliability of the questionnaire, several statistical tests were used, such as Cronbach’s alpha (α) (0.86), compound reliability (0.84), and mean variance extracted (0.81), which reflected adequate internal consistency indices in the items presented.

2.4. Study Dimensions

The dimensions analyzed in this study were taken from other studies reported in the impact literature on the state of the matter that analyzed the incidence of FL in other subjects, social contexts, and educational levels. The dimensions are described below to facilitate the interpretation of the results obtained. In addition, for greater scientific rigor, the choice of each dimension is supported by previous studies, where the adequacy and the relevance in the use of such dimensions is verified.
Socio-educational encompasses aspects related to gender, age, city, nationality, religion, course, learning difficulties, training methodology, and use of digital resources [14,60,73,78,83,84,85,86]. Motivation refers to the degree of motivation of the students during the learning process [14,60,73,78,83,84,85,86]. Interactions groups the type of interaction possible in learning actions such as the interaction between the teacher and the students, between the students and the didactic contents, and, finally, between the students [14,63,78,83,84,85]. Autonomy determines the degree of autonomy reflected by the students in carrying out the various training activities, both teaching and learning [14,60,67,78,83,84,85,86]. Collaboration refers to the degree of teamwork achieved by students in the instructional process [14,73,78,83,84,85]. Content deepening reflects the degree of projection (greater or lesser dedication) of teachers in the contents according to the training methodology used [14,73,78,83,84,85]. Problem solving reveals the degree of competence of the students to attend and solve the contingencies originated or proposed during the formative action. Class time refers to the temporary availability to impart, work, and reinforce the contents by the educational agents [14,73,78,83,84,85]. Ratings refers to the grades obtained by students in the assessment test performed to measure assimilated knowledge. These dimensions, which measure the level of knowledge acquisition by the students, were carried out by means of the questionnaire, in which they were asked: what is your average mark in general? what is your general average in the subject of physical education? and what has been the mark you have obtained in the subject of physical education after the development of the experience? The relevance in the use of this dimension is justified by previous studies that reflect its proper use to measure the learning results achieved by students [14,73,78,83,84,85]. The teacher ratings dimension includes the student’s ratings according to the teachers who taught the subject. In both cases, the same assessment techniques and instruments were used. In other words, the written test was used, which was worth 60% of the final rating of the subject, along with direct observation, with a weighting of 20% of the final rating, and the portfolio, with a weighting of 20% [86].

2.5. Procedure

To carry out the experimentation, several processes had to be carried out. At first, the educational center was selected—a school in southern Spain that contains several educational levels. Afterwards, a meeting was held with the representatives to explain the purpose of the study and obtain permission to access the sample. Next, the participants were chosen intentionally, and the analysis groups were set up. By having two student groups for each educational level, the allocation of control group and experimental group occurred randomly. Then, the training phase began in which a didactic unit of dietary education was developed in the subject of physical education within the health content block. The teaching unit was composed of six sessions, and the following content was taught: (a) healthy life; (b) feeding habits; (c) dietary guidelines; (d) harmful consequences for health.
Methodologically, the teaching unit—according to the group of students—was carried out differently.
In the control group, the teacher developed the different sessions in a traditional way. No digital tools were used in this group. The teacher became the only source of knowledge transmission. The students assumed a passive role, their only task being to listen to the explanations and carry out the training activities in the classroom. These activities consisted of the realization of files with activities related to the contents taught orally by the teacher. The activities were carried out individually and consisted of answering various issues related to the subject in writing. All the formative action, both the teaching and the learning of the contents, occurred physically in the classroom. No action was taken outside the school space. The teacher spent a short time in the classroom to perform the activities. Students finished home activities not completed in class without any teacher support in the space outside the classroom.
The experimental group performed a learning process through FL. The teacher generated audiovisual teaching material. These resources were stored on a content platform so that students could view them anywhere outside the school environment and before the classroom session. The content delivery process occurred digitally and autonomously by the students. This allowed other activities focused on research, teamwork, and problem solving to be carried out in the classroom. This allowed the development of a variety of training activities and a longer class time for its realization, because the explanations of the contents were transferred to a previous digital space. Therefore, the students became active agents in the construction of knowledge. The students achieved greater prominence during the learning process by having to visualize the audiovisual material in other learning spaces outside the school and perform different training activities on the contents displayed in different formats (answer questionnaires, find information on the subject, solve issues and problems raised by the teacher collaboratively with other students). The audiovisual material was always available so that the students could view it at any time to answer their questions or reinforce the contents. For all this, the guidance of the teacher during the activities carried out in the classroom was essential.
The last phase consisted of applying the questionnaire and analyzing the data collected at the statistical level in order to respond to the objectives formulated in the research in addition to increasing the literature on the application of emerging methodologies—in this case FL, for the delivery of content related to healthy dietary habits.

3. Results

According to the data obtained in the descriptive analysis, specifically in the group of primary education students, the means presented by the CG were below two points in all the variables analyzed, except in motivation, student–student, and collaboration, which were slightly above. In the EG, the means reached were above 2.5 points in all variables, except for student–content, student–student, deepening, and resolution, which were slightly below. Differences in ratings between students and teachers varied but were minimal. Ratings were higher according to the teachers. The values in the variables of the control group and the experimental group, taking into account what was marked by [87], offered a normal distribution, since they were between −1.96 and +1.96. The standard deviation showed a distribution of response matched by the participants in all the variables in both groups, except in collaboration and class time, of the CG, and deepening, resolution, and class time of the EG, where the response was more dispersed. The kurtosis shown in all the variables was platykurtic, except in ratings, where it was leptokurtic, and in student–content, where it was mesokurtic, both of the CG (Table 3).
In secondary education students, the CG averages were below two points, except in motivation, student–student, and collaboration, which were slightly above that average. In contrast, the average obtained by the EG in all the variables analyzed was located above 2.5 points. In this case, as in the past, the differences in ratings between students and teachers varied, although these differences were minimal. Ratings were higher according to the teachers. With the values of the standard deviation in mind, the answers given by the CG were more evenly matched, while those given by the EG were more dispersed. With respect to kurtosis, it was mostly platykurtic, except in teacher–student, deepening, and CG ratings, which were leptokurtic (Table 4).
In the comparison of the students of the primary education and secondary education stages, it was shown that the measures offered by the CGs were very even with each other, showing similar values. On the other hand, in the EG, there was a difference between both educational stages, finding a higher valuation on the part of the students of secondary education than those of primary education in the developed educational experience. The data also showed that there were differences between the values of the CG with respect to the EG, with the latter valuations being higher in all the analyzed variables (Figure 1).
To determine the value of independence of the data collected between the traditional teaching method and the teaching method developed by FL, the Student t statistic was used for the independent samples. According to the results obtained, there were more significant differences in the course of secondary education than in that of primary education, since in the primary education stage, it turned out to be significant in teacher–student, referring to the relationship established and maintained between the student and the teacher; in autonomy, related to the capacity to develop learning and activities in an autonomous way, thus developing the learning to learn competence; in in-depth, in which the teacher, due to the tasks carried out, made it possible to present the content presented in a more detailed way; in class time, with the feeling that the student were able to learn much more quickly than is usually the case for him/her; in grades, aimed at the student’s ability to assess his/her academic development; and in teacher–class, in which the grades established by the teacher for the student were analyzed. On the other hand, in secondary education, this was the case in all the variables analyzed, except in the student–student one; that is to say, the fact of applying the teaching method by means of FL does not suppose an improvement in the relations among the own students. These results show that the flipped learning method is more effective in secondary education students than in primary education students (Table 5).

4. Discussion

The influence of ICT in the new millennium has overcome all kinds of borders [1]. Technology has reached the educational field to produce change and improve and enhance learning processes [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. FL is a product derived from the constant evolution of educational technology [11,12,13,14]. This hybrid learning method, by combining both face-to-face and outside the classroom aspects, has allowed the incentivizing and the dynamization of training activities [15]. Expert literature in this field of knowledge reflects how the application of FL reports a learning benefit made by students [19]. Recent research analyzed various academic indicators and verified how the application of FL contributes to improving the indexes of both academic (content deepening, class time, and ratings) and psychosocial variables (motivation, student–content–teacher interactions, autonomy, collaboration, and problem solving) with respect to the implementation of other methodologies, such as the traditional one of an expository nature [5,14,16,17,18,19,20,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,76].
The aim of this research was to understand the effectiveness of FL methodology on the traditional teaching method. This was developed in the sixth grade of primary education and in the fourth grade of secondary education. The data shown by the 115 participants allowed us to respond to the objectives set. In this study, the contrast made between an innovative training method, such as FL, and a traditional method without ICT support, such as the expository, allowed us to demonstrate the potential of FL regardless of the educational stage where it is implemented as well as other research reported from the literature in different contexts and didactic contents [14,17,18,78,84].
In a more concrete way, the use of FL in the educational field, as was obtained in this study, leads to improvements in motivation [33,34], in the interactions between educational agents and content [23,31], in the autonomy achieved by students [35,37], in the collaboration for the development of the training activities [33,38], in the deepening of the contents [73], in the effective resolution to the problems posed by the teacher in the learning spaces [83], in the use of a longer class time [85], and in the ratings achieved by the students in the evaluations carried out, which are linked to performance and learning outcomes [39,40,41,42].
It should also be noted that the differences between the qualifications offered by the teachers themselves and those of the students themselves varied, although the difference was very small. In this case, teachers in both primary and secondary education had higher ratings than those considered by students themselves. With respect to the comparison made between the educational stages chosen in this experiment, it was obtained that, in the secondary education stage, specifically in the fourth year, the use of FL improved more indicators analyzed and with a higher rate of improvement than in the sixth primary education course [14,78]. Particularly, the aspects enhanced in secondary education were motivation, interactions (student–content and student–student), autonomy, collaboration among students, content deepening, problem solving, class time, ratings, and teacher-ratings. However, one aspect to note is that, in the sixth year of primary education, teacher–student interactions achieved better results.
At the statistical level, the study of the value of independence allowed us to achieve more precise results among the groups analyzed. The statistics used showed greater significant differences in the fourth year of secondary education (motivation, teacher–student, student–content, autonomy, collaboration, deepening, resolution, class time, and ratings) than in the sixth year of primary education (teacher–student, autonomy, deepening, class time, and ratings). Everything had a medium associative force, except in the motivation of EG, which was lower. The effect size was very low in the aspects analyzed, except in the autonomy of the CG, where it was slightly higher.
Evidence of significant differences between primary and secondary education groups is noteworthy. As established in the results, both in the control group and in the experimental group, it was shown that there was no significant relationship in the student–student dimension, which was in the relationship established between students during the development of the teaching and learning process [31]. This may have been due to the fact that the methodology applied did not necessarily require team or group work [24] but rather maintained a more individualized and personalized attention with the students, allowing the autonomous learning of the students to be better developed, as if it was reflected in a significant way in both groups [36]. In addition, it was shown that, in primary education, the flipped learning method was less relevant than in secondary education. This may have been due to access to technological resources, where secondary education students had more facilities than primary education students [29]. Another reason may have been the degree of maturity of students, who, in the primary education stage, required closer attention from teachers. This was not the case in secondary education, where students were more independent [27].

5. Conclusions

With this experimentation, continuing the path of previous research, it is concluded that FL approach implies greater advantages in teaching and learning processes of content related to dietary education than the application of traditional instructional methods where the teacher simply exposes the contents orally and grants little participation to students. In addition, it is verified that, although relevant results were obtained in both educational stages, it was in the secondary education stage where FL reached better rates. Therefore, this study reveals that the use of FL to impart content concerning healthy life, feeding habits, dietary guidelines, and harmful consequences for health is effective.
The present study allows the teachers who develop their teaching in the stages of secondary and primary education to know the effectiveness of FL method in the process of teaching and learning. This research aims to provide them with the procedure to follow in order to apply it in the classroom. Additionally, with this teaching method, we wanted to show the teachers that it is possible to carry it out in the stages of primary and secondary education. Furthermore, this research shows that teaching and learning processes developed with FL are more effective and better valued by students. That is to say, it is intended to make teachers who habitually apply the traditional method reflect on it so that they begin to use other methodologies, such as FL.
The prospect of this research focuses on the promotion of innovative methodologies for teaching and learning health-related content and adequate guidelines on food. The correct assimilation of these contents in students is fundamental for the development of a healthy life free of diseases as well as the awareness of young people towards active and healthy lifestyles. This study acquires an exploratory nuance by not finding impact research that used FL to impart content related to dietary education, in the same way as that carried out in this research. This causes a gap in the scientific literature, as there are not enough studies to build a solid base of knowledge backed by experts in the field. Therefore, the scientific community is encouraged to carry out studies on the state of the matter to continue contrasting the effectiveness of this teaching and learning methodology in dietary education in other geographical contexts and educational levels. This will contribute gradually to solving the gap found in the academic literature.
This study has several limitations. Experimentation was only developed in a specific geographical context, and only one course was taken from each educational stage. Another limitation is found in the ratings dimension that, despite being justified and supported by previous studies, can cause certain imbalances in the results, as it is a report of the children themselves. Therefore, the conclusions revealed here should be taken with caution since they cannot be generalized to the world population as a whole. To solve these limitations, as a future line of research, this study is intended to be replicated in other regions and courses of the aforementioned stages in order to establish more precise comparisons in addition to looking for other indicators used in impact studies to verify the improvement of student learning and knowledge.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.A.L.N. and J.L.-B.; methodology, J.L.-B.; software, A.-J.M.-G.; formal analysis, A.-J.M.-G.; investigation, J.A.L.N., J.L.-B., A.-J.M.-G. and J.A.M.-M.; data curation, J.L.-B. and A.-J.M.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, J.A.L.N., J.L.-B., A.-J.M.-G. and J.A.M.-M.; writing—review and editing, J.A.L.N., J.L.-B., A.J.M.G. and J.A.M.-M.; visualization, J.A.L.N.; supervision, J.A.M.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was funded by I+D+I OTRI-Universidad de Granada CNT-4315. Metodologías activas para el aprendizaje mediante recursos tecnológicos para el desarrollo de la sociedad.


We acknowledge the researchers of the research group AREA (HUM-672), which belongs to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Junta de Andalucía and is registered in the Department of Didactics and School Organization of the Faculty of Education Sciences of the University of Granada.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Maldonado, G.A.; García, J.; Sampedro-Requena, B. The effect of ICT and social networks on university students. RIED 2019, 22, 153–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Area, M.; Hernández, V.; Sosa, J.J. Modelos de integración didáctica de las TIC en el aula. Comunicar 2016, 24, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Garrote, D.; Arenas, J.A.; Jiménez-Fernández, S. ICT as tools for the development of intercultural competence. EDMETIC 2018, 7, 166–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Li, S.; Yamaguchi, S.; Sukhbaatar, J.; Takada, J. The influence of teachers’ professional development activities on the factors promoting ict integration in primary schools in mongolia. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. López, J.; Pozo, S.; Fuentes, A.; López, J.A. Creación de contenidos y flipped learning: Un binomio necesario para la educación del nuevo milenio. Revista Española de Pedagogía 2019, 77, 535–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Álvarez-Rodríguez, M.D.; Bellido-Márquez, M.D.; Atencia-Barrero, P. Teaching though ICT in Obligatory Secundary Education. Analysis of online teaching tools. RED 2019, 1, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. López-Quintero, J.L.; Pontes-Pedrajas, A.; Varo-Martínez, M. The role of ICT in Hispanic American scientific and technological education: A review of literature. Dig. Educ. Rev. 2019, 1, 229–243. [Google Scholar]
  8. Khine, M.S.; Ali, N.; Afari, E. Exploring relationships among TPACK constructs and ICT achievement among trainee teachers. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2017, 22, 1605–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nogueira, F.; Shigueo, E.; Abdala, H. Collaborative Teaching and Learning Strategies for Communication Networks. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2018, 34, 527–536. [Google Scholar]
  10. Mat, N.S.; Abdul, A.; Mat, M.; Abdul, S.Z.; Nun, N.F.; Hamdan, A. An evaluation of content creation for personalised learning using digital ICT literacy module among aboriginal students (MLICT-OA). Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 2019, 20, 41–58. [Google Scholar]
  11. Pereira, S.; Fillol, J.; Moura, P. El aprendizaje de los jóvenes con medios digitales fuera de la escuela: De lo informal a lo formal. Comunicar 2019, 1, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Cuevas, R.E.; Feliciano, A.; Alarcón, A.; Catalán, A.; Alonso, G.A. The integration of ICT tools to the profile of the Computer Engineer of the Autonomous University of Guerrero, Mexico. Virtualidad Educación y Ciencia 2019, 10, 20–32. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cabero, J.; Barroso, J. Los escenarios tecnológicos en Realidad Aumentada (RA): Posibilidades educativas en estudios universitarios. Aula Abierta 2018, 47, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pozo, S.; López, J.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.J.; López, J.A. Impact of educational stage in the application of flipped learning: A contrasting analysis with traditional teaching. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Mengual, S.; López, J.; Fuentes, A.; Pozo, S. Modelo estructural de factores extrínsecos influyentes en el flipped learning. Educ. XX1 2020, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. He, W.; Holton, A.; Farkas, G.; Warschauer, M. The effects of flipped instruction on out-of-class study time, exam performance, and student perceptions. Learn. Instr. 2016, 45, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. López, J.; Pozo, S.; del Pino, M.J. Projection of the flipped learning methodology in the teaching staff of cross-border contexts. NAER 2019, 8, 184–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cheng, L.; Ritzhaupt, A.D.; Antonenko, P. Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. EtrD Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2019, 44, 793–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zainuddin, Z.; Habiburrahim, H.; Muluk, S.; Keumala, C.M. How do students become self-directed learners in the EFL flipped-class pedagogy? A study in higher education. Indones. J. Appl. Linguist. 2019, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lo, C.K.; Hew, K.F. A critical review of flipped classroom challenges in K-12 education: Possible solutions and recommendations for future research. Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 2017, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Bergmann, J.; Sams, A. Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day, 1st ed.; ISTE: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; pp. 34–40. [Google Scholar]
  22. Aznar-Díaz, I.; Hinojo-Lucena, F.J.; Cáceres-Reche, M.P.; Romero-Rodríguez, J.M. Pedagogical approaches in the knowledge society: The flipped classroom method for the development of creativity and dialogical learning. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2020, 15, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Long, T.; Logan, J.; Waugh, M. Students’ perceptions of the value of using videos as a pre-class learning experience in the flipped classroom. TechTrends 2016, 60, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bognar, B.; Sablić, M.; Škugor, A. Flipped learning and online discussion in higher education teaching. In The Flipped Classroom: Practice and Practices in Higher Education, 1st ed.; Reidsema, C., Kavanagh, L., Hadgraft, R., Smith, N., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2019; Volume 1, pp. 371–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Abeysekera, L.; Dawson, P. Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2015, 34, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Bond, M. Flipped learning and parent engagement in secondary schools: A South Australian case study. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50, 1294–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. El Miedany, Y. Flipped learning. In The Flipped Classroom: Practice and Practices in Higher Education, 1st ed.; Reidsema, C., Kavanagh, L., Hadgraft, R., Smith, N., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2019; Volume 1, pp. 285–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Long, T.; Cummins, J.; Waugh, M. Use of the flipped classroom instructional model in higher education: Instructors’ perspectives. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2017, 29, 179–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Schmidt, S.M.; Ralph, D. L. The flipped classroom: A twist on teaching. Contemp. Issues Educ. Res. 2016, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Lundin, M.; Bergviken, A.; Hillman, T.; Lantz-Andersson, A.; Peterson, L. Higher education dominance and siloed knowledge: A systematic review of flipped classroom research. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2018, 15, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Castellanos, A.; Sánchez, C.; Calderero, J.F. Nuevos modelos tecnopedagógicos. Competencia digital de los alumnos universitarios. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa 2017, 19, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Tse, W.S.; Choi, L.Y.; Tang, W.S. Effects of video-based flipped class instruction on subject reading motivation. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50, 385–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chyr, W.L.; Shen, P.D.; Chiang, Y.C.; Lin, J.B.; Tsia, C.W. Exploring the effects of online academic help-seeking and flipped learning on improving students’ learning. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2017, 20, 11–23. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lee, J.; Park, T.; Davis, R.O. What affects learner engagement in flipped learning and what predicts its outcomes? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2018, 1, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Huang, B.; Foon, K.; Kwan, C. Investigating the effects of gamification-enhanced flipped learning on undergraduate students’ behavioral and cognitive engagement. Int. Learn. Environ. 2019, 27, 1106–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tourón, J.; Santiago, R. El modelo Flipped learning y el desarrollo del talento en la escuela. Rev. Educ. 2015, 1, 196–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cerezo, R.; Bernardo, A.; Esteban, M.; Sánchez, M.; Tuero, E. Programas para la promoción de la autorregulación en educación superior: Un estudio de la satisfacción diferencial entre metodología presencial y virtual. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 2015, 8, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Báez, C.I.; Clunie, C.E. Una mirada a la Educación Ubicua. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia 2019, 22, 325–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Fisher, R.; Ross, B.; LaFerriere, R.; Maritz, A. Flipped learning, flipped satisfaction, getting the balance right. Teach. Learn. Inq. 2017, 5, 114–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Karabulut, A.; Jaramillo, N.; Hassall, L. Flipping to engage students: Instructor perspectives on flipping large enrolment courses. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2018, 34, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Van Alten, D.C.D.; Phielix, C.; Janssen, J.; Kester, L. Effects of flipping the classroom on learning outcomes and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 2019, 28, 100281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Awidi, I.T.; Paynter, M. The impact of a flipped classroom approach on student learning experience. Comput. Educ. 2019, 128, 269–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Vahedian-Shahroodi, M.; Tehrani, H.; Robat-Sarpooshi, D.; GHolian–Aval, M.; Jafari, A.; Alizadeh-Siuki, H. The impact of health education on nutritional behaviors in female students: An application of health belief model. Int. J. Health Promot. Educ. 2019, 1, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Thorpe, M.G.; Milte, C.M.; Crawford, D.; McNaughton, S.A. Education and lifestyle predict change in dietary patterns and diet quality of adults 55 years and over. Nutr. J. 2019, 18, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Trigueros, R.; Mínguez, L.A.; González-Bernal, J.J.; Jahouh, M.; Soto-Camara, R.; Aguilar-Parra, J.M. Influence of teaching style on physical education adolescents’ motivation and health-related lifestyle. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Karamat, F.; Tahir, T.; Hanif, M.; Gul, Z. Analysis of oral hygiene education in obese children in local population of Pakistan. Indo Am. J. Pharm. Sci. 2018, 5, 4312–4316. [Google Scholar]
  47. Aggarwal, M.; Devries, S.; Freeman, A.M.; Ostfeld, R.; Gaggin, H.; Taub, P.; Rzeszut, A.K.; Allen, K.; Conti, R.C. The deficit of nutrition education of physicians. Am. J. Med. 2018, 131, 339–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Gvozdanović, Z.; Farčić, N.; Placento, H.; Lovrić, R.; Dujmić, Ž.; Jurić, A.; Miškić, B.; Prlić, N. Diet education as a success factor of glycemia regulation in diabetes patients: A prospective study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Prescott, M.P.; Burg, X.; Metcalfe, J.J.; Lipka, A.E.; Herritt, C.; Cunningham-Sabo, L. Healthy planet, healthy youth: A food systems education and promotion intervention to improve adolescent diet quality and reduce food waste. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Zeng, D.; Fang, Z.L.; Qin, L.; Yu, A.Q.; Ren, Y.B.; Xue, B.Y.; Wang, Q.R. Evaluation for the effects of nutritional education on Chinese elite male young soccer players: The application of adjusted dietary balance index (DBI). J. Exerc. Sci. Fit. 2020, 18, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Belski, R.; Donaldson, A.; Staley, K.; Skiadopoulos, A.; Randle, E.; O’Halloran, P.; Kappelides, P.; Teakel, S.; Stanley, S.; Nicholson, M. Brief education intervention increases nutrition knowledge and confidence of coaches of junior Australian football teams. Int. J. Sport Nutr. Exerc. Metab. 2018, 28, 259–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Santaló, M.I.; Gibbons, S.; Naylor, P.J. Using food models to enhance sugar literacy among older adolescents: Evaluation of a brief experiential nutrition education intervention. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Aspry, K.E.; Van Horn, L.; Carson, J.A.S.; Wylie-Rosett, J.; Kushner, R.F.; Lichtenstein, A.H.; Devries, S.; Freeman, A.M.; Crawford, A.; Kris-Etherton, P. Medical nutrition education, training, and competencies to advance guideline-based diet counseling by physicians: A science advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2018, 137, e821–e841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gianfrancesco, C.; Johnson, M. Exploring the provision of diabetes nutrition education by practice nurses in primary care settings. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2019, 33, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chiu, C.J.; Kuo, S.E.; Lin, D.C. Technology-embedded health education on nutrition for middle-aged and older adults living in the community. Glob. Health Promot. 2019, 26, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. López, J.; Pozo, S.; Fuentes, A.; Romero, J.M. Effectiveness of learning with flipped learning with augmented reality in school health education. J. Sport Health Res. 2020, 12, 64–79. [Google Scholar]
  57. Stotz, S.A.; Thompson, J.J.; Bhargava, V.; Scarrow, A.; Capitano, K.; Lee, J.S. A supplemental produce and elearning nutrition education program for Georgians who use safety-net clinics for their health care. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2019, 51, 1099–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Gabiola, J.; Morales, D.; Quizon, O.; Cadiz, R.I.; Feliciano, K.; Ruiz, R.L.; Aguatis, C.J.; Mararac, T.; Rojina, J.; García, A.; et al. The effective ness of lifestyle with diet and physical activity education ProGram among prehypertensives and stage 1 HyperTENsives in an urban community setting (ENLIGHTEN) study. J. Community Health 2019, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Correa-Burrows, P.; Rodríguez, Y.; Blanco, E.; Gahagan, S.; Burrows, R. Snacking quality is associated with secondary school academic achievement and the intention to enroll in higher education: A cross-sectional study in adolescents from Santiago, Chile. Nutrients 2017, 9, 433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Parra-González, M.E.; López, J.; Segura-Robles, A.; Fuentes, A. Active and emerging methodologies for ubiquitous education: Potentials of flipped learning and gamification. Sustainability 2020, 12, 602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Hempler, N.F.; Nicic, S.; Ewers, B.; Willaing, I. Dietary education must fit into everyday life: A qualitative study of people with a Pakistani background and type 2 diabetes. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2015, 9, 347–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Yamaoka, K.; Watanabe, M.; Hida, E.; Tango, T. Impact of group-based dietary education on the dietary habits of female adolescents: A cluster randomized trial. Public Health Nutr. 2011, 14, 702–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Abedi, P.; Keshmirshekan, M.H.; Namaziandost, E. The comparative effect of flipped classroom instruction versus traditional instruction on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ English composition writing. J. Appl. Linguist. Lang. Res. 2019, 6, 43–56. [Google Scholar]
  64. Atwa, Z.; Din, R.; Hussin, M. Effectiveness of flipped learning in physics education on Palestinian high school students’ achievement. J. Pers. Learn. 2018, 2, 73–85. [Google Scholar]
  65. Luo, H.; Yang, T.; Xue, J.; Zuo, M. Impact of student agency on learning performance and learning experience in a flipped classroom. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50, 819–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Maycock, K.W.; Lambert, J.; Bane, D. Flipping learning not just content: A 4-year action research study investigating the appropriate level of flipped learning. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2018, 34, 661–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Østerlie, O. Can flipped learning enhance adolescents’ motivation in physical education? An intervention study. J. Res. Arts Sports Educ. 2018, 2, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Sletten, S.R. Investigating flipped learning: Student self-regulated learning, perceptions, and achievement in an introductory biology course. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2017, 26, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hinojo, F.J.; Aznar, I.; Romero, J.M.; Marín, J. A. Influencia del aula invertida en el rendimiento académico. Una revisión sistemática. Campus Virtuales 2019, 8, 9–18. [Google Scholar]
  70. Huan, C. A study on digital media technology courses teaching based on flipped classroom. Am. J. Educ. Res. 2016, 4, 264–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sola, T.; Aznar, I.; Romero, J.M.; Rodríguez, A.M. Eficacia del método flipped classroom en la universidad: Meta-análisis de la producción científica de impacto. REICE 2019, 17, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Thai, N.T.; De Wever, B.; Valcke, M. 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. Comput. Educ. 2017, 107, 113–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Moreno-Guerrero, A.J.; Romero-Rodríguez, J.M.; López-Belmonte, J.; Alonso-García, S. Flipped learning approach as educational innovation in water literacy. Water 2020, 12, 574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Larionova, V.; Brown, K.; Bystrova, T.; Sinitsyn, E. Russian perspectives of online learning technologies in higher education: An empirical study of a MOOC. Res. Comp. Int. Educ. 2018, 13, 70–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Fernández, M.; Espada, M. Formación inicial y percepción del profesorado sobre los estilos de enseñanza en Educación Física. Retos 2017, 1, 69–75. [Google Scholar]
  76. Hernández, R.; Fernández, C.; Baptista, M.P. Metodología de La Investigación, 6th ed.; McGraw Hill: Madrid, Spain, 2014; pp. 129–168. [Google Scholar]
  77. Rodríguez, N. Diseños experimentales en educación. Revista de Pedagogía 2011, 32, 147–158. [Google Scholar]
  78. Hinojo, F.J.; López, J.; Fuentes, A.; Trujillo, J.M.; Pozo, S. Academic effects of the use of flipped learning in physical education. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Chou, P.N.; Feng, S.T. Using a tablet computer application to advance high school students’ laboratory learning experiences: A focus on electrical engineering education. Sustainability 2019, 11, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Yılmaz, A.; Soyer, F. Effect of physical education and play applications on school social behaviors of mild-level intellectually disabled children. Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Driscoll, T. Flipped Learning and Democratic Education. Bachelor’s Thesis, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  82. Martín, D.; Sáenz, M.; Santiago, R.; Chocarro, E. Diseño de un instrumento para evaluación diagnóstica de la competencia digital docente: Formación flipped classroom. DIM 2016, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  83. López, J.; Fuentes, A.; López, J.A.; Pozo, S. Formative transcendence of flipped learning in mathematics students of secondary education. Mathematics 2019, 7, 1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Moreno-Guerrero, A.J.; Rondón, M.; Martínez, N.; Rodríguez-García, A.M. Collaborative learning based on harry potter for learning geometric figures in the subject of mathematics. Mathematics 2020, 8, 369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. López, J.A.; López, J.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.J.; Pozo, S. Effectiveness of innovate educational practices with flipped learning and remote sensing in earth and environmental sciences—A case study. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Fuentes, A.; Parra-González, M.E.; López, J.; Segura-Robles, A. Educational potentials of flipped learning in intercultural education as a transversal resource in adolescents. Religions 2020, 11, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Jöreskog, K.G. Analysis of Ordinal Variables 2: Cross-Sectional Data. Text of the Workshop “Structural Equation Modelling with LISREL 8.51”; Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena: Jena, Germany, 2001; pp. 116–119. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Comparison between control group primary education (CGP1), control group secondary education (CGP2), experimental group primary education (EGP1), experimental group secondary education (EGP2).
Figure 1. Comparison between control group primary education (CGP1), control group secondary education (CGP2), experimental group primary education (EGP1), experimental group secondary education (EGP2).
Ijerph 17 03007 g001
Table 1. Comparison between expository method and flipped learning (FL).
Table 1. Comparison between expository method and flipped learning (FL).
PeriodsExpository MethodFlipped Learning
Before classThe students can read something about the educational contents to be dealt with, while the teacher prepares the theoretical presentation of the contents.Students visualize the explanations of the contents to be worked on in class previously prepared by the teacher. The teacher generates and prepares practical activities and class dynamics.
During the classThe student listens to the theoretical explanation of the teacher, who does not use any technological resources. The teacher transmits the contents orally through the traditional exhibition. The teacher has an active attitude since it is the only source of knowledge, while the student is passive; he only receives and attends to the explanations.The student develops dynamics and practical activities during the class. The teacher supervises, advises, or corrects the actions developed by the students. The student has an active attitude, while the teacher is passive in the learning process; its function is mainly focused on guiding, guiding, and serving students individually, according to their needs and concerns.
After classThe student’s complete homework set by the teacher, based on the theoretical explanation given at school. The teacher continues to prepare theoretical presentations.Students reinforce what they have learned in class by putting into practice the activities developed and analyzing the theoretical videos on the contents covered. The teacher continues to prepare explanatory videos and work dynamics to develop in class.
Table 2. Group composition.
Table 2. Group composition.
Note: the treatment was assigned randomly. Two control groups (primary education = CGP1; secondary education = CGP2) and two experimental (primary education = EGP1; secondary education = EGP2).
Table 3. Results obtained for the variables of study in the control group (CG) and the experimental group (EG) of primary education (n = 55).
Table 3. Results obtained for the variables of study in the control group (CG) and the experimental group (EG) of primary education (n = 55).
VariablesLikert Scale n (%)Parameters
CGMotivation6 (21.4)12 (42.9)8 (28.6)2 (7.1)2.180.9050.269−0.661
Teacher–student10 (35.7)10 (35.7)7 (25)1 (3.6)1.960.8810.423−0.765
Student–content9 (32.1)13 (46.4)5 (17.9)1 (3.6)1.930.8130.581−0.012
Student–student6 (21.4)14 (50)5 (17.9)3 (10.7)2.180.9050.592−0.129
Autonomy17 (60.7)4 (14.3)7 (25)0 (0)1.640.8700.798−1.21
Collaboration10 (35.7)7 (25)7 (25)4 (14.3)−1.18
Deepening19 (67.9)4 (14.3)5 (17.9)0 (0)1.500.7931.19−0.243
Resolution10 (35.7)11 (39.3)5 (17.9)2 (7.1)1.960.9220.685−0.247
Class time16 (57.1)5 (17.9)5 (17.9)2 (7.1)1.751.011.01−0.251
Ratings a12 (42.9)9 (32.1)5 (17.9)2 (7.1)1.890.9560.4410.858
Teacher-ratings a10 (35.7)9 (32.1)5 (17.9)4 (14.3)−0.872
EGMotivation4 (14.8)7 (25.9)12 (44.4)4 (14.8)2.590.931−291−0.627
Teacher–student5 (18.5)5 (18.5)14 (51.9)3 (11.1)2.560.934−480−0.615
Student–content5 (18.5)11 (40.7)9 (33.3)2 (7.4)2.300.8690.117−0.552
Student–student4 (14.8)13 (48.1)6 (22.2)4 (14.8)2.370.9260.411−0.513
Autonomy3 (11.1)11 (40.7)7 (25.9)6 (22.2)2.590.9710.127−0.961
Collaboration4 (14.8)8 (29.6)12 (44.4)3 (11.1)2.520.893−0.235−0.567
Deepening7 (25.9)6 (22.2)8 (29.6)6 (22.2)2.481.12−0.038−1.34
Resolution6 (22.2)9 (33.3)7 (25.9)5 (18.5)2.411.040.156−1.09
Class time4 (14.8)7 (25.9)8 (29.6)8 (29.6)2.741.05−0.273−1.11
Ratings a3 (11.1)13 (48.1)5 (18.5)6 (22.2)2.520.9750.347−0.915
Teacher-ratings a2 (7.4)11 (40.7)7 (25.9)7 (25.9)2.700.9530.082−1.07
a Established grade group (none: 1–4.9; few: 5–5.9; enough: 6–8.9; completely: 9–10).
Table 4. Results obtained for the variables of study in the CG and the EG of secondary education (n = 60).
Table 4. Results obtained for the variables of study in the CG and the EG of secondary education (n = 60).
VariablesLikert Scale n (%)Parameters
CGMotivation9 (30)10 (33.3)7 (23.3)4 (13.3)−0.948
Teacher–student10 (33.3)14 (46.7)4(13.3)2 (6.7)1.930.8680.8120.337
Student–content12 (40)12 (40)5 (16.7)1 (3.3)1.830.8340.715−0.083
Student–student7 (23.3)13 (43.3)7 (23.3)3 (10)2.200.9250.415−0.501
Autonomy11 (36.7)14 (46.7)5 (16.7)0 (0)1.800.7140.316−0.911
Collaboration10 (33.3)11 (36.7)7 (23.3)2 (6.7)2.030.9280.486−0.623
Deepening13 (43.3)12 (40)4 (13.3)1 (3.3)1.770.8170.8760.340
Resolution12 (40)11 (36.7)5 (16.7)2 (6.7)1.900.9230.773−0.174
Class time16 (53.3)10 (33.3)4 (13.3)0 (0)1.600.7240.794−0.605
Ratings a13 (43.3)11 (36.7)4 (13.3)2 (6.7)1.830.9130.9340.191
Teacher-ratings a12 (40)9 (30)5 (16.7)4 (13.3)−0.781
EGMotivation2 (6.7)10 (33.3)13 (43.3)5 (16.7)2.700.837−0.121−0.438
Teacher–student6 (20)8 (26.7)10 (33.3)6 (20)2.531.04−0.095−1.11
Student–content2 (6.7)13 (43.3)11 (36.7)4 (13.3)2.570.8170.177−0.421
Student–student7 (23.3)6 (20)9 (30)8 (26.7)2.601.13−0.189−1.33
Autonomy2 (6.7)11 (36.7)8 (26.7)9 (30)2.800.961−0.070−1.14
Collaboration3 (10)8 (26.7)7 (23.3)12 (40)2.931.04−0.437−1.11
Deepening3 (10)10 (33.3)8 (26.7)9 (30)2.771.01−0.147−1.12
Resolution2 (6.7)9 (30)11 (36.7)8 (26.7)2.830.913−0.232−0.786
Class time2 (6.7)8 (26.7)9 (30)11 (36.7)2.970.964−0.424−0.912
Ratings a4 (13.3)7 (23.3)9 (30)10 (33.3)2.831.05−0.404−1.02
Teacher-ratings a5 (16.7)5 (16.7)8 (26.7)12 (40)2.901.12−0.570−1.05
a Established grade group (none: 1–4.9; few: 5–5.9; enough: 6–8.9; completely: 9–10).
Table 5. Study of the value of independence between CGP1, CGS2, EGP1, EGS2.
Table 5. Study of the value of independence between CGP1, CGS2, EGP1, EGS2.
Variablesµ (X1–X2)tn1+n2-2dfdrxy
Primary Education (n = 55)Motivation−0.378 (2.21–2.59)n.s.53−0.0350.209
Teacher–student−0.591 (1.96–2.56)−2.416 *530.0000.315
Student–content−0.368 (1.93–2.30)n.s.530.0300.217
Student–student−0.192 (2.18–2.37)n.s.530.0180.106
Autonomy−0.950 (1.64–2.59)−3.816 **530.2790.465
Collaboration−0.340 (2.18–2.52)n.s530.0870.171
Deepening−0.981 (1.50–2.48)−3.733 **530.1860.459
Resolution−0.443 (1.96–2.41)n.s530.0280.223
Class time−0.991 (1.75–2.74)−3.560 **530.1780.439
Ratings a−0.626 (1.89–2.52)−2.402 *530.1800.313
Teacher-ratings a−0.597 (2.11–2.70)−2.185 *530.1300.287
Secondary Education (n = 60)Motivation−0.500 (2.20–2.70)−2.063 *580.0790.261
Teacher–student−0.600 (1.93–2.53)−2.423 *58−0.0240.303
Student–content−0.733 (1.83–2.57)−3.440 **580.1360.412
Student–student−0.400 (2.20−2.60)n.s58−0.0800.193
Autonomy−1.00 (1.80–2.80)−4.573 **580.0730.515
Collaboration−0.900 (2.03–2.93)−3.521 **580.0450.420
Deepening−1.00 (1.77–2.77)−4.225 **580.0980.485
Resolution−0.933 (1.90–2.83)−3.938 **580.0930.459
Class time−1.36 (1.60–2.97)−6.208 **580.1430.632
Ratings a−1.00 (1.83–2.83)−3.930 **580.0590.459
Teacher-ratings a−0.867 (2.03–2.90)−3.063 **580.0340.373
** The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level; * the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level; n.s. not significant; a established grade group (none: 1–4.9; few: 5–5.9; enough: 6–8.9; completely: 9–10).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

López Núñez, J.A.; López-Belmonte, J.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J.; Marín-Marín, J.A. Dietary Intervention through Flipped Learning as a Techno Pedagogy for the Promotion of Healthy Eating in Secondary Education. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3007.

AMA Style

López Núñez JA, López-Belmonte J, Moreno-Guerrero A-J, Marín-Marín JA. Dietary Intervention through Flipped Learning as a Techno Pedagogy for the Promotion of Healthy Eating in Secondary Education. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(9):3007.

Chicago/Turabian Style

López Núñez, Juan Antonio, Jesús López-Belmonte, Antonio-José Moreno-Guerrero, and José Antonio Marín-Marín. 2020. "Dietary Intervention through Flipped Learning as a Techno Pedagogy for the Promotion of Healthy Eating in Secondary Education" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 9: 3007.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop