Effects of a Flipped Classroom College Business Course on Students’ Pre-Class Preparation, In-Class Participation, Learning, and Skills Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Introduction and Theoretical Framework
  The introduction is well-developed and provides a solid overview of the flipped classroom concept. It is well-grounded in relevant literature, particularly in expectancy-value theory and cognitive load theory, which justifies the conceptual framework presented (see Figure 1, p. 5).

• Research Design and Methodology
  The study design shows notable limitations:

  • The sample size is small (N = 82) and drawn from a single institution, which restricts generalizability.

  • The use of solely self-report instruments, in some cases single-item measures (e.g., pre-class preparation, attendance), reduces reliability and construct validity.

  • There is no inclusion of objective performance data (e.g., grades, LMS engagement), which weakens the ability to support claims related to learning outcomes.

• Statistical Analysis

  • Exploratory factor analysis and hierarchical regression were used appropriately.

  • However, effect sizes are modest (e.g., r = .26–.34; β ≈ .24–.31), and R² values remain low (0.07–0.14), indicating limited explanatory power.

• Presentation of Results and Discussion

  • Results are clearly presented, particularly in Tables 3 and 4.

  • The authors provide thoughtful interpretations, especially for unexpected findings (e.g., lack of association between perceived in-class usefulness and attendance).

• Language and Style

  • While generally readable, the English contains grammatical and stylistic issues that require revision. Examples include:

    • “The perceived usefulness of the online component was positively associated students’ pre-class preparatory work” → missing “with”.

    • “to ultimately foster their perceived learning and skills development” – stylistically awkward and should be reworded for clarity.

• Practical Implications and Conclusion
  The manuscript offers useful practical recommendations, such as emphasizing online content quality and considering targeted interventions to address habitual non-attendance.
  The final section rightly notes the pedagogical potential of the flipped classroom, but also warns against uncritical adoption, especially for students lacking self-regulated learning skills.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally understandable; however, the quality of English requires improvement to ensure clarity and precision in scholarly communication. Several grammatical errors and awkward phrasings were identified throughout the text, which occasionally hinder comprehension. Specific issues include:

• Omission of necessary prepositions and articles (e.g., “associated students’ work” instead of “associated with students’ work”).

• Stylistic clumsiness in sentence construction that detracts from the professionalism of the text (e.g., overly convoluted phrasing or redundancy).

• Inconsistent verb tenses and subject-verb agreement in some passages.

A thorough language revision by a native English speaker or professional academic editor is strongly recommended prior to resubmission.

Author Response

Responses to Review 1:

Comments 1: Introduction and Theoretical Framework:
The introduction is well-developed and provides a solid overview of the flipped classroom concept. It is well-grounded in relevant literature, particularly in expectancy-value theory and cognitive load theory, which justifies the conceptual framework presented (see Figure 1, p. 5).

Response 1: Thank you for the positive feedback.

Comments 2: Research Design and Methodology
The study design shows notable limitations:

• The sample size is small (N = 82) and drawn from a single institution, which restricts generalizability.
• The use of solely self-report instruments, in some cases single-item measures (e.g., pre-class preparation, attendance), reduces reliability and construct validity.
• There is no inclusion of objective performance data (e.g., grades, LMS engagement), which weakens the ability to support claims related to learning outcomes.

Response 2: I agree with your comment, “The sample size is small (N = 82) and drawn from a single institution, which restricts generalizability.” The flipped classroom literature demonstrates that studies in business education frequently employ smaller samples than the present study, a practice likely stemming from the pedagogical focus on enhancing student learning through smaller class sizes. Accordingly, I have addressed the sample size as the primary limitation of this study by stating: “First, the sample size was relatively small (N = 82); therefore, the findings should be interpreted as exploratory. Expanding the study to include larger samples from diverse educational institutions and a broader range of business courses would enhance generalizability. Additionally, because the data were collected during a single semester, the results may not fully capture the scope of students’ course-related learning. Future research should consider employing longitudinal designs to examine learning and skills development in flipped classrooms over the duration of students’ business diploma programs.”    

I also agree with your comments, “The use of solely self-report instruments, in some cases single-item measures (e.g., pre-class preparation, attendance), reduces reliability and construct validity.” and “There is no inclusion of objective performance data (e.g., grades, LMS engagement), which weakens the ability to support claims related to learning outcomes.” As I stated in the Method section on Page 8, “Following the methodologies of Fadol et al. (2018) and Pejuan and Antonijuan (2019), a single self-reported item was used to assess students’ pre-class preparation” and “In line with Becker and Proud (2018) and Fadol et al. (2018), a single self-reported item was used to assess students’ in-class attendance”. Therefore, employing a single item to assess student pre-class preparation and in-class participation is not an unusual practice.

Concerning self-reports, I addressed these limitations in the Limitations section on Page 11, where I stated: “Second, each of the major variables relied on students’ self-reports, which may have artificially inflated the observed relationships due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Self-reported data can also be influenced by social desirability bias (Chung & Monroe, 2003), halo effects, and the Hawthorne effect (Elledge, 2018).”

Furthermore, objective data also have notable limitations. As I noted on Page 12, “While the use of objective measures offers an alternative, such measures also present notable limitations. For instance, LMS-generated data cannot reliably distinguish between simply accessing online materials and actively engaging with them (Diel et al., 2020; Lambert et al., 2019). Similarly, objective data on class attendance do not account for students’ level of engagement during class time (Freguia, 2017).”

I have now added the following sentences on Page 12 to further address your comment: “Measuring pre-class preparation and in-class participation using single-item indicators also raises concerns about the reliability and construct validity of these measures. Therefore, future research should employ multi-item instruments to more robustly assess both constructs…. Despite these limitations, examining the flipped classroom using both subjective and objective metrics remains important for enhancing the generalizability of findings. Indeed, LMS data have been used to assess students’ pre-class preparation (Walsh & Rísquez, 2020), while objective measures have also been applied to evaluate class participation (Yamarik, 2019). Furthermore, although not without limitations (e.g., Stehle et al., 2012), test scores and course grades can serve as proxies for student learning and skills development (Fadol et al., 2018).”

Comments 3: Statistical Analysis

• Exploratory factor analysis and hierarchical regression were used appropriately.
• However, effect sizes are modest (e.g., r = .26–.34; β ≈ .24–.31), and R² values remain low (0.07–0.14), indicating limited explanatory power.

Response 3: While the observed effect sizes (R² = 0.07–0.14) are relatively small, coefficient values of r=.26–.34 and β=.24–.31 are often regarded as “moderate” in both applied psychology and management research. To address this limitation, I stated on Page 11, “First, the sample size was relatively small (N = 82); therefore, the findings should be interpreted as exploratory.” Additionally, on Page 12, I added: “While the findings of this study are exploratory in nature, the framework developed and empirically tested offers an important starting point for understanding the antecedents and impact of students’ pre-class preparation and in-class attendance on the effectiveness of the flipped classroom model.”

Comments 4: Presentation of Results and Discussion

• Results are clearly presented, particularly in Tables 3 and 4.
• The authors provide thoughtful interpretations, especially for unexpected findings (e.g., lack of association between perceived in-class usefulness and attendance).

Response 4: Thank you for the positive feedback.

Comments 5: Language and Style

• While generally readable, the English contains grammatical and stylistic issues that require revision. Examples include:
  • “The perceived usefulness of the online component was positively associated students’ pre-class preparatory work” → missing “with”.
  • “to ultimately foster their perceived learning and skills development” – stylistically awkward and should be reworded for clarity.

Response 5: A professional academic editor has reviewed the manuscript, addressing all grammatical and stylistic issues, including the three listed above. 

Comments 6: Practical Implications and Conclusion
The manuscript offers useful practical recommendations, such as emphasizing online content quality and considering targeted interventions to address habitual non-attendance.
The final section rightly notes the pedagogical potential of the flipped classroom, but also warns against uncritical adoption, especially for students lacking self-regulated learning skills.

Response 6: Thank you for the comment.

Comments 7: Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally understandable; however, the quality of English requires improvement to ensure clarity and precision in scholarly communication. Several grammatical errors and awkward phrasings were identified throughout the text, which occasionally hinder comprehension. Specific issues include:

• Omission of necessary prepositions and articles (e.g., “associated students’ work” instead of “associated with students’ work”).
• Stylistic clumsiness in sentence construction that detracts from the professionalism of the text (e.g., overly convoluted phrasing or redundancy).
• Inconsistent verb tenses and subject-verb agreement in some passages.

A thorough language revision by a native English speaker or professional academic editor is strongly recommended prior to resubmission.

Response 7: A professional academic editor has reviewed the manuscript, addressing all grammatical and stylistic issues, including the three listed above. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Several important areas require revision before the work can be considered for publication. The introduction, while comprehensive, would benefit from a more concise and focused structure with clearer articulation of the research gap and study objectives. The integration of theoretical frameworks—namely expectancy-value theory and cognitive load theory—is conceptually appropriate but remains underdeveloped; more explicit connections to the research model are needed. A significant methodological concern is the use of single-item self-reports for key variables such as pre-class preparation and in-class attendance, which compromises measurement validity; the adoption of multi-item instruments or objective behavioral data is strongly advised. The manuscript would be strengthened by providing more detail on how survey items were selected, adapted, and validated, ideally including sample items or an appendix. The rationale for including only gender and learning habits as control variables is limited; additional factors such as prior academic performance or experience with flipped learning should be considered or acknowledged as limitations. While the statistical results are well presented in tables, the narrative lacks interpretive depth—each finding should be explained in relation to the hypotheses and theoretical framework. The lack of significant association between in-class attendance and learning outcomes also requires more thorough discussion, exploring alternative explanations or measurement limitations. Conclusions drawn from the findings must be tempered, given the small, single-institution sample and cross-sectional design. Several pedagogical recommendations appear speculative and should be clearly distinguished from those directly supported by empirical evidence. Furthermore, the manuscript would benefit from professional language editing to improve clarity, reduce redundancy, and enhance academic tone. The potential for common method bias, due to reliance on cross-sectional self-report data, should be explicitly acknowledged. Generalizability is also limited and should be more clearly reflected in the discussion and conclusion sections. Finally, although the proposed conceptual model is a strength of the manuscript, it is not sufficiently revisited in the discussion; each hypothesized relationship should be critically examined in light of the empirical results. Addressing these issues will significantly enhance the manuscript’s clarity, rigor, and overall contribution.

Author Response

Responses to Review 2:

Comments 1: Several important areas require revision before the work can be considered for publication. The introduction, while comprehensive, would benefit from a more concise and focused structure with clearer articulation of the research gap and study objectives.

Response 1: Thank you for the comment. In the original manuscript, I have discussed research gaps by stating, “Overall, despite a growing body of literature on student learning experiences and outcomes in flipped classrooms (Kantanen et al., 2019), comparatively less attention has been devoted to the critical roles of student pre-class preparation and in-class participation. In the business education literature in particular, these components are frequently overlooked or taken for granted in discussions of successful flipped classroom implementation. Consequently, scholars have called for further research into the antecedents and consequences of students’ pre-class preparation and in-class engagement in flipped learning environments (e.g., Beenan & Arbaugh, 2019; Price & Walker, 2021; Walsh & Rísquez, 2020). Moreover, it is widely acknowledged in higher education that students’ perceived usefulness of out-of-class and/or in-class learning tasks can influence their subsequent participation (Kantanen et al., 2019; Leaper, 2011; Sletten, 2017). Nevertheless, limited empirical evidence exists on how students' perceived usefulness of the online and in-class components of flipped classrooms affects their pre-class preparation, in-class participation, and overall learning outcomes.”

As you will see in the revised manuscript, I have explained the research objective and contributions of the study with greater clarity by writing the following paragraph on Page 2: “The primary objective of this paper is to bridge the identified gaps within the current literature. In doing so, it seeks to make two key contributions. First, this paper offers an extensive review of flipped classroom research, focusing on student pre-class preparation and in-class participation. This review provides a comprehensive overview of current studies on the factors that influence and result from these behaviors, serving as a critical step towards a deeper understanding of student learning in flipped classroom environments. Second, this paper proposes and empirically tests, through the lens of expectancy-value theory and cognitive load theory, a framework elucidating how the perceived usefulness of online and in-class components motivates business students to engage in pre-class preparation and in-class participation. This framework ultimately aims to explain how such motivation contributes to students’ perceived learning and skills development. In this context, usefulness is defined as the extent to which students believe that each component contributes to learning a given subject and leads to stronger academic performance. Empirical findings reveal statistically significant relationships between students’ perceived usefulness of the online component and their pre-class preparation, and between their pre-class preparation and perceived learning and skills development. Understanding student perceptions in these areas is essential, given their demonstrated positive association with learning outcomes (Garnjost & Lawter, 2019; Taber, 2019).”

Additionally, I have incorporated another paragraph on Pages 2-3 to clarify the structure of the paper. That is, “The overall structure of the paper is as follows. It begins with a comprehensive review of the literature on the antecedents and consequences of student pre-class preparation and in-class participation in flipped classroom settings, followed by the introduction of a conceptual framework. Aligned with this framework, seven hypotheses are formulated. An empirical study designed to test these hypotheses is subsequently presented, along with a discussion of practical implications and directions for future research.”

Comments 2: The integration of theoretical frameworks—namely expectancy-value theory and cognitive load theory—is conceptually appropriate but remains underdeveloped; more explicit connections to the research model are needed.

Response 2: I restructured the section explaining the theoretical framework by adding seven hypotheses, ensuring their development is clearly linked to the research model.

Comments 3: A significant methodological concern is the use of single-item self-reports for key variables such as pre-class preparation and in-class attendance, which compromises measurement validity; the adoption of multi-item instruments or objective behavioral data is strongly advised.

Response 3: I agree with your comment, “the use of single-item self-reports for key variables such as pre-class preparation and in-class attendance, which compromises measurement validity”. As I stated in the Method section on Page 8, “Following the methodologies of Fadol et al. (2018) and Pejuan and Antonijuan (2019), a single self-reported item was used to assess students’ pre-class preparation” and “In line with Becker and Proud (2018) and Fadol et al. (2018), a single self-reported item was used to assess students’ in-class attendance”. Therefore, employing a single item to assess student pre-class preparation and in-class participation is not an unusual practice.

Concerning self-reports, I addressed these limitations in the Limitations section on Page 11, where I stated: “Second, each of the major variables relied on students’ self-reports, which may have artificially inflated the observed relationships due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Self-reported data can also be influenced by social desirability bias (Chung & Monroe, 2003), halo effects, and the Hawthorne effect (Elledge, 2018).”

Furthermore, objective data also have notable limitations. As I noted on Page 12, “While the use of objective measures offers an alternative, such measures also present notable limitations. For instance, LMS-generated data cannot reliably distinguish between simply accessing online materials and actively engaging with them (Diel et al., 2020; Lambert et al., 2019). Similarly, objective data on class attendance do not account for students’ level of engagement during class time (Freguia, 2017).”

I have now added the following sentences on Page 12 to further address your comment: “Measuring pre-class preparation and in-class participation using single-item indicators also raises concerns about the reliability and construct validity of these measures. Therefore, future research should employ multi-item instruments to more robustly assess both constructs…. Despite these limitations, examining the flipped classroom using both subjective and objective metrics remains important for enhancing the generalizability of findings. Indeed, LMS data have been used to assess students’ pre-class preparation (Walsh & Rísquez, 2020), while objective measures have also been applied to evaluate class participation (Yamarik, 2019). Furthermore, although not without limitations (e.g., Stehle et al., 2012), test scores and course grades can serve as proxies for student learning and skills development (Fadol et al., 2018).”

Comments 4: The manuscript would be strengthened by providing more detail on how survey items were selected, adapted, and validated, ideally including sample items or an appendix.

Response 4: On Pages 7-8, I provided an explanation of how the survey items were selected and adapted by stating: “Six items (see Table 2), adapted from instruments developed by Moran and Milsom (2015) and Yoshida (2016), were used to evaluate students’ perceived usefulness of OFC. These adaptations were necessary because, at the time of data collection, no single scale encompassed all relevant aspects of online learning (e.g., PowerPoint presentations, video lectures, and online quizzes).” “At the time of data collection, no single scale existed to assess all targeted dimensions of student learning, such as understanding concepts, theories, and principles; enhancing personal development; and applying acquired knowledge. Consequently, five modified items (see Table 2) were adapted from instruments developed by Kim et al. (2014), Sinouvassane and Nalini (2016), and Wong et al. (2014).” “Based on the learning objectives of the flipped Organizational Behavior (OB) course, six items were developed to assess students’ perceived skills development (see Table 2).” Specifically, I selected which items should be adapted to the present study by considering the key learning elements and outcomes of the sampled Organizational Behaviour course.

For the validation of survey items, I reported the results from the construct validity test in Table 2, which also includes the full list of survey items used in the present study.

Comments 5: The rationale for including only gender and learning habits as control variables is limited;  additional factors such as prior academic performance or experience with flipped learning should be considered or acknowledged as limitations.

Response 5: These two variables (i.e., gender and learning habits) were controlled because both were found to associate with students’ pre-class preparation and in-class participation in the flipped classroom setting, as stated on Page 8: “Walsh and Rísquez (2020) found that students’ gender was associated with the level of pre-class preparation effort, while Beric-Stojsic et al. (2020) examined gender as a predictor of in-class participation in the flipped classroom. … Students’ learning habits have also been shown to influence learning behavior in both traditional lecture-based courses and online learning environments (Hung, 2015; Yang et al., 2018).”

Moreover, I discussed control variables as a main research limitation on Page 12, stating: “Third, although student gender and learning habits were controlled for (Hung, 2015; Yang et al., 2018), other variables may have influenced the findings. For example, business students’ learning outcomes in the flipped classroom may be affected by their learning styles (Calimeris & Sauer, 2015), instructional approach preferences (Hao, 2016), prior subject-matter knowledge (Jovanović et al., 2017), and previous experience with the flipped classroom model (Green & Schlairet, 2017). Future research with larger sample sizes could more effectively incorporate these additional control variables to strengthen the robustness and generalizability of the findings.” As you will see, I have addressed previous experience with the flipped classroom model as a potential control variable in future research.

Comments 6: While the statistical results are well presented in tables, the narrative lacks interpretive depth—each finding should be explained in relation to the hypotheses and theoretical framework.

Response 6: Thank you for the suggestion. I have accordingly restructured both the Results and Discussion sections to align with each hypothesis.

Comments 7: The lack of significant association between in-class attendance and learning outcomes also requires more thorough discussion, exploring alternative explanations or measurement limitations.

Response 7: I have added the following explanations for the lack of a significant association between in-class attendance and learning outcomes: “Two explanations stand out. First, IFC emphasizes active learning activities. As previously noted, engaging in these activities enhances students’ perceived learning and skills development by reducing cognitive overload. However, the effectiveness of such activities depends heavily on their implementation. That is, their impact is influenced by factors such as the instructor’s knowledge, experience, and motivation in applying the approach; these factors can significantly affect students’ in-class learning outcomes (Alcalde & Nagel, 2019; Gelan et al., 2018). Second, students’ perceptions of learning under any instructional method are shaped by their prior expectations (Jian, 2019). Based on this insight, it can be argued that, through pre-class online preparation and interactions with proponents of the flipped classroom model, some students may develop elevated expectations regarding the value of the active learning component. However, such expectations are not always met. When this occurs, students perceive a discrepancy between their actual and anticipated learning experiences, resulting in lower perceived learning outcomes. In summary, both the instructional proficiency of the flipped classroom instructor and students’ expectations of in-class active learning activities may help explain the unexpected finding regarding the relationship between student in-class participation and perceived learning and skills development.”

Comments 8: Conclusions drawn from the findings must be tempered, given the small, single-institution sample and cross-sectional design.

Response 8: I have revised the first sentence of the Conclusion section on Page 12, stating: “While the findings of this study are exploratory in nature, the framework developed and empirically tested offers an important starting point for understanding the antecedents and impact of students’ pre-class preparation and in-class attendance on the effectiveness of the flipped classroom model.”

Comments 9: Several pedagogical recommendations appear speculative and should be clearly distinguished from those directly supported by empirical evidence.

Response 9: I revised the Practical Implications section to align its recommendations directly with the study's research findings.

Comments 10: Furthermore, the manuscript would benefit from professional language editing to improve clarity, reduce redundancy, and enhance academic tone.

Response 10: A professional academic editor has reviewed the manuscript, addressing all grammatical and stylistic issues.

Comments 11: The potential for common method bias, due to reliance on cross-sectional self-report data, should be explicitly acknowledged. Generalizability is also limited and should be more clearly reflected in the discussion and conclusion sections.

Response 11: I discussed these issues as the second limitation of the study by stating: “Second, each of the major variables relied on students’ self-reports, which may have artificially inflated the observed relationships due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003).” In further response to your comment, I have incorporated an additional sentence on Page 12: “Taken together, these limitations may restrict the generalizability of the study's findings.”

Comments 12: Finally, although the proposed conceptual model is a strength of the manuscript, it is not sufficiently revisited in the discussion; each hypothesized relationship should be critically examined in light of the empirical results. Addressing these issues will significantly enhance the manuscript’s clarity, rigor, and overall contribution.

Response 12: As indicated in previous responses, the section outlining the theoretical framework was restructured to incorporate seven hypotheses, with the subsequent research results discussed in conjunction with each hypothesis.

Thank you again for your comprehensive feedback. I have tried to incorporate your comments thoroughly, leading to significant improvements in the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is a high-quality empirical contribution to the study of the effectiveness of flipped classrooms in the context of higher education in business disciplines. I appreciate the following:

Quality of theoretical grounding: The study very well connects the theories of motivation (expectancy-value) and cognitive load (cognitive load) theory, which allows for a deeper understanding of students' motivations and barriers in both face-to-face and distance learning.

Thoroughness of the literature search: The authors demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the current professional debate and correctly identify gaps in research, especially in the field of corporate learning outside STEM fields.

Methodological clarity: The research is clearly structured, the instruments are well validated (including factor analyses), and the statistical methods are appropriate.

Practical relevance: Implicit recommendations for educators (e.g. how to increase the perceived usefulness of the online component or how to take into account habitual patterns of absence) are supported by data and well formulated.

I recommend only minor improvements:

Consider limiting the measurement of attendance: Using a single self-report indicator for attendance limits the interpretation of the data. In the future, it would be appropriate to use multi-source or objective measurements (e.g., attendance systems, LMS logs).

Discussion of failed hypotheses: The finding that attendance is not related to the perception of learning or skill development is surprising. The discussion partially responds to this result, but could be expanded to include pedagogical-psychological hypotheses (e.g., relationship to activity type, instructor role, student motivational profiles).

Expanding the discussion on generalizability: The authors appropriately point out the limitations of the small sample, but could devote more space to the implications for different types of universities and fields (e.g., MBA vs. bachelor programs).

Overall, this is a very high-quality study, the results and framework of which have the potential to inspire further research and practice in the field of higher education pedagogy.

Author Response

Responses to Review 1:

Comments 1: This manuscript is a high-quality empirical contribution to the study of the effectiveness of flipped classrooms in the context of higher education in business disciplines. I appreciate the following:

Quality of theoretical grounding: The study very well connects the theories of motivation (expectancy-value) and cognitive load (cognitive load) theory, which allows for a deeper understanding of students' motivations and barriers in both face-to-face and distance learning.

Thoroughness of the literature search: The authors demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the current professional debate and correctly identify gaps in research, especially in the field of corporate learning outside STEM fields.

Methodological clarity: The research is clearly structured, the instruments are well validated (including factor analyses), and the statistical methods are appropriate.

Practical relevance: Implicit recommendations for educators (e.g. how to increase the perceived usefulness of the online component or how to take into account habitual patterns of absence) are supported by data and well formulated.

Response 1: Thank you for the positive feedback.

Comments 2: I recommend only minor improvements:

Consider limiting the measurement of attendance: Using a single self-report indicator for attendance limits the interpretation of the data. In the future, it would be appropriate to use multi-source or objective measurements (e.g., attendance systems, LMS logs).

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. The following sentence was added at the conclusion of the discussion of the second research limitation: “To summarize, the exclusive use of a single self-report indicator for attendance restricts the comprehensive interpretation of the data. Future research should incorporate multi-source or objective measurements (e.g., attendance systems and LMS logs).”

Comments 3: Discussion of failed hypotheses: The finding that attendance is not related to the perception of learning or skill development is surprising. The discussion partially responds to this result, but could be expanded to include pedagogical-psychological hypotheses (e.g., relationship to activity type, instructor role, student motivational profiles).

Response 3: The instructor’s role was addressed in the initial explanation by stating: “However, the effectiveness of such activities depends heavily on their implementation. That is, their impact is influenced by factors such as the instructor’s knowledge, experience, and motivation in applying the approach; these factors can significantly affect students’ in-class learning outcomes (Alcalde & Nagel, 2019; Gelan et al., 2018).”

I have now added a third explanation for the unexpected finding; that is, “Third, students’ motivational orientation plays a critical role in their self-regulated learning efforts and in-class participation. Specifically, when students’ motivational orientation is not aligned with online learning components or in-class activities, they are less likely to invest effort in these areas. Indeed, Beenen and Arbaugh (2019) found that an autonomous motivational orientation positively influenced the time students spent watching online video lectures prior to class; however, it was not associated with their self-reported participation in team-based in-class activities.”

Comments 4: Expanding the discussion on generalizability: The authors appropriately point out the limitations of the small sample, but could devote more space to the implications for different types of universities and fields (e.g., MBA vs. bachelor programs).

Response 4: I added the following statements to the discussion of the first research limitation: “Prashar (2015) found that students in a flipped Introductory Operations Management course within an MBA program reported higher levels of perceived learning and skills development compared to those in conventional classrooms. Thus, it would be valuable to examine larger samples across different program levels (e.g., Master of Business Administration vs. Bachelor of Business Administration), as well as from similar business programs at different universities.”

Comments 5: Overall, this is a very high-quality study, the results and framework of which have the potential to inspire further research and practice in the field of higher education pedagogy.

I appreciate your thoughtful feedback. I have thoroughly addressed your comments, which I believe have substantially strengthened the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

he authors have addressed all reviewer comments and made substantial revisions to the manuscript. The theoretical and methodological limitations have been adequately dealt with or clearly acknowledged. The revised paper is now suitable for publication.

Author Response

Responses to Review 2:

Comments 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all reviewer comments and made substantial revisions to the manuscript. The theoretical and methodological limitations have been adequately dealt with or clearly acknowledged. The revised paper is now suitable for publication.

Response 1: Thank you for the positive feedback.