Abstract
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has pushed traditional classroom instruction to fully online teaching and learning modes. Higher education institutions in China were among the first to shift to these new modalities. The innovative integration of techno-pedagogies with the advancement of information communication technologies and multimedia applications made these rapid changes feasible in practice. However, the shift from traditional to fully online instruction was challenging. Student disengagement and learning performance losses due to these pedagogical changes have impacted the sustainability of educational programmes. We used mixed methods with dual-cycle action research to explore better pedagogical solutions. Seventy-six adult students, three teachers and three teaching assistants were involved in our study. Informed by the results of the first action research cycle, gamification was introduced in the second cycle. The gamified flipped classroom approach in the second action research cycle significantly improved student engagement, and their learning performance was sustained throughout the study. Suggestions for flexibility, all-in-inclusive, coopetitive learning, technical support and sustainable learning (F.A.C.T.S.) are proposed as a practical framework for new techno-pedagogical approaches in the current and post-COVID-19 era.
1. Introduction
During the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, higher education institutions (HEIs) in China moved their learning and teaching activities fully online, which affected more than 30 million students at 3000 institutions in the main cities [1]. During the campus closures, HEIs transformed their traditional instructional modes into more flexible online modes using advancements in information communication technologies (ICTs) [2,3]. Nevertheless, HEIs have shown a lack of proper planning and experience in designing fully online instructions during disease outbreaks [4]. Therefore, the shift from traditional to online instruction caused student disengagement and learning loss in actual practice during the COVID-19 pandemic [5]. It is necessary to explore effective pedagogies in practice to sustain online educational programmes and mitigate the negative impact of campus closures. In particular, research is needed to help educators understand how to increase their students’ engagement and sustain their learning performance in online learning environments.
Despite the vast improvements in ICTs and multimedia and social media platforms in recent years, HEIs still focused on traditional classroom lecturing approaches, with limited online instruction experience, before the onset of the pandemic [6]. Traditional classroom lecturing approaches are connected to a Chinese learning culture but result in low levels of student engagement [7]. Under China’s ‘dynamic COVID-zero’ and ‘suspending classes without stopping learning‘ (SCWSL) policies, teachers were urged to organise flexible online instruction to sustain their HEIs’ educational programmes [8]. However, adopting online education programmes in HEIs was challenging because of the teachers’ limited experience, knowledge and skills in planning online instruction [9], which led to the reduced effectiveness of their online educational programme deliveries. Therefore, we need to understand the efficacy of existing online instruction of HEIs’ educational programmes and how to improve in a fully online environment [10].
One of the flexible pedagogical approaches HEIs adopted before the COVID-19 pandemic was the flipped classroom approach. Students watched pre-recorded instructional videos online before attending their in-person class sessions [11]. The flipped classroom approach supposedly creates more in-class time for collaborative learning activities to boost student engagement [12]. Students watch the pre-recorded instructional videos online during the asynchronous self-study session before attending the synchronous class session [13]. Flipped classrooms enable flexible learning with self-study sessions and advanced learning with synchronous online class sessions [14]. Nonetheless, HEIs that adopted the flipped classroom approach in China experienced challenges, such as teachers’ lack of professional training to record instructional videos with digital technologies [9].
Before going into details about the study, we provide an explanation of several terms involved in this study to facilitate readers’ understanding. Sustainable learning refers to providing education with knowledge on how to maintain learning in different circumstances, including normalcy or crisis [15]. Techno-pedagogy is the combination of technology (e.g., ICT) with pedagogy, which enables effective teaching and delivery of course materials [16]. Gamification is using game elements in non-game contexts (e.g., education) [17]. Lastly, the gamified flipped classroom approach means the application of game elements (e.g., points and leaderboards) into the flipped classroom approach [18].
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Design
Our overarching goal was to understand the efficacy of current pedagogies in establishing a practical framework for designing new online techno-pedagogies in the present and post-COVID-19 era. The development of this framework will allow us to design new online pedagogies not only as a contingency plan but also as a practical guide to support student engagement and sustain their learning performance in online learning environments. We examined the challenges of the online pedagogical shift faced by teachers, teaching assistants and students during the pandemic using dual-cycle action research. The action research approach enhances our understanding of the required interventions and brings critical knowledge for practical improvements [19]. In addition, the action research approach avoids unfair treatment of students between the experiment groups [20]. Thus, the following research questions (RQs) guided our study:
RQ1. What is the efficacy of the current online pedagogy regarding student engagement and sustainable learning performance?
RQ2. How can we improve the efficacy of online instruction using the new techno-pedagogy regarding student engagement and sustainable learning performance?
RQ3. What is a practical framework for building new techno-pedagogies for the current and post-COVID-19 era?
2.1.1. Class and Module Arrangements
In our study, we conducted two action research cycles among the spring cohort of the post-graduate business management programme at the Institute of Business, which began in May 2022. Three modules were taught from May to July 2022. Each module took one month to complete, including 16 h of synchronous online class sessions on two consecutive days on weekends (i.e., 8 h each on Saturday and Sunday). Figure 1 shows the classroom arrangement of the first three modules in the spring cohort. Before starting the interventions in the first (June) and second (July) action research cycles, all students attended the first module (May) as usual in an online traditional lecturing format (i.e., online traditional classroom, OTC) (Figure 1). The topics of the three modules were Theme Park Marketing, Sales Analysis and Cloud-Based Marketing, respectively. All modules and teaching content were registered under the same qualification level in the qualification framework of education (i.e., Level 6) [21]. Therefore, all knowledge, content, intellectual skills and teaching processes were maintained consistently at the same level.
Figure 1.
Class and module arrangements.
Each module included pre-class (Weeks 1–2), synchronous online class (Week 3) and post-online class (Week 4) sessions (Figure 2). In the pre-class session, the teachers encouraged the students to browse the online learning resources, including programme content, during their flexible free time [22]. The students then attended two days of synchronous online class sessions (Week 3) and finished an individual essay assignment (Week 4) to complete each module.
Figure 2.
Rundown of class sessions for the two action research cycles.
2.1.2. Action Research Cycles and Interventions
This study aimed to assess current pedagogies and build a practical framework for improving the planning and implementation of new online techno-pedagogies, focusing on sustaining student engagement and learning performance. The learning gained through observations and reflections during the previous cycle guided our design for the pedagogy in the next cycle [23]. Four key stages comprised this cyclic research process (i.e., planning, action, observations, and reflections) (Figure 3). The first action research cycle started in module 2 (June) using the revised pedagogy after reviewing the problems and issues from the previous OTC practice. The second action research cycle was applied in module 3 (July) after evaluating the teaching review and reflection of the first cycle.
Figure 3.
Overview of the two action research cycles and interventions.
2.2. Participants
Seventy-eight students (mean age = 35 years; 72% women) participated in the pre-intervention stage (i.e., OTC). However, two students withdrew from our post-graduate business management programme for personal reasons. Therefore, 76 students (mean age = 33 years; 74% women) participated in the first and second action research cycles. Three teachers and three teaching assistants participated in both action research cycles. Before the first action research cycle began, the teacher-researcher led and initiated the review of teaching materials and collected feedback from students and teaching assistants with the other two teachers (Figure 3, Stages 1–2). The three teaching assistants were briefed on how to deliver the revised pedagogies before starting the action research cycles. The guidelines and instructions for the new pedagogies were given to all students in advance through the learning management system (LMS). The teachers and teaching assistants met online to reflect, exchange, and review their class observations from the first cycle (Figure 3, Stage 5). All actionable insights and items for improvement were included in the revision to the pedagogy for starting the second action research cycle (Figure 3, Stage 8).
2.3. Data Collection and Analysis
This study adopted a mixed methods approach with quantitative and qualitative analyses. All data were collected after each synchronous online class session before the start of the next cycle. We analysed these data to propose a practical framework for devising new online techno-pedagogies during and after pandemics.
2.3.1. Quantitative Data
The quantitative data sources included student surveys and learning performance results. We evaluated student engagement using a 20 min survey comprising 18 questions (Appendix A), with a 5-level Likert scale ranging from 5 ‘Strongly agree’ to 4 ‘Agree’, 3 ‘Neutral’, 2 ‘Disagree’ and 1 ‘Strongly disagree’. We included an open-ended question as the last item (i.e., Q18) to allow the students to share their thoughts and suggestions for improvement (Table 1).
Table 1.
Sample items from the student survey questionnaire.
Scores from the individual essay assignment served as quantitative data for the learning performance results. The academic committee assessed and approved the assignment questions, and the teachers strictly marked these assignments following the HEI’s marking schemes and rubrics. An external academic examiner appointed by the institute reviewed 30% of the assignments and grades. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion during regular academic committee meetings.
In answering RQ1 (i.e., the efficacy of the OTC pedagogy) and RQ2 (i.e., ways to improve the efficacy of online instruction using new techno-pedagogies), we analysed the quantitative data using Statistical Package Social Science software (version 28; IBM SPSS, Armonk, NY, USA). We used a t-test to evaluate and compare the students’ engagement survey responses and checked the results with Cronbach’s alpha reliability analyses [28]. We used the institute’s annual monitoring report (AMR) as a benchmark for evaluating student learning performance results in the three modules because the AMR is a standard reference for student learning performance. Assignment scores with a B grade or higher indicate that students have demonstrated a good understanding and ability to use the knowledge and concepts they learnt during the lessons.
2.3.2. Qualitative Data
The qualitative data sources included teacher and student interviews, class observation reports and teacher reflections. The interviews were guided by the semi-structured protocol focused on the challenges, problems, benefits and solutions for online pedagogies [11] (Table 2).
Table 2.
Sample items from the semi-structured protocol for teacher and student interviews.
The student’s participation level in the learning activities reflected their engagement. According to Al-Zahrani [29], student participation levels can be ranged from the least engaged, passive receiving to students who perform active manipulation, constructive generation and the most engaged interactive dialoguing. The teaching assistants observed and recorded the students’ levels of participation in their activity groups during the synchronous online class sessions by checking boxes in their class observation report forms (Figure 4).
Figure 4.
Class observation report forms for recording student participation levels during synchronous online class sessions.
2.3.3. Qualitative Content Analyses
To answer RQ3 (i.e., a practical framework for building new techno-pedagogies), we conducted qualitative content analyses (QCAs) using the data obtained from the responses in teacher and student interviews, class observation reports and teacher reflections [30]. According to Kuckartz [30] and Saldaña [31], thematic categorisation and subcategories are crucial for effective QCAs because they are the building blocks of the theories that researchers will develop. Therefore, the data were first transcribed into Chinese, and we conducted QCAs accordingly by following the steps listed below [32,33]:
- Concept-driven: We derived themes and subcategories from the literature on the current state of research and the RQs.
- Data-driven: We completed a stage-by-stage procedure by opening and developing top- and sub-level codes until achieving saturation and continuously organising and systematising the formed codes at different levels with the new incoming data.
- Mixed: We took these concept-driven themes and subcategories and subsequently coded all data accordingly with new generations of specific themes and subcategories when needed.
According to the findings, the teacher-researcher processed the data analysis and identified the core themes and new subcategories. The teachers examined the supporting evidence from class artefacts (e.g., student group presentations and virtual classroom posts) and recordings of online class sessions. The creation of themes, subcategories and data coding took place in cycles [32]. The RQs played a significant role in guiding and providing perspectives for text coding [33]. We coded the data from the second action research cycle using the corresponding themes and subcategories from the first cycle. We only created new themes and subcategories when necessary and with the coders’ agreement (i.e., between the teachers). Two teachers collaborated on the transcription of the interviews in Chinese. Some data were translated into English for reporting purposes. Any divergent opinions regarding the themes and subcategories were resolved by the teacher-researcher and teachers who discussed these discrepancies to achieve consensus during the coding meetings.
3. Results
3.1. Overview of the Two Action Research Cycles
Action research studies search for concrete, actionable items that can improve real-world practices [34]. Therefore, the teaching team (i.e., the teacher-researcher, two teachers and three teaching assistants) met online in the last week of each module (i.e., Week 4) for a dialogue-based discussion of the key findings and potential remedies for the next action research cycle. The key finding from the pre-intervention OTC module was that the students were disengaged, a common finding in traditional teacher-centric didactic online instruction with a lecturing style [35]. Following the literature [20] and an agreement between the teaching team, the online flipped classroom (OFC) approach was used as an actionable item for the first action research cycle.
Although the students were given a clear briefing about the benefit of online in-class collaborative learning activities before starting the OFC, they were reluctant to participate in the online in-class learning activities. This reluctance resulted in inadequate student interactions to achieve collaborative learning. We found that the students lacked learning motivation in the first action research cycle; therefore, the gamified flipped classroom (OGC) approach was used as the actionable item and remedy for the second action research cycle [36] (Table 3).
Table 3.
Overview of the findings from the two action research cycles.
3.2. Implementation Improvement after the Two Action Research Cycles
During the first and second action research cycles, 2 h of pre-recorded instructional videos (four 30 min videos) were provided online in the pre-class self-study session. We designed 2 h of in-class collaborative learning activities to improve student engagement during the synchronous online class sessions. We attempted to introduce gamification to motivate student learning after reviewing the feedback from the first cycle (OFC) and with reference to academic research. Gamification is a theory-driven innovative techno-pedagogy [37,38] with the potential to promote learning motivation and engagement in business management education when used together with the flipped classroom approach [39,40].
Hence, we used the OGC as the revised pedagogy in the second action research cycle. In the OGC, we applied game elements during the students’ collaborative learning activities: namely, points and leaderboards with specific purposes. We used these game elements to further motivate student engagement and sustain their learning performance [36]. These points and leaderboards did not count towards students’ academic results so distractions in their online learning could be avoided [41,42]. Table 4 presents the game elements and their applications.
Table 4.
Application of game elements in the OGC.
The institute’s LMS did not support a gamification function. Therefore, we used Qitoupiao, a local online learning application (Figure 5). In addition, it has a unique gamification function that can be set in the leaderboard display to show each group’s real-time accumulation of points. This function successfully increased the student groups’ excitement and competitive learning behaviour [43].
Figure 5.
A screenshot of the Qitoupiao application.
3.3. Quantitative Results
We analysed the students’ survey responses from the two action research cycles (OFC, n = 76; OGC, n = 76). Cronbach’s alpha for the OFC and OGC responses was 0.85 and 0.90, respectively, indicating the good reliability of the questionnaires [28]. Among the 17 survey items, there was a significant difference in 5 items (Table 5), indicating an improvement in student engagement in the second cycle (OGC).
Table 5.
Student engagement survey questionnaire response of OFC and OGC.
We used the institute’s AMR to monitor student learning performance based on the benchmark for quality teaching and learning (i.e., ≥80% of the total student assignments with a B grade or above). As shown in Table 6, the percentages of assignment scores with B a grade or above for OTC (pre-intervention), OFC (the first cycle) and OGC (the second cycle) were all above 80%. That is, the student learning performance in the three modules was sustained without learning loss throughout the action research.
Table 6.
Student learning performance in the two action research cycles.
In summary, our quantitative data analyses showed that the OGC in the second cycle promoted the students’ perceived learning and behavioural, emotional and cognitive engagement. Simultaneously, learning performance was sustained.
3.4. Qualitative Results
The class observation reports showed that the students were primarily passive receivers in the pre-intervention (OTC) and the first cycle (OFC) modules. In contrast, the OGC module in the second cycle improved their participation levels from passive receiving to constructive generation. The teachers also noted that the students asked more questions and provided more innovative ideas during collaborative learning activity sessions. We also performed a frequency count of the themes in our qualitative analysis to obtain an overall picture of the participant’s responses. These frequencies consolidated the insights from a total of 386 quotes from the two cycles that reflected the challenges, problems, benefits and solutions during the fully online instruction (Table 7).
Table 7.
Themes and subcategories from our qualitative data analyses.
Since gamification was the actionable item and remedy for the second cycle, the teacher-researcher revisited the students who did not appreciate the online class in the first cycle (i.e., OFC). Their response and feedback were as follows: ‘We were more willing to turn on our cameras and worked on the group tasks assigned in the class exercise like playing team competitions’ (S-15) and ‘We don’t want to lose and look down upon from other groups, so we work hard with the classmates in our own group’ (S-13).
4. Discussion
We conducted our study in response to the call for new pedagogical possibilities to mitigate the potential impact of closures of HEI campuses on the sustainability of their educational programmes [1]. Our two main concerns were student disengagement and learning losses [5]. The two cycles of this action research study explored the challenges, problems, benefits, and solutions for innovative online pedagogies, with particular attention to student engagement and learning performance. We obtained significant insights from the two action research cycles involving three pedagogical approaches (i.e., OTC, OFC and OGC).
Based on the feedback and observations during each cycle, we added new ways of thinking and improvements to the next action research cycle; that is, OFC and OGC were added to the first and second cycles, respectively. Quay et al. [44] emphasised that ‘the ways of doing are ways of knowing’ (p. 110); thus, the results of our action research study disclosed the importance of flexibility, all-in-inclusive, coopetitive learning, technical support and sustainable learning (F.A.C.T.S.) framework in fully online learning environments. Coopetition is a noteworthy finding in our results. As noted by the teaching assistants, the gamification application displayed two rounds of group rankings in the leaderboard (i.e., Day 1 and Day 2) motivated more exchanges and discussion within the group. The teachers also reflected that the students gave more new ideas and solutions in the learning activities to earn more points in the OGC. Intra-group collaboration was promoted, and at the same time, students also exhibited the desire to win over other groups (inter-group competition). Muijs and Rumyantseva [43] also observed these co-opetition behaviours in educational settings; that is, students compete with their peers while learning collaboratively. Moreover, the results indicate the need for an immersive and participative learning space which can provide in-person, on-site, interactive online learning experiences.
4.1. Efficacy of Current Online Pedagogical Approaches (RQ1)
Considering the first RQ, we found that moving traditional lectures online (i.e., OTC) was the most readily available approach to facilitate flexible learning during campus closures. However, as observed by Cao et al. [10], OTC provided a poor learning experience and caused student disengagement. Moreover, the teaching assistants reported that both the OTC and OFC modules led to dull classes, and almost all students turned their cameras off in online class sessions. In contrast to the proponents of OFC [29], our observation of flipped classes did not show any improvement in the student’s participation level. Another recent study obtained similar findings [24]. Furthermore, our results showed that the students’ inadequate learning motivation caused their disengagement in the first cycle (OFC), also noted by Lo [20]. As mentioned by Peters et al. [1], one of the reasons leading to student disengagement is that they are not naturally motivated by online pedagogies.
4.2. Efficacy Improvement of Online Pedagogical Approaches (RQ2)
We added game elements to the second cycle (OGC), and more exchanges and discussions were observed. In addition, more students turned on their cameras than in the earlier modules (Table 3). The game elements worked to support teachers’ granular feedback (e.g., points) and promote coopetitive learning (e.g., leaderboards) [41], which both helped to motivate student engagement and increased their levels of participation in the learning activities [24]. During the OGC module, the students showed significant improvements in their perceived learning and behavioural, emotional and cognitive engagement. The study results showed that the efficacy of the online pedagogical approach regarding student engagement improved when using the OGC pedagogy. In addition, gamification promoted all-inclusive participation, including teachers (e.g., giving granular feedback as points to students), students (e.g., being motivated to provide more new ideas and solutions for teachers’ points) and teaching assistants (e.g., running and displaying the gamification application). These supported the sustainability of educational programmes in online learning environments [41].
Following these significant improvements, technical problems also emerged (e.g., network or system issues, poor video broadcasts, weak online instruction skills and techniques). Asharaf [9] observed that shifting from traditional pedagogical approaches to online instruction is not as easy as we think because all sorts of technical problems may happen. The feedback from the teachers and teaching assistants in the two action research cycles also reflected the need for professional training among the teaching team to build their digital competence and online teaching skill sets [24].
4.3. Practical Framework for Online Pedagogical Approaches (RQ3)
Our study identified five themes and corresponding subcategories (Figure 6). The most mentioned theme was all-inclusive because the students were eager to express their thoughts and looked for the teachers’ authoritative input, especially when they were motivated by game elements (i.e., points and leaderboards). The students also missed the on-site, in-person feeling of shared presence with their classmates and teacher, such as in the traditional classroom learning before the pandemic [45]. The second most quoted theme was coopetitive learning because the adult students were experienced practitioners and found it valuable to learn from each other, especially in the practical application of their acquired knowledge [24]. Simultaneously, these students regarded their class peers as competitors for academic results [41]. As observed by Muijs and Rumyantseva [43], the teachers and teaching assistants found that the students wanted to win over each other during the group discussion and presentations.
Figure 6.
The five major quoted themes (F.A.C.T.S.) and their respective percentages.
The third most quoted theme was sustainable learning. The students wanted to continue their learning after each synchronous online class session. The students wanted to keep communicating and studying with their peers. Therefore, we set up a learning community and study groups using social media platforms [24]. Flexibility was the fourth most quoted theme. Students understandably benefit from online learning resources during prolonged campus closures because these resources allow them to self-study in their flexible personal time [44]. Finally, all participants (i.e., teachers, teaching assistants and students) mentioned the need for technical support. Online instruction would be impossible without using hardware and software applications. Teachers must prepare much more digital instruction and videos than traditional instruction. In addition, they must have the appropriate skill sets to manage different applications and media while teaching online. All participants were annoyed by the frequent interruptions due to issues such as network connections, delays and blackouts [45].
Following the emergence of new variants of COVID-19, HEIs must explore innovative and viable techno-pedagogies that can promote student engagement and sustain learning performance in online learning environments [45]. We propose a practical F.A.C.T.S. framework based on our study results to help HEIs develop new online techno-pedagogies. With reference to the F.A.C.T.S. framework and recent research [46,47], we plan to introduce more interactive, immersive and participative techno-pedagogies, such as incorporating VR in the next action research cycle (Figure 7).
Figure 7.
Online VR pedagogical approach using the F.A.C.T.S. framework.
5. Conclusions and Limitations
Various sectors of society were involved in fighting the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and educators were no exception [5]. Local HEIs commonly moved their traditional lectures online (i.e., OTC) and used flipped classrooms (i.e., OFC) [6]. Despite their various challenges and problems, we also observed various benefits and solutions for improving the efficacy of fully online pedagogies [7]. Our results showed that student engagement improved significantly in the second action research cycle by using the OGC pedagogical approach, and their learning performance could be sustained by fully online pedagogies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This study contributes to exploring a practical framework (F.A.C.T.S.) to guide HEIs’ development of the most appropriate online techno-pedagogies. However, this study was conducted with students from one discipline (i.e., business management) in one HEI in China. Therefore, our results might not be generalisable. Although they produced insights into improving the efficacy of online pedagogies, the student’s perceptions of learning and engagement were subjective. Further studies with a larger sample are required to strengthen the scientific aspect. Furthermore, this study and the suggested F.A.C.T.S. framework focus on pedagogy and learning with an attempt to incorporate gamification Researchers can testify other options (e.g., personalisation and VR application) to increase student engagement [46]. Finally, HEIs must consider their funding and budget constraints in the development of engaging online techno-pedagogies [47].
Author Contributions
Investigation, conceptualization, project administration, formal analysis, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, data curation, and visualization, L.-K.N.; conceptualization, methodology, supervision, and validation, C.-K.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Education University of Hong Kong guidelines (protocol code: 2020-2021-0436; date of approval: 28 October 2021).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The data samples and detailed coding procedures can be accessed by contacting the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
Thank you for the constructive and valuable feedback from the editor and professional reviewers. This study is in partial fulfillment of the Education University of Hong Kong Research Project/Thesis Requirements.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Student survey questionnaire.
Table A1.
Student survey questionnaire.
| Aspect | Questions |
|---|---|
| Perceived learning (Q1–3) |
|
| Behavioural engagement (Q4–8) |
|
| Emotional engagement (Q9–13) |
|
| Cognitive engagement (Q14–17) |
|
| Open-ended question |
|
References
- Peters, M.A.; Rizvi, F.; McCulloch, G.; Gibbs, P.; Gorur, R.; Hong, M.; Hwang, Y.; Zipin, L.; Brennan, M.; Robertson, S.; et al. Reimagining the New Pedagogical Possibilities for Universities Post-Covid-19. Educ. Philos. Theory 2020, 54, 717–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, J.; Geng, X.; Wang, Q. Sustainable Development of University EFL Learners’ Engagement, Satisfaction, and Self-Efficacy in Online Learning Environments: Chinese Experiences. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Divaharan, S.; Chia, A. Blended Learning Reimagined: Teaching and Learning in Challenging Contexts. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hallgarten, J. Evidence on Efforts to Mitigate the Negative Educational Impact of Past Disease Outbreaks. 2020. Available online: opendocs.ids.ac.uk (accessed on 29 November 2022).
- Kuhfeld, M.; Soland, J.; Tarasawa, B.; Johnson, A.; Ruzek, E.; Liu, J. Projecting the Potential Impact of COVID-19 School Closures on Academic Achievement. Educ. Res. 2020, 49, 549–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, W.; Liu, Q.; Hong, X. Implementation and Challenges of Online Education during the COVID-19 Outbreak: A National Survey of Children and Parents in China. Early Child. Res. Q. 2022, 61, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, L.; Huang, J.; Zhang, Y. Education Development in China: Education Return, Quality, and Equity. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Wang, Y.; Yang, L.; Wang, C. Suspending Classes without Stopping Learning: China’s Education Emergency Management Policy in the COVID-19 Outbreak. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2020, 13, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashraf, M.A.; Liu, S.; Ismat, H.I.; Tsegay, S.M. Choice of Higher Education Institutions: Perspectives of Students from Different Provinces in China. Front. Educ. China 2017, 12, 414–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Y.; Zhang, S.; Chan, M.C.E.; Kang, Y. Post-Pandemic Reflections: Lessons from Chinese Mathematics Teachers about Online Mathematics Instruction. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2021, 22, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alqarni, A. Blended Learning and Flipped Classroom Approaches. Am. Res. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2018, 4, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozdamli, F.; Asiksoy, G. Flipped Classroom Approach. World J. Educ. Technol. 2016, 8, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rotellar, C.; Cain, J. Research, Perspectives, and Recommendations on Implementing the Flipped Classroom. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2016, 80, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roehling, P.V.; Root Luna, L.M.; Richie, F.J.; Shaughnessy, J.J. The Benefits, Drawbacks, and Challenges of Using the Flipped Classroom in an Introduction to Psychology Course. Teach. Psychol. 2017, 44, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Eliyahu, A. Sustainable Learning in Education. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gurukkal, R. Techno-Pedagogy Needs Mavericks. High. Educ. Future 2021, 8, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deterding, S. Gamification in Management: Between Choice Architecture and Humanistic Design. J. Manag. Inq. 2018, 28, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zainuddin, Z. Students’ Learning Performance and Perceived Motivation in Gamified Flipped-Class Instruction. Comput. Educ. 2018, 126, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilfred, C.; Kemmis, S. Becoming Critical: Education Knowledge and Action Research; Routledge Farmer, Taylor & Francis Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Lo, C.K. Toward a Flipped Classroom Instructional Model for History Education: A Call for Research. Int. J. Cult. Hist. EJournal 2017, 3, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong Kong Government. Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ). Available online: https://www.hkqf.gov.hk (accessed on 24 December 2022).
- Abeysekera, L.; Dawson, P. Motivation and Cognitive Load in the Flipped Classroom: Definition, Rationale and a Call for Research. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2014, 34, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNiff, J. Editorial: Higher Education Research and Scholarship Group Special Issue: Action Research in Higher Education. Stud. Engagem. Exp. J. 2012, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, L.-K.; Lo, C.-K. Online Flipped and Gamification Classroom: Risks and Opportunities for the Academic Achievement of Adult Sustainable Learning during COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo, C.K.; Hew, K.F. A Comparison of Flipped Learning with Gamification, Traditional Learning, and Online Independent Study: The Effects on Students’ Mathematics Achievement and Cognitive Engagement. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 28, 464–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skinner, E.; Furrer, C.; Marchand, G.; Kindermann, T. Engagement and Disaffection in the Classroom: Part of a Larger Motivational Dynamic? J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 100, 765–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chi, M.T.H.; Wylie, R. The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. Educ. Psychol. 2014, 49, 219–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. And Sex and Drugs and Rock’n’Roll. Pflege 2014, 27, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Zahrani, A.M. From Passive to Active: The Impact of the Flipped Classroom through Social Learning Platforms on Higher Education Students’ Creative Thinking. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2015, 46, 1133–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuckartz, U. Qualitative Text Analysis; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Saldaña, J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Thyer, B.A. The Scientific Value of Qualitative Research for Social Work. Qual. Soc. Work Res. Pract. 2012, 11, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guy, B.; Feldman, T.; Cain, C.; Leesman, L.; Hood, C. Defining and Navigating “Action” in a Participatory Action Research Project. Educ. Action Res. 2019, 28, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Humphries, B.; Clark, D. An Examination of Student Preference for Traditional Didactic or Chunking Teaching Strategies in an Online Learning Environment. Res. Learn. Technol. 2021, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sailer, M.; Hense, J.U.; Mayr, S.K.; Mandl, H. How Gamification Motivates: An Experimental Study of the Effects of Specific Game Design Elements on Psychological Need Satisfaction. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 69, 371–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, B.; Hew, K.F. Implementing a Theory-Driven Gamification Model in Higher Education Flipped Courses: Effects on Out-of-Class Activity Completion and Quality of Artifacts. Comput. Educ. 2018, 125, 254–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subhash, S.; Cudney, E.A. Gamified Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 87, 192–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dichev, C.; Dicheva, D.; Irwin, K. Gamifying Learning for Learners. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2020, 17, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Da Silva, R.J.R.; Rodrigues, R.G.; Leal, C.T.P. Gamification in Management Education: A Systematic Literature Review. BAR-Braz. Adm. Rev. 2019, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, L.-K.; Lo, C.-K. Flipped Classroom and Gamification Approach: Its Impact on Performance and Academic Commitment on Sustainable Learning in Education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rotgans, J.I.; Schmidt, H.G.; Rajalingam, P.; Hao, J.W.Y.; Canning, C.A.; Ferenczi, M.A.; Low-Beer, N. How Cognitive Engagement Fluctuates during a Team-Based Learning Session and How It Predicts Academic Achievement. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 2017, 23, 339–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muijs, D.; Rumyantseva, N. Coopetition in Education: Collaborating in a Competitive Environment. J. Educ. Chang. 2013, 15, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quay, J.; Gray, T.; Thomas, G.; Allen-Craig, S.; Asfeldt, M.; Andkjaer, S.; Beames, S.; Cosgriff, M.; Dyment, J.; Higgins, P.; et al. What Future/S for Outdoor and Environmental Education in a World That Has Contended with COVID-19? J. Outdoor Environ. Educ. 2020, 23, 93–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo, C.K.; Hew, K.F. Design Principles for Fully Online Flipped Learning in Health Professions Education: A Systematic Review of Research during the COVID-19 Pandemic. BMC Med. Educ. 2022, 22, 720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radianti, J.; Majchrzak, T.A.; Fromm, J.; Wohlgenannt, I. A Systematic Review of Immersive Virtual Reality Applications for Higher Education: Design Elements, Lessons Learned, and Research Agenda. Comput. Educ. 2020, 147, 103778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petersen, G.B.; Petkakis, G.; Makransky, G. A Study of How Immersion and Interactivity Drive vr Learning. Comput. Educ. 2022, 179, 104429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).


