article Open Access (gold) ES 2020-10-02

Análisis comparativo de los perfiles motivacionales y el Estado de Flow entre una metodología tradicional y la metodología Flipped Classroom en estudiantes de Educación Física (Comparative analysis of motivational profiles and flow status between a tradi

Pablo Cuenca Ruano, Salvador García Martínez, Alberto Férriz-Valero, Juan Tortosa‐Martínez

Retos, Vol. 39, pp. 338–344 (2020)

DOI: 10.47197/retos.v0i39.78574

Abstract

El proceso de enseñanza y aprendizaje está muy determinado por la motivación y el ambiente de aprendizaje. La motivación y el ambiente de aprendizaje, dentro de la educación, dependen mucho de las metodologías educativas que se implementan en los centros educativos. El objetivo de este trabajo es comparar la motivación y el estado de Flow entre la estrategia metodológica Flipped Classroom y una metodología tradicional. Para ello se llevó a cabo un estudio de diseño cuasiexperimental, con selección de la muestra no probabilística e intencional. 103 alumnos universitarios participaron en el estudio, divididos en un grupo experimental (Flipped Classroom) y un grupo control (metodología tradicional). La motivación y el estado de Flow se evaluaron antes de comenzar la impartición de lecciones relacionadas con la asignatura: “Didáctica de la Educación Física” y al finalizar la misma (cuatro meses). Se utilizaron los cuestionarios de metas de logro 2x2 (Guan et al., 2006) y DREEM (Herrera et al., 2015). Para determinar si existían diferencias iniciales y finales entre los grupos se realizó la prueba T-Student de muestras independientes. Para observar las diferencias intragrupo (pre vs pos-test) se utilizó una prueba T-Student para muestras relacionadas. Los resultados muestran que existen diferencias significativas entre el grupo de control y el grupo experimental en las variables aproximación/maestría (p < .001), enseñanza (p = .003) y aprendizaje (p = .05). Con la metodología Flipped Classroom el alumnado presenta niveles en la motivación y en el estado de Flow superiores al alumnado que imparte una metodología tradicional. Summary. The teaching and learning process is highly determined by motivation and the learning environment. The motivation and the learning environment, within education, both of them depend a lot on the educational methodologies that are implemented in educational centers. The objective of this work is to compare the motivation and the state of Flow between the Flipped Classroom methodological strategy and a traditional methodology. For this reason, a quasi-experimental design study was carried out, with a selection of the non-probabilistic and intentional sample. 103 university students participated in the study, divided into an experimental group (Flipped Classroom) and a control group (traditional methodology). The motivation and the state of Flow were evaluated before the beginning of the lessons related to the subject: "Physical Education Didactics" and at the end of it (four months later). The 2x2 achievement goal questionnaires (Guan et al., 2006) and DREEM (Herrera et al., 2015) were used. To determine if there are initial and final differences between the groups, the T-Student test was performed on independent samples. To observe intra-group differences (pre vs. post-test), a T-Student test was detected for related samples. The results found that there are differences between the control group and the experimental group in the variables approach/mastery (p < .001), teaching (p = .003) and learning (p = .05). With the Flipped Classroom methodology, students have higher levels of motivation and Flow status than students who teach a traditional methodology.

Topics

Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports 0.90 Sports and Physical Education Studies 0.81 Educational Outcomes and Influences 0.80

Field: Psychology · Subfield: Social Psychology

Keywords

Humanities,Psychology,Philosophy

UN Sustainable Development Goals

  • Quality Education (0.79)

All Available Versions

  • Landing page — Retos publishedVersion cc-by-nc-nd
  • Landing page — DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) submittedVersion

Citations by Year

202620252024202320222021
145623
2.30
FWCI
88%
Normalized Pctile
4
Authors

Continue on JournalsHub

Put what you just read into practice with these free tools.

Comparison Shortlist
0 journals
Est. APC Budget: $0
Compare Now
Compare 0 Open → Clear
Save your viewing history
You've browsed several journals this session. Sign in to track them in one place and get weekly impact-factor updates.
Save with Google