During the last decade and, particularly, from the restrictions on mobility brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, online and digital teaching is positioning itself as an alternative to face-to-face teaching. As of today, however, the soundness of this alternative teaching in terms of learning outcomes and students’ success is not yet clear, even though it is particularly important, since it may determine future teaching plans, strategies and methodology. This article presents the results of a teaching research project analyzing the impact of active participation and face-to-face interaction of students on their performance from a quantitative approach. Through an empirical study carried out with several groups of university students in financial accounting over a four-year period, we analyze the effect of including face-to-face techniques of participation and teaching innovation on students’ success and performance. The quantitative results indicate a significant improvement in all the indicators of the “experimental” groups, compared to face-to-face standard teaching groups and streaming teaching groups. By enhancing active participation, better marks and performance are achieved, especially in the continuous evaluation system. The qualitative results, based on the opinion of the students, also indicate their preference for models of active participation and interaction, as well as their positive perception of the success of the initiative. The advantages derived from innovative face-to-face teaching are evidenced since it favors group interaction and active participation of the students, which are crucial elements for performance and academic success.
Success Continuous Evaluation Global Tests 1st Test 2nd Test Continuous 1st Test 2nd Test GE GC GH GS Difference GE and GC Difference GE and GH Difference GE and GS 62.84% 59.48% 54.02% 45.02% 3.36% 8.81% 17.82% 73.03% 68.75% 70.80% 61.48% 4.28% 2.23% 11.56% 73.03% 68.75% 63.50% 55.74% 4.28% 9.53% 17.30% 15.12% 10.67% 33.56% 21.95% 4.45% 18.45% 6.83% 32.20% 30.91% 27.82% 36.27% 1.29% 4.38% 4.07%
id: a7dfc09b81ec7014efbb5aa862ba50ea - page: 8
Source: The Authors. The second indicator proposed is that of Success, which shows the percentage of students who pass the subject among those who attended it, indicating their preparation for and aptitude in the exam and, therefore, the success of their learning effort. Table 6 shows the results obtained for each test and group. Again, the differences of the experimental groups with those of control, history and streaming are very notable. In the continuous assessment tests, the percentage of pass is signicantly higher in the experimental sub-groups, even taking into account the higher percentage of students attending them. The higher success in all tests compared to the control sub-groups, almost 5% more success in the Continuous and rst global test, seems to suggest that students in the experimental sub-groups are better prepared than those in the control sub-groups.
id: 9a6b975ef07c83b0ce2dfd1335989ffa - page: 8
In historical groups, the lower success achieved in continuous evaluation together with the high negative difference in the rst global test indicates a tendency to focus directly on the global test to the detriment of continuous evaluation. Again, the streaming model shows a different trend, marked by the much lower success in Continuous, which is partially compensated in global tests. However, as these are success rates on students attending the exam, it is necessary to combine Success with Commitment to obtain a clear indication of what impact the experiment has had on the whole subject, both at the level of attendance and of successfully passing it (Table 7). The following indicator includes this idea under the name of Performance, showing the percentage of pass in each test over the total number of students enrolled in every system course. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 429 9 of 13 Table 7. Results in Performance. Ratio Passed/Enrolled Performance Continuous Evaluation Global Tests
id: 3e130d9df4f988fd683d4ac44cc5d9ba - page: 8
1st Test 2nd Test Continuous 1st Test 2nd Test GE GC GH GS Difference GE and GC Difference GE and GH Difference GE and GS 40.79% 32.70% 32.79% 34.38% 8.09% 8.00% 6.41% 28.51% 20.85% 22.56% 19.69% 7.66% 5.95% 8.82% 28.51% 20.85% 20.23% 17.85% 7.66% 8.28% 10.66% 5.70% 3.79% 11.40% 7.09% 1.91% 5.69% 1.38% 8.33% 8.06% 8.60% 9.71% 0.28% 0.27% 1.38%
id: 6628a30c11d2ac02c6b89aed0d1ebe8a - page: 9