Content uploaded by Robin Holding Kay
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robin Holding Kay on Oct 14, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 1
A Comparison of Lecture-Based, Active, and Flipped Classroom
Teaching Approaches in Higher Education
Dr. Robin Kay
Professor
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
11 Simcoe St. North
Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA
L1H 7L7
Tel: 905-721-8668 ext. 2679
robin.kay@uoit.ca
Thom MacDonald
Durham College
Professor
Oshawa, Canada
Thom.MacDonald@durhamcollege.ca
Dr. Maurice DiGiuseppe
Associate Professor
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Oshawa, Canada
Maurice.DiGiuseppe@uoit.ca
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 2
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare community college students’ learning
experiences and performance for lecture-based, active learning, and flipped classroom teaching
approaches. Participants were second-semester computer programming students (n = 103) at a
mid-sized college of applied arts and technology. Garrison’s (2012) Community of Inquiry
(CoI) framework informed our analysis of students’ learning experiences within each approach.
Overall, active learning resulted in the highest mean scores for teaching, social, and cognitive
presence. In particular, students rated teaching presence significantly higher for the active-
learning approach than the lecture-based approach. Students rated social presence significantly
higher for the active-learning and flipped classroom approaches compared to the lecture-based.
There were no significant differences among the three approaches with respect to cognitive
presence or learning performance. Student comments indicated that all three approaches had
distinct benefits and challenges regarding teaching, social and cognitive presence. Regardless of
the teaching approach employed in this study, five desired learning characteristics emerged
based on student feedback including clarity, flexibility, opportunities for application, timely
guidance and feedback, and cognitive engagement.
Keywords: lecture, active learning, flipped classroom, attitudes, learning
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 3
A Comparison of Lecture-Based, Active, and Flipped Classroom
Teaching Approaches in Higher Education
Overview
The lecture, a teaching-learning strategy where instructors directly communicate curricular
information to students, is the most common teaching strategy employed in higher education
(Lambert, 2012). Two other teaching approaches, namely, active learning and the flipped
classroom, are increasingly being employed by higher education instructors as alternatives to the
lecture approach (Drinkwater et al., 2014). Active learning is a student-centered approach where
instructors and students collaborate, engage and interact with course content (Prince, 2004). The
flipped classroom reverses the typical in-class lecture. Students watch online video lectures
before class and complete learning exercises during class, with the instructor acting as coach,
mentor, or guide (Lage, Platt, & Treglia, 2000). Previous research has almost exclusively
compared the use of lectures to flipped classrooms. Obtaining feedback from students who have
experienced all three teaching strategies in a single course provides a more accurate analysis of
the relative benefits, challenges, and nuances. The purpose of this study, then, was to compare
lecture-based, active learning, and flipped classroom teaching approaches used in a first-year
community college computer programming course.
Literature Review
The Lecture-Based Approach
Lecturing is one of the most prominent teaching methodologies used in colleges and
universities today (Bligh, 2000; Brown & Race, 2005; Charlton, 2006; Davis & Minifie, 2013;
Roehl, Reddy, & Shannon, 2013). A lecture can be an efficient way to convey relatively large
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 4
amounts of content knowledge to numerous students (Bligh, 2000; Brown & Race, 2005;
Charlton, 2006) while providing some opportunity for student-instructor interaction through
questioning (Brown & Race, 2005). A skilled lecturer may enhance student engagement by
conveying a sense of passion for the subject matter (Bligh, 2000) and increase focus emphasizing
particularly important material (Race, 2007). Finally, a lecture may be less cognitively taxing for
students because the content is well-organized and presented systematically (Charlton, 2006;
Kirschner et al., 2006).
On the other hand, a lecture-based approach can lead to several problems. Lecturing may
not be effective at promoting levels of learning beyond knowledge and comprehension (Bligh,
2000; Charlton, 2006), nor is it particularly well suited for developing practical skills and
knowledge (Bligh, 2000; Charlton, 2006). In addition, lectures may not be sufficiently tailored
to the specific needs of individual students (Bligh, 2000). Moreover, during lectures, instructors
obtain only limited feedback from which to assess student comprehension (Bligh, 2000).
Finally, expecting students to stay focused for extended lectures may not be realistic (Bligh,
2000).
The Active Learning Approach
Higher education instructors have started to shift away from using passive teaching
strategies like lectures to more active-learning approaches (Charlton, 2006; Michael, 2006;
Richardson, 2008). Active learning comes in various forms (Richardson, 2008) and typically
involves students applying their knowledge in meaningful ways (Frydenberg, 2013), employing
higher order thinking skills (Roehl et al., 2013), and reflecting on their learning (Frydenberg,
2013; Michael, 2006; Roehl et al., 2013). Active learning strategies are considered student-
centred because the learner manages how individual learning goals are achieved (Ferreri &
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 5
O’Connor, 2013; Michael, 2006; Taylor, McGrath-Champ, & Clarkeburn, 2012). Active
learning approaches are based on the principle that learning is most effective when students
construct solutions to substantial, ill-defined problems, with minimal instructional guidance
(Kirschner et al., 2006).
Some evidence suggests that active learning techniques are effective (Michael, 2006;
Richardson, 2006) and superior to lectures in developing thinking and problem-solving skills
(Davis & Minifie, 2013), improving student attitudes and achievement (Davis & Minifie, 2013),
and engaging students in learning (Davis & Minifie, 2013). Additional research indicates that
collaboration, often part of an active learning approach, promotes critical thinking and deeper
understanding (Laal & Laal, 2012), improves retention and learning outcomes (Michael, 2006),
increases student interest, and sets conditions for students to take responsibility for their learning
(Laal & Laal, 2012).
Despite the apparent benefits, implementing active learning in higher education programs
can be challenging. Active learning techniques typically require that students have a common
foundation of knowledge about a subject area (Davis & Minifie, 2013; Kirschner et al., 2006).
Furthermore, active learning can be more resource intensive than a lecture-based approach and is
challenging to implement with a larger number of students, (Ferreri & O’Connor, 2013).
Kirschner et al. (2006) add that minimal guidance approaches, including active learning, are less
pedagogically efficient than techniques involving direct instruction.
The Flipped Classroom Approach
In the flipped classroom, lectures in the form of online videos are viewed outside of class
time, creating the opportunity for instructors to provide mentorship and guidance during class
hours (FLN, 2014). Instructors may use the flipped classroom approach because of its potential
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 6
to increase the depth of engagement without sacrificing the amount of content and efficiency of
delivery inherent in the lecture-based approach (Strayer, 2012).
The research is somewhat mixed regarding higher education student attitudes toward
flipped classrooms. Some students preferred flipped classroom over lectures (Larson &
Yamamoto, 2013; Lasry, Dugdale, & Charles, 2014; McLaughlin et al., 2014; Murphree, 2014;
Schwartz, 2014) while other students preferred lectures over flipped classroom (Findlay-
Thompson & Mombourquette, 2014; Guerrero et al., 2013; Larson & Yamamoto, 2013).
Specific benefits of flipped classroom include overall positive impact on learning (Frydenberg,
2013; Larson & Yamamoto, 2013; Lucke, Keyssner, & Dunn , 2013), any place/any time access
to online multimedia resources, including videos (Boucher, Robertson, Wainner, & Sanders,
2013; Forsey, Low & Glance, 2013; Yeung & O’Malley, 2014), working with peers and sharing
ideas in class (Ferreri & O’Connor, 2013; Love, Dugdale, Grandgenett, & Swift, 2014; Ryan,
2013), increased opportunities for interaction with instructors (Lage et al., 2000; Pierce & Fox,
2012; Slomanson, 2014), and greater self-confidence (Ferreri & O’Connor, 2013; McLaughlin et
al., 2014; Pierce & Fox, 2012; Sales, 2013).
Negative attitudes toward flipped classroom have included having to watch long, boring
videos (Boucher et al., 2013; Guerrero et al., 2013), time constraints (Butt, 2014), and the
frustration, disorientation, and confusion of adjusting to a new and unfamiliar approach (Strayer,
2012). However, initial resistance and frustration seem to occur in the first few weeks of a
flipped classroom-based course. By the end of the course, many students prefer the flipped
classroom over lectures (Strayer, 2012).
A majority of studies have reported that attendance, engagement, and motivation increased
when a flipped classroom approach was used, with student attendance, in particular, being higher
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 7
in flipped classrooms than in traditional, lecture-based classrooms (Butt, 2014; Forsey et al.,
2013; Lucke et al., 2013; McLaughlin et al., 2014; Sales, 2013). Furthermore, engagement has
been shown to increase substantially when the flipped classroom approach was used (Critz &
Knight, 2013; Frydenberg, 2013; Lasry et al., 2014; Lucke et al., 2013; McLaughlin et al., 2014;
Ryan, 2013). The flipped classroom approach has also been shown to have a positive impact on
student motivation (Lage et al., 2000), especially when quizzes were a routine part of the
assessment component (Frydenberg, 2013; Tune et al., 2013; Wilson, 2013).
Regarding academic performance, the impact of flipped classrooms is uneven. Many
studies have reported statistically significant gains in favour of flipped classrooms over
conventional classrooms (Ferreri & O’Connor, 2013; McLaughlin et al., 2014; Pierce & Fox,
2012; Tune et al., 2013; Wilson, 2013), while others have noted no statistical difference in grades
between flipped and traditional approaches (Davies, Dean, & Ball, 2013; Guerrero et al., 2013;
Larson & Yamamoto, 2013; Love et al., 2014). No pattern was evident that might explain why
certain studies found a positive impact on student grades while others showed no impact.
Method
Participants
The participants (n=103) were volunteers recruited from three sections of a second-
semester computer programming course taught at a mid-sized community college of applied arts
and technology. The college resides in a suburban region of approximately 650,000 people. The
participant response rates for the different data-collection points in this study ranged from a low
of 13% (n = 13) to a high of 50% (n = 51), with a mean of 33%. Combined response rates were
42% for the lecture-based approach, 30% for active the learning approach, and 25% for the
flipped classroom approach (Table 1).
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 8
The majority of the participants (84%) were between 18 and 24 years old. Over 80% of
the participants agreed that they had the prerequisite computing skills required for the blended
learning environment offered in the course. Most participants rated their programming skill level
at either a developing (52%) or intermediate level (36%). A majority of the participants
indicated that they had moderate (12%) or high (68%) interest in learning to program. Informed
consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Research Design
We used a convergent parallel mixed method design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) to
compare three different approaches to teaching computer programming: lecture-based, active
learning and flipped classroom. Convergent parallel mixed method design refers to collecting
quantitative and qualitative data concurrently, analyzing each type of data separately, and
merging the results into a single interpretation (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Quantitative
data was collected using Likert-scale survey questions and online quiz grades. Qualitative data
consisted of open-ended survey question responses.
Data Collection
To address the research questions in this study, we collected data on student learning
experience, perceived benefits and challenges and performance after each of the six, two-week
units taught in the computer-programming course. The instructor used each teaching approach
(flipped, active, and lecture-based) twice.
Learning experience. We assessed three areas of student learning experience, including
teacher presence, social presence, and cognitive presence. These three metrics were derived
from the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison, 2011; Garrison, Anderson, &
Archer, 2010). Teaching presence refers to the purposeful facilitation of social and cognitive
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 9
processes towards meaningful learning objectives (Garrison, 2011). Dimensions of teaching
presence include design and organization, facilitating discourse, and providing direct instruction
(Garrison, 2011, Garrison et al., 2010). Items for this construct are in Appendix A (Items 1 to
10). Internal reliability for the teacher presence construct was high (r = .92).
Social presence refers to the degree to which learners progressively identify with the
larger group, communicate with purpose, and develop interpersonal relationships in the learning
environment (Garrison, 2011; Garrison et al., 2010). Indicators of social presence include
affective communication, open communication, and group cohesion (Garrison, 2011). Items for
this construct are in Appendix A (Items 11 to 16). Internal reliability for the social presence
construct was high (r = .88).
Cognitive presence is the degree to which learners can construct meaning and confirm
understanding through rigorous reflection and discourse (Garrison, 2011). Factors in the
cognitive presence construct include interest, motivation, use of information resources,
discussion, and developing solutions. Items for this construct are in Appendix A (Items 17 to 22).
Internal reliability for the teacher presence construct was high (r = .95).
Performance. We used online quizzes to assess the participants’ knowledge and
comprehension of each unit’s content in a consistent manner. Each online quiz consisted of 15
multiple-choice questions randomly selected from a database of 550 multiple choice questions.
Participants had 10 minutes to complete each quiz.
Benefits and challenges. For each post-unit survey, participants answered two open-
ended questions about the benefits and challenges of the teaching approach used. Two
researchers read and organized responses into four main categories: teaching presence, social
presence, cognitive presence, and general. The initial inter-rater reliability for the main
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 10
categories was 100%. Next, the two researchers analyzed the main categories and divided
responses into subcategories based on an emergent content analysis (Stemler, 2001). The
specific criteria for each subcategory were written down and revised as the data were
categorized. Formal inter-rater reliability was not calculated as the researchers coded and
evaluated comments together.
Procedure
We compared three teaching approaches in this study: lecture-based, active learning and
flipped classroom. The lecture-based approach involved the conventional strategy used by many
higher education instructors. The instructor presented systematic explanations of pre-prepared
source code examples, but regularly asked questions to correct misconceptions and to keep
students engaged. In a typical 60-minute class, approximately 50 minutes would be devoted to
lecturing.
The active learning approach incorporated hands-on and peer-supported activities. For
example, rather than listening to the instructor explain pre-written source code, students had to
research and discuss possible coding in small groups, then test it out on their own. In a typical
60-minute class, no time would be devoted to lecturing.
The flipped classroom approach began with a homework assignment requiring students
to view between 30 and 70 minutes of online videos, typically in five to 10-minute segments, and
then individually submit a completed worksheet before class for a grade. The instructor recorded
the videos, which featured text, animation, and screen capture demonstrations. A small segment
of in-class time was allocated to reviewing the online content using micro-lessons or hands-on
exercises at the beginning of a lecture. Students then worked on a unit lab-project in small
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 11
groups and had to submit a progress report at the end of each class. In a typical 60-minute class,
5 minutes would be devoted to lecturing.
Data Collection
After each of the six two-week units, students completed an online quiz and were asked
to fill in the Student Learning Experience Survey (Appendix A), consisting of 30 Likert-scale
and two open-ended questions. The cycle of lecture-based, active learning and flipped classroom
approaches was repeated twice over a 12-week period. See table 1 for the specific ordering of
teaching methods.
______________________________________________________
Insert Table 1 about here.
______________________________________________________
Research Questions
We focused on two primary research questions in this study:
1. How does student learning experience (teaching presence, social presence, cognitive
presence) differ among lecture-based, active learning, and flipped classroom teaching
approaches?
2. How does student learning performance differ among lecture-based, active-learning, and
flipped classroom teaching approaches?
Results
Teaching Presence
Survey data. The active-learning approach had the highest total teaching presence score
followed by the flipped classroom and lecture- based approaches (Table 2). A one-way analysis
of variance indicated that there was a significant difference among teaching strategies for
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 12
teaching presence (F(2, 190) = 3.0, p < .05). A Tukey’s post hoc test revealed that the mean
teaching presence score for the active learning approach was significantly higher than the mean
score for the lecture-based approach (p < .05, Cohen’s d = 0.43). The effect size is moderate
according to Cohen (1992).
______________________________________________________
Insert Table 2 about here.
______________________________________________________
Lecture-based comments. Students wrote 43 comments about teacher presence for the
lecture-based approach (28 positive, 15 negative). Several students commented that the direct
instruction provided in lectures was well-organized and presented (n = 3), offered in-depth
explanations (n = 3), and effectively communicated what content was most important (n = 5).
As one student wrote, “[The lecture provided] in depth explanation from a knowledgeable
source.” Another student explained, “[The lecture] gave me a good base of ideas to start work
on my assignment. Highlight[ing] what [the instructor] knew was important, so I knew where to
spend my energy learning.”
Some students (n = 8) appreciated the ability to ask questions and receive an immediate
answer during a live lecture. For example, one student wrote, “This teaching approach gave me
the opportunity to ask questions as they arose and not a few days later.” Some students (n = 4)
commented that the individual homework assignment after a lecture encouraged them to solve
problems independently.
A small number of students (n = 3) commented on the difficulty of resolving questions
related to the homework assignment outside of class. One student wrote, “When I do not
understand something, I do not know where to go for information.” A few students (n = 3)
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 13
remarked that the in-class lectures were too long. One student put it, “Two hours’ worth of
talking is a lot to take in all at once.” Other students (n = 3) pointed out that to get the
information presented in a lecture, they had to attend class. One student explained, “Missing a
lecture will make it more difficult to try to catch up.”
Active-learning comments. Students offered 20 comments about teaching presence in
the active-learning approach (16 positive, 4 negative). The feature mentioned most often (n = 8)
was that immediate feedback and guidance was available when it was needed. One student
remarked, “In class, we are able to make mistakes, be shown mistakes and correct them with our
peers and with assistance from the professor.” Another student noted, “I was able to ask
questions on the spot and got answers right away.”
Another positive feature of teaching presence was the value of breaking down the content
and lesson into smaller segments or chunks (n = 3). As one student noted, “Solving small
problems to learn how the individual pieces worked before combining and applying them in the
lab assignment was helpful.” Another student added that “sometimes the course material can be
confusing when trying to learn big chunks at a time.” A third student remarked, “The benefits
[of the active learning approach] came from having participation in between [short] lecture
times. Some action to break up the lecture is nice.”
Flipped classroom comments. Of the 25 comments made about the flipped classroom
approach regarding teaching presence, 13 were positive, and 12 were negative. A few students
(n = 3) valued the ability to watch videos outside of class when and where it was convenient for
them. One student wrote, “I was able to watch the video on my own time,” and another
explained, “The videos/resources that were available outside of the classroom [were a benefit].”
Several students felt that immediate feedback and guidance was available from the instructor (n
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 14
= 4) or from peers (n = 3) during class. For example, one student commented, “Having done the
video labs before class, I was able to grasp basic concepts before class, and my more advanced
questions naturally came at a point when [the instructor] was available.” Another remarked,
“[The flipped classroom] allowed more time to think on our own while having an instructor
available for immediate questions.”
Other students (n = 2) found it difficult to find enough time to watch the videos before
class. One student explained, “It's very easy to forget or put off watching videos.” Another
student believed that the lack of a live lecture limited the ability to ask questions: “No in-class
discussions or explanations from the teacher made it difficult to ask questions on certain points
when something was unclear.” One student felt that lack of peer preparation restricted learning,
stating, “Class preparation is much more important. If people in my group were not prepared, I
found I was teaching them the basic concepts instead of moving forward in my own
understanding.”
Social Presence
Survey data. The active learning approach had the highest social presence score
followed by the flipped classroom and lecture-based approaches (Table 3). A one-way analysis
of variance revealed that there was a significant difference among teaching strategies for social
presence (F(2, 188)=8.0, p < .001). Social presence was significantly higher for the active
learning approach than the lecture-based approach (p <0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.69). In addition,
social presence was significantly higher for the flipped classroom approach than the lecture-
based approach (p <0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.51). The effect sizes are moderate according to Cohen
(1992).
______________________________________________________
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 15
Insert Table 3 about here.
______________________________________________________
Lecture-based comments. Students provided 10 comments about social presence in a
lecture-based approach (4 positive, 6 negative). Half of the negative comments (n = 3) related to
the lack of group work in the approach. One student remarked, “I find learning while helping
others provides better results as far as my personal learning goes.” Another student felt negative
about class-level discussions: “I sometimes feel that when I don't understand something, I can't
ask in class, because everyone else understands and I don't, which makes me feel self-
conscious.” Two students felt that lectures allowed for class-level discussions that were
beneficial. One student explained, “The teaching approach in this unit was preferable because
we were able to go over the concepts together as a class.” Another student felt that “no forced
interaction with groups” was a benefit.
Active learning comments. Students offered 16 comments about social presence in an
active learning approach (4 positive, 12 negative). Most comments described either the
difficulty in keeping pace with their peers (n = 6) or the disruption caused by pausing activities
to help students experiencing difficulty (n = 2). As one student commented, “If I zoned out for
even a second, I would be lost or behind.”
A small number of students (n=3) remarked that they valued having discussions or doing
activities as a class. For example, one student noted, “Doing the activities as a class helped me
understand the concepts of the unit. I always find it effective to my learning when we go
through example code together as a class.”
Flipped classroom comments. Students offered only seven comments about the flipped
classroom with regard to social presence (4 positive, 3 negative). Most (n = 5) comments were
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 16
related to working in small groups on in-class projects. Some students (n = 3) appreciated
working with other students on projects in class. One student remarked, “[It was a benefit to
have] more opportunity to work within small groups to achieve the class objective.” However,
one student felt there was not enough class-level discussion, stating “I learn better when
instructed and engaged in discussion with the class and professor, which is why I've opted for
college as opposed to university.”
Cognitive Presence
Cognitive presence was evaluated using a six-item scale focusing on how well a teaching
approach engaged students in thinking and learning. The active learning approach had the
highest cognitive presence score followed by the flipped classroom and the lecture-based
approach. A one-way analysis of variance revealed that there were no significant differences
among teaching strategies for cognitive presence (F(2,192) =2.1, ns).
______________________________________________________
Insert Table 4 about here.
______________________________________________________
Lecture-based comments. Students made 69 comments about cognitive presence for the
lecture-based approach (36 negative, 33 positive). The principal difficulty cited by many
students was an inability to pay attention during class. Some students (n = 12) indicated that
long lectures were especially poor for sustaining their attention, remarking that they were boring
or tiring. For example, one student commented, “Boring, lengthy lectures, making it tough to
focus.” Another stated, “Long lectures can make it a bit tiring and hard to focus.” A number of
students (n = 7) commented that despite paying attention, completing the practical homework
assignment was difficult, as expressed by this student: “I felt lost. I paid attention in the lectures,
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 17
but with individual assignments, most of my friends had completed the assignment, and I was
left to muddle through as best I could.”
However, many students noted that lectures provided the groundwork for being able to
complete assignments. Sixteen students indicated that the lecture furnished them with enough
understanding of the basic concepts to complete the homework assignment successfully. One
student remarked, “I was able to follow along with the lectures and gather the information
needed to complete the individual assignments.” Another student stated, “[I] was given what I
needed in lectures and was able to piece the assignment together because of it.”
Active learning comments. Of the 51 comments made about cognitive presence for the
active learning approach, 39 were positive, and 12 were negative. Positive comments focused on
three themes: appreciation for hands-on activities, activities making understanding easier, and
maintaining attention.
A number of comments (n = 10) indicated an appreciation for the hands-on aspect of the
in-class experience. One student remarked, “I personally prefer a hands-on approach. I have
always found programming a lot easier to learn when you're actually coding, and not listening to
theory lectures.” Other students (n = 4) added that they appreciated the active learning approach
for the increased opportunity to explore and experiment. As one student explained, “The unit
activities are always better than just straight lectures, [they allow] me to play around with the
code and find things out myself while still having a guide. Perfect way to learn for me.”
Some comments (n = 5) revealed that the in-class activities made understanding and
retaining the basic concepts easier. One student noted, “Doing hands-on work helps me
understand the logic more and made it easier for me to learn.” Other comments (n = 5) indicated
that the in-class collaborative activities made it easier for several students to apply concepts to
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 18
contextual problems. One student explained, “I really enjoyed the fact that I was able to directly
apply the concepts from the in-class lesson activities for the group assignment.” Additionally,
some comments (n = 4) indicated that the source code students produced during the in-class
learning activities served as an effective reference for later project work. As one student
remarked, “Thanks to the in-class examples, I had a general template for what needed to be
done.”
Several comments (n = 6) explained that the active learning approach was effective for
gaining and sustaining the students’ attention in class. As one student put it, “I felt much more
involved in the class, and I feel like I learned much more in this unit than the previous two.”
Another student explained it with enthusiasm, “This lesson was by far the most exciting and
understandable lesson of all!”
Negative comments about cognitive presence included inadequate explanations of theory,
resistance to hands-on learning, and not being able to apply learned material outside of class.
Some students (n = 3) commented that the active learning approach was not particularly effective
for helping them understand theoretical content. For example, one student noted,
“Understanding the theory behind each of the concepts was a bit difficult.” Another remarked,
“The theory behind what I was doing was dodgy.” Two students remarked that they had
difficulty with the in-class work - “jumping into some code that I’ve never used with the
exception of a few sections” was a challenge. Two students had difficulty integrating and
applying the in-class hands-on learning to the homework assignment - “when I referred back to
the examples, I was confused and didn’t understand some portions when trying to apply to
another section.”
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 19
Flipped classroom comments. Students offered 37 comments about cognitive presence
for the flipped classroom (21 positive, 16 negative). Many of the positive comments focused on
the use of videos outside of class. Four students indicated that they appreciated the ability to
watch the videos as many times as was necessary. As one student put it, “I feel that having
videos to watch were a very valuable part of this unit. The good thing about having videos is
that you can rewind/re-watch etc. if there are any particular problems you are having with
understanding a concept.” Seven students (n = 7) commented that watching the pre-class video
was an effective way for them to learn basic concepts. For example, one student noted:
Anybody can type the syntax needed to complete the actions related to our
assignments, but I feel that understanding the logic behind the syntax is much
more valuable than just telling us what to type. With the pre-class video
assignments, we got an idea of what the logic was before we got in the classroom,
and it was presented in an easy to understand way.
Negative comments all centred on understanding the concepts presented in the videos.
Two students felt that understanding some of the content in the videos was difficult - “It was
somewhat difficult to fully understand some of the content and get things completed compared to
other teaching methods used previously.” Many students (n = 8) reported considerable difficulty
with integrating and applying the basic concepts presented in the videos to a practical problem in
class. As one student explained, “Even after watching the videos, I was still unable to complete
some of the in-class labs. I feel I did not learn what I needed to in order to complete what was
asked of me.”
Learning Performance
Online unit quiz grades were used to assess the participants’ learning performance for each
unit. The active learning approach had the highest mean unit quiz grade (M=80.8 SD=14.9),
followed by the lecture-based (M=78.6, SD=12.9) and flipped classroom approach (M=77.5,
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 20
SD=16.1). A one-way analysis of variance revealed there were no significant differences among
the three teaching approaches for learning performance (F (2,258) = 1.1, ns).
Discussion
Teaching Presence
In this study, the active learning approach received significantly higher student ratings for
teaching presence than the lecture-based approach. No other significant differences were
observed among the three approaches examined. Three themes emerged from the student
comments: timely guidance and feedback, clarity and detail, and flexibility of instruction.
Timely guidance and feedback. One aspect of teaching presence, similar in both the
active learning and flipped classroom approaches, was that students appreciated the immediate
guidance and feedback available in the classroom. This finding aligns with flipped classroom
researchers reporting the benefits of frequent student-instructor interaction (Lage et al., 2000;
Pierce & Fox, 2012; Slomanson, 2014) and students valuing the opportunity to ask questions and
receive feedback in class (Butt, 2014; Yeung & O’Malley, 2014). Students also received some
feedback from questions they posed in the lecture-based approach, however, in some instances,
the responses were unclear. There may have been less time and opportunity in a large lecture to
delve more deeply into problems that would be better addressed in one-to-one interactions
occurring in a flipped classroom or active learning environment.
Clarity and detail. Students in this study appreciated that in-class lectures were clear,
detailed, and signalled what content was most important for them to understand. Each of these
observations aligns with advantages of the lecture-based approach reported in the literature
(Bligh, 2000; Brown & Race, 2005; Charlton, 2006; Kirschner et al., 2006; Race, 2007).
Alternatively, only a few students commented on clarity and detail provided in flipped classroom
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 21
or active learning approaches. Since the video clips viewed by students for the flipped classroom
were created by the same professor who delivered the in-class lectures, it is unclear why students
would assess clarity, detail, and focus differently. It is conceivable that students focussed on
different features of each teaching approach. For the flipped classroom and active learning
approaches, the opportunity to interact with and engage in activities may have been viewed as
more germane than the dissemination of content.
Flexibility of instruction. A number of students in this study reported that a benefit of
the flipped classroom approach was being able to watch online videos when and where it was
convenient for them. This sentiment was also communicated in previous studies (Boucher et al.,
2013; Guerrero et al., 2013; Lucke et al., 2013; Yeung & O’Malley, 2014). However, other
students noted that it was difficult to find the time to watch videos before class. Previous
studies have suggested that some students find it challenging to adjust their study habits to match
the flipped classroom approach (Guerrero et al., 2013; Strayer, 2012).
Social Presence
In this study, social presence was rated significantly higher for the active learning and
flipped classroom approaches than the lecture-based approach. This result is consistent with
previous research (Ferreri & O’Connor, 2013; Frydenberg, 2013; Lage et al., 2000; Love et al.,
2014; Ryan, 2013; Strayer, 2012). It is worth noting, though, that students offered far fewer
comments about social presence than teaching or cognitive presence. Also, comments were
more negative than positive, especially for the active learning approach. While students valued
interaction with peers and the instructor, it appears that social presence was not established
particularly well for any of the teaching approaches. The lecture-based approach, by design,
offered no opportunity for student collaboration and establishing social presence. The active
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 22
learning approach was perceived as helpful, but a number of students could not keep up with the
pace of the class, preventing them from gaining any benefit through social interaction. The
flipped classroom approach may not have offered enough structure and direction for students.
More thought needs to be directed toward harnessing the benefits of social presence, regardless
of the teaching method used. Additional research, perhaps in the form of personal or focus
group interviews, could shed light on how to improve social presence for each of the teaching
approaches.
Cognitive Presence
There were no significant differences in student ratings of cognitive presence among the
lecture-based, active learning, and flipped classroom approaches assessed in this study. Student
comments about cognitive presence were numerous, though, and suggested that there were
qualitative distinctions among these approaches regarding the application of concepts and
engagement in learning.
Application of concepts. Comments about the impact of a lecture-based approach on
cognitive presence were mixed. Roughly half of the students indicated that in-class lectures
provided a solid foundation for completing homework outside of class, a finding that was
confirmed by previous studies (Bligh, 2000; Brown & Race, 2005; Charlton, 2006). On the
other hand, some students remarked that in-class lectures were boring and did not adequately
prepare them for completing application-based homework activities, a result that aligns with
several previous studies (Bligh, 2000; Charlton, 2006). The uneven success of in-class lectures
concerning cognitive presence supports previous claims that in-class lectures alone may not be
effective for developing practical skills (Bligh, 2000; Charlton, 2006). Pairing lectures with
hands-on, in-class activities might be an effective approach to supporting understanding and
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 23
application. Determining the optimum balance between in-class lecture and practical activity
within a class is a reasonable next step in examining the impact of a lecture-based approach on
cognitive presence.
A number of students commented that watching the flipped classroom videos was an
effective way to learn basic concepts because they could watch these videos whenever and as
often as they wanted. Unlike the lecture approach, students could review videos if they forgot or
misunderstood a concept. This result is consistent with research on university students and the
value of flexible, anytime access (Frydenberg, 2013; Larson & Yamamoto, 2013; Forsey et al.,
2013; Yeung & O’Malley, 2014). On the other hand, the format of direct instruction, whether
face-to-face or video-based, seems to lead to some difficulty in understanding and applying
concepts. This result is not too surprising, given that both approaches involve the passive
acquisition of information. One explanation might be that students who did not watch the
videos had more difficulty in class, as might be expected. Alternatively, the delay between
looking at a video and then engaging in an application exercise may have contributed to
challenges in applying concepts in class.
In this study, students were asked to complete a summary worksheet about video content
before class. The absence of a quiz or application exercises to be completed immediately after
watching a video might have limited the students’ ability to effectively apply concepts in class.
Quizzing students on video content is a practice that has proven effective in previous research
(Frydenberg, 2013; Tune et al., 2013; Wilson, 2013).
One way of compensating for videos that are difficult to understand at home is to provide
opportunities for students to interact with their peers in the classroom. Peer interaction is one of
the main benefits of the flipped classroom approach reported in the literature (Ferreri &
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 24
O’Connor, 2013; Love et al., 2014; Ryan, 2013). However, working with other students and
sharing ideas was not common in the flipped classroom approach used in this study. It is
possible that the lab projects that were assigned in the flipped classroom segments did not
stimulate or require substantial peer interaction and collaboration. Future studies should
examine how in-class activities can compliment videos. To date, there has been limited research
on the pedagogy required to maximize learning in the classroom after videos are viewed at home.
Student feedback on the active learning approach may provide some guidance as to what
an ideal instructional design may be for teaching programming to college students. In the current
study, in-class activities tended to be short, highly structured, and instructor-led. Information
was provided in small chunks, followed by the immediate opportunity to practice with peers and
ask questions of the instructor. Unlike the lecture-based or flipped classroom approach, there
was little delay between the presentation of basic knowledge and skills and their application.
The majority of student comments suggested that hands-on activities increased understanding
and attention—a result that is consistent with previous research (e.g., Davis & Minifie, 2013;
Laal & Laal, 2012).
Engagement. Many of the students in this study remarked that the lecture-based
approach did not hold their attention, a result supported by Cashin’s (1985) assertion that
students’ attention can wane quickly when information is presented passively. In contrast, the
active learning approach sustained their attention effectively, also consistent with previous
research (Davis & Minifie, 2013; Grant 2013; Laal & Laal, 2012).
Student engagement was expected to be high in the flipped classroom approach, based on
the results of numerous studies (Critz & Knight, 2013; Frydenberg, 2013; Lasry et al., 2014;
Lucke et al., 2013; McLaughlin et al., 2014; Ryan, 2013), however, there was little evidence of
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 25
increased engagement in this study. One possible explanation might be the course content,
computer programming, which is essentially applied problem-solving. Passively watching
videos may not have been engaging when the ultimate goal was to learn how to actively
program.
The active learning approach appeared to be the most successful approach for
establishing cognitive engagement. A number of students commented that hands-on learning
exercises were positive experiences which helped them focus, maintain attention, and ultimately
learn more efficiently. This finding is consistent with previous findings (Davis & Minifie, 2013;
Frydenberg, 2013; Laal & Laal, 2012; Michael, 2006) and learning new skills.
Learning Performance
In this study, the grades students obtained on standard course quizzes were used to
measure student performance for each of the three approaches. There were no significant
differences in grades among the flipped classroom, lecture-based, and active learning segments.
According to some previous literature on the flipped classroom approach (McLaughlin et al.,
2014; Pierce & Fox, 2012; Tune, et al., 2013; Wilson, 2013) and active learning approach
(Ferreri & O’Connor, 2013; Michael, 2006; Taylor et al., 2012), one might have anticipated that
one of these approaches would have led to better student performance, given that computer
programming focuses on the application of concepts in problem-solving. However, the quizzes
used in this study were standardized and focussed on basic comprehension of content for each
unit. Flipped classroom, active learning, and lecture-based approaches may be comparable for
learning content knowledge but might be significantly different when assessing problem-solving
and higher order thinking skills. When measuring learning performance in future studies,
researchers should be cognizant of the intended learning outcomes of each teaching approach,
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 26
and design assessment tools accordingly. It is worth noting that examining which teaching
approach is better for learning performance may not yield a definitive result. Different teaching
approaches may be more effective for different kinds of learning goals.
Limitations and Future Research
While we paid careful attention to the design and measures used in the current study, a
number of limitations provide opportunities for future research. First, given the relatively small
sample of convenience and the varying survey response rates (25% to 42%) among teaching
strategies, the data should be interpreted with caution. Additional research is needed involving
more students, different instructors, a greater variety of courses and programs, and a larger
number of community colleges.
Second, the open-ended comments collected from students in post-learning surveys
provided explanatory information that was useful for interpreting the students’ quantitative
ratings. However, personal interviews or focus group interviews might have yielded more in-
depth data required to understand and explain the complexities and differences among the three
approaches employed in this study.
Third, the ordering of teaching strategies may have biased student responses. For
example, in this study the active learning approach followed the lecture approach and more
negative student responses may have been a reaction to the relatively passive, and perhaps
somewhat boring lecture-based approach. While no evidence of systematic bias was observed,
directly asking students about an ordering effect might improve the reliability and validity of
future studies.
Fourth, the sub-categories that emerged within the teaching, social and cognitive
presence categories should be considered formative at this stage. While every attempt was made
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 27
by the two researchers to be consistent and accurate, future research is needed to establish the
reliability and validity of the proposed sub-categories.
Finally, in this study, the assessment of student performance focussed entirely on the core
comprehension of unit content. Higher levels of learning were assessed in the course, however,
grades for these assessments were calculated using different criteria for each of the three
teaching approaches. As a result, this study contributed no insight into how the three teaching
approaches might impact students’ performance on more demanding cognitive processes. Future
research should include assessment of a broader range of skills.
Conclusions and Implications
In this study, none of the three teaching approaches stood out as being markedly superior
in terms of teacher, social, and cognitive presence. While the active learning approach was
preferred by a number of students, no differences were observed among the three strategies for
learning performance. Instead, five characteristics emerged as being important for learning in
general, regardless of teaching approach, and included clarity, flexibility, opportunities for
application, timely guidance and feedback, and cognitive engagement. The clarity, structure, and
segmenting of concepts, provided in all three approaches in the form of videos, lectures, or
instructor-led exercises, were generally appreciated by the students in this study. Flexibility,
typically provided by flipped classroom videos, could also be achieved with supplemental videos
created for use in active learning or lecture-based scenarios. Opportunities to apply concepts,
naturally supported in active learning and flipped classroom approaches, could easily be
integrated into a lecture-based class. Timely guidance, praised in the active learning or flipped
classroom formats, could be used in lectures that provide more opportunity for active discussion
or use of classroom response systems. Cognitive engagement, highly valued by many students,
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 28
was highest in the active learning approach. Increasing application opportunities and decreasing
the time between the presentation and application of skills might help to increase cognitive
engagement in lectures and flipped classrooms. The careful balance of presenting concepts;
asking questions; providing just-in-time feedback; and providing adequate opportunities for
application and increased cognitive engagement, is challenging for all three of the approaches
examined in this study. Future researchers and practitioners could focus on enhancing flipped
classroom, active learning, and lecture-based approaches by carefully manipulating and
examining the impact of the five learning characteristics identified in this study.
References
Bligh, D. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boucher, B., Robertson, E., Wainner, R., & Sanders, B. (2013). "Flipping" Texas State
University's physical therapist musculoskeletal curriculum: Implementation of a hybrid
learning model. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 27(3), 72.
Brown, S., & Race, P. (2005). Lecturing: A practical guide. Sterling, VA: Routledge.
Butt, A. (2014). Student views on the use of a flipped classroom approach: Evidence from
Australia. Business Education & Accreditation, 6(1), 33-44.
Cashin, W. E. (1985). Improving lectures (Idea Paper No. 14). Manhattan, NY: Kansas State
University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development. Retrieved from
http://ctl.byu.edu/sites/default/files/improving_lectures.pdf
Charlton, B. G. (2006). Lectures are such an effective teaching method because they exploit
evolved human psychology to improve learning. Medical Hypotheses, 67(6), 1261-1265.
doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2006.08.001
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 29
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. doi: 10.1037/0033-
2909.112.1.155
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Critz, C. M., & Knight, D. (2013). Using the flipped classroom in graduate nursing education.
Nurse Educator, 38(5), 210-213. doi: 10.1097/NNE.0b013e3182a0e56a
Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional
technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563-580. doi: 10.1007/s11423-
013-9305-6
Davis, K., & Minifie, J. R. (2013). Ensuring gen y students come prepared for class; then
leveraging active-learning techniques to most effectively engage them. American Journal
of Business and Management, 2(1), 13-19. doi: 10.11634/216796061302228
Drinkwater, M.J., Gannaway, D., Sheppard, K., Davis, M.J., Wegener, M.J., Bowen, W.P., &
Corney, J.F. (2014). Managing active learning processes in large first year physics classes:
The advantages of an integrated approach. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 2(2), 75-90.
Ferreri, S. P., & O’Connor, S. K. (2013). Redesign of a large lecture course into a small-group
learning course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77(1). doi:
10.5688/ajpe77113
Findlay-Thompson, S., & Mombourquette, P. (2014). Evaluation of a flipped classroom in an
undergraduate business course. Business Education & Accreditation, 6(1), 63-71.
Flipped Learning Network (FLN). (2014). The four pillars of F-L-I-P™. Retrieved from
http://www.flippedlearning.org/definition
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 30
Forsey, M., Low, M., & Glance, D. (2013). Flipping the sociology classroom: Towards a
practice of online pedagogy. Journal of Sociology, 49(4), 471-485. doi:
10.1177/1440783313504059
Frydenberg, M. (2013). Flipping Excel. Information Systems Education Journal, 11(1), 63.
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice.
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of
inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 5-9. doi:
10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003.
Guerrero, S., Baumgartel, D., & Zobott, M. (2013). The use of screencasting to transform
traditional pedagogy in a preservice mathematics content course. Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, 32(2), 173-193.
Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62-66.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. doi:
10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Laal, M., & Laal, M. (2012). Collaborative learning: what is it? Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 31, 491-495. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.092
Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an
inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30-43. doi:
10.2307/1183338
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 31
Lambert, C. (2012). Twilight of the lecture. Harvard Magazine, March-April. Retrieved from
http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/03/twilight-of-the-lecture
Larson, S., & Yamamoto, J. (2013). Flipping the college spreadsheet skills classroom: Initial
empirical results. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences,
4(10).
Lasry, N., Dugdale, M., & Charles, E. (2014). Just in time to flip your classroom. The Physics
Teacher, 52(1), 34-37. doi: 10.1119/1.4849151
Love, B., Hodge, A., Grandgenett, N., & Swift, A. W. (2014). Student learning and perceptions
in a flipped linear algebra course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in
Science and Technology, 45(3), 317-324. doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2013.822582
Lucke, T., Keyssner, U., & Dunn, P. (2013, October). The use of a classroom response system to
more effectively flip the classroom. In Frontiers in Education Conference, 2013 IEEE (pp.
491-495). IEEE. doi: 10.1109/FIE.2013.6684872
McLaughlin, J. E., Roth, M. T., Glatt, D. M., Gharkholonarehe, N., Davidson, C. A., Griffin, L.
M., Esserman, D. A., & Mumper, R. J. (2014). The flipped classroom: a course redesign to
foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Academic Medicine, 89(2),
236-243. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000086
Michael, J. (2006). Where's the evidence that active-learning works? Advances in Physiology
Education, 30(4), 159-167. doi: 10.1152/advan.00053.2006
Murphree, D. S. (2014). "Writing wasn't really stressed, accurate historical analysis was
stressed": Student perceptions of in-class writing in the inverted, general education,
university history survey course. History Teacher, 47(2), 209-219.
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 32
Pierce, R., & Fox, J. (2012). Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom”
model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, 76(10). doi: 10.5688/ajpe7610196
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93(3), 223-231. Retrieved from
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Prince_AL.pdf
Race, P. (2007). The lecturer's toolkit: A practical guide to assessment, learning and teaching
(3rd. ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Richardson, D. (2008). Don't dump the didactic lecture; fix it. Advances in Physiology
Education, 32(1), 23-24. doi: 10.1152/advan.00048.2007
Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to
engage millennial students through active-learning strategies. Journal of Family &
Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44-49.
Ryan, B. J. (2013). Flipping over: Student-centred learning and assessment. Journal of
Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 1(2). doi: 10.14297/jpaap.v1i2.64
Sales, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom: Revolutionising legal research training. Legal
Information Management, 13(04), 231-235. doi: 10.1017/S1472669613000534
Schwartz, T. A. (2014). Flipping the statistics classroom in nursing education. The Journal of
nursing education, 53(4), 199-206. doi: 10.3928/0148434-20140325-02
Slomanson, W. R. (2014). Blended learning: A flipped classroom experiment. Journal of Legal
Education, 64(1), 93.
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 7(17), 137-146.
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 33
Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation
and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193. doi:
10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4
Taylor, L., McGrath-Champ, S., & Clarkeburn, H. (2012). Supporting student self-study: The
educational design of podcasts in a collaborative learning context. Active-learning in
Higher Education, 13(1), 77-90. doi: 10.1177/1469787411429186
Tune, J. D., Sturek, M., & Basile, D. P. (2013). Flipped classroom model improves graduate
student performance in cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal physiology. Advances in
Physiology Education, 37(4), 316-320. doi: 10.1152/advan.00091.2013
Wilson, S. G. (2013). The flipped class: A method to address the challenges of an
undergraduate statistics course. Teaching of Psychology, 40(3), 193-199. doi:
10.1177/0098628313487461
Yeung, K., & O’Malley, P. J. (2014). Making ‘the flip’ work: Barriers to and implementation
strategies for introducing flipped teaching methods into traditional higher education
courses. New Directions, 10(1), 59-63. doi:10.11120/ndir.2014.0002
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 34
Table 1
Order of Teaching Strategies Used and Survey Response Rates
Weeks
Unit
Method
n
Response
Rate
2-3
1
Lecture
51
50%
4-5
2
Active Learning
33
32%
6-7
3
Flipped Classroom
38
37%
8-9
4
Lecture
34
33%
10-11
5
Active Learning
29
28%
12-13
6
Flipped Classroom
13
13%
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 35
Table 2
Total Teaching Presence Survey Score as a Function of Teaching Approach
Teaching Approach
N
Mean
SD
Tukey’s Post
Hoc Test
Active Learning
60
40.9
5.2
Active > Lecture
Flipped Classroom
50
40.1
7.4
Lecture
83
38.2
7.3
Lecture < Active
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 36
Table 3
Total Social Presence Survey Score as a Function of Teaching Approach
Teaching Approach
N
Mean
SD
Tukey’s Post Hoc Test
Active Learning
61
22.9
3.6
Active > Lecture
Flipped Classroom
50
22.6
5.2
Flipped > Lecture
Lecture
80
20.1
4.5
Lecture < Active, Flipped
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 37
Table 4
Total Cognitive Presence Survey Score as a Function of Teaching Approach
Teaching Approach
N
Mean
SD
Active Learning
62
27.1
4.4
Flipped Classroom
51
26.6
6.0
Lecture
82
25.5
5.5
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 38
Appendix A – Student Learning Experience Survey
Teacher Presence (n=10 items)
Flipped Classroom Approach Only
1. The instructor provided clear instructions on how to complete pre-class video
assignment(s)
2. The instructor provided clear instructions on how to participate in in-class guided/group
activities
3. Solving problems in-class in small groups helped me to learn.
Active Approach Only
1. The instructor provided clear instructions on how to participate in in-class guided/group
activities.
2. I clearly understood what I needed to do outside of class to help me learn
3. Solving problems in-class in small groups helped me to learn.
Lecture Approach Only
1. The instructor clearly communicated the student participation expectations for
lectures/demonstrations
2. The instructor provided clear instructions on how to complete individual homework
problems.
3. Solving homework problems on my own helped me to learn.
All Teaching Approaches
4. The instructor clearly communicated how the learning activities contributed to the goals
for this unit.
5. The instructor was helpful in guiding the class towards understanding unit topics in a way
that helped me clarify my thinking.
6. The instructor helped keep the course participants on task during this unit in a way that
helped me to learn.
7. The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this unit.
8. Instructor actions during this unit reinforced the development of a sense of community
among course participants.
9. The instructor provided useful feedback during this unit.
10. The feedback provided during this unit was when I needed it.
Social Presence (n=6 items)
Flipped Classroom Approach Only
11. The guided/group activities for this unit provided an excellent medium for in-class
interaction between course participants.
Active Approach Only
11. The guided/group activities for this unit provided an excellent medium for in-class
interaction between course participants.
Lecture Approach Only
11. The lecture/demonstrations for this unit provided an excellent medium for in-class
interaction between course participants.
A Comparison of Lecture-Based 39
All Teaching Approaches
12. My interaction with other course participants during this unit gave me a sense of
belonging in the course.
13. I felt comfortable participating in discussions in class for this unit.
14. I felt comfortable disagreeing with other course participants while still maintaining a
sense of trust during this unit.
15. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other course participants during this
unit.
16. In-class discussions during this unit helped me to develop a sense of teamwork.
Cognitive Presence
All Teaching Approaches
17. The problems posed in this unit increased my interest in C++/programming.
18. I felt motivated to explore C++/programming related questions.
19. I utilized a variety of information sources to explore problems posed in this unit.
20. In-class discussions during this unit were valuable in helping me appreciate different
perspectives.
21. The learning activities for this unit helped me learn what I needed to know.
22. I have developed solutions to problems that I can apply in practice.
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Journal of Computing in Higher Education
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
