Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE)
ISSN: 2278-3075 (Online), Volume-10 Issue-1, November 2020
87
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
and Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijitee.A81191110120
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.A8119.1110120
Journal Website: www.ijitee.org
Abstract: The competitive educational environment and
globalization promote the adoption of multiple strategies that
instill effective learning. Embracing different learning strategies
helps keep the students focused and engaged. Not only this, but it
also helps to evaluate the grey areas in their learning. The active
learning improves student’s engagement and helps develop a
conducive learning environment. Given this, the study investigates
the effectiveness of active learning in computer science (CS)
students. Primarily, it illustrates the active learning
multi-strategies and how they positively contribute to the learning
environment. A cross sectional design is used following a
quantitative approach. The data is gathered from 74 students
through a survey using a close-ended questionnaire. These
students were enrolled in two different semesters, which was then
statistically analyzed. Results showed that self-study improved the
students learning outcomes by 77% for first semester students and
by 78% for second-semester students. Effectiveness of peer review
was 72% and 70%, while for clickers, it was 62% and 63%,
respectively. The use of multi-strategies is instrumental in
improving students learning. Such as, it helps increase learners’
knowledge, confidence, and constructive interaction in the
classroom setting.
Keywords: Active Learning, Clickers, Education, Flipped
Classroom, Programming Course, Role Play.
I. INTRODUCTION
Pedagogically, learning preferences and techniques
incorporated vary for every individual [1]. Even though the
same curriculum is followed in the classrooms, teachers are
required to induce innovative strategies for meeting the
diverse need of the students [2]. This need has given rise to a
new concept known as active learning. Active learning
emphasis teachers to eradicate the use of conventional
teaching practices and adopt contemporary teaching
techniques necessary for teaching the students of generation Z
[3]. According to Fletcher [4], leaning dynamics have
changed, which requires teachers to integrate and synergize
innovative teaching strategies, which adds to the
competitiveness of the students. This also works in the
multicultural environment that persists across the learning
institutes. Previous studies have shown that active learning
strategies improve students’ learning outcomes and
knowledge retention [5,3]. Another study by Freeman et al.
[3] observed that by inducing the classroom curriculum with
active learning strategies, the test score of the students was
high in contrast to the students who were taught using
traditional approaches.
Revised Manuscript Received on November 30, 2020.
* Correspondence Author
Ibtehal Nafea*, Computer Science Department, College of Computer
Science and Engineering, Taibah University, Saudi Arabia. Email:
inafea@taibahu.edu.sa
© The Authors. Published by Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and
Sciences Publication (BEIESP). This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
[6] demonstrates that 75% of the students demonstrate better
results through increased participation in using active
learning strategies. The recent statistics indicate that learners
that have taken up active learning approaches have managed
to increase their exam scores and decreased the failed tests for
active learning [7]. [8] states that independent learning
improves student’s self-confidence, which eventually
progresses their academic performance. [9] adds that
improved participation in active learning have postulated
innovative activities and created a conducive learning
environment. Furthermore, active learning also assists in
overcoming challenges such as identification of the
knowledge gap among the learners, the difficulties they face,
and the methods that can be deployed for overcoming it.
Computer science is a stream that explores how to utilize
computers for solving real-world issues. Thereby, it is
important for creating an active learning environment for
enhancing comprehension and retention of material for
students, allowing students for taking control and regulating
their own learning, and consequently empowering them with
essential skills for solving issues outside of the classroom.
Studies have also indicated that active learning is particularly
effective for computer science students who have tendency to
be intuitive or visual learners. It is essential for continuing to
own inquiry as computer science instructors on whom
individual process information and correspondingly learn
explicitly and authentic approach for achieving the objective
to keep students involved in an active learning environment.
How can individuals effectively utilize adequate and
functional dynamic instructional technologies for addressing
this objective of applied understanding? Will spending
significant energy and time attending to an active learning
environment address this query? What is the level of
autonomy and independence which students can be offered
for stimulating an empowering and active learning
experience? This study seeks for providing an explanation of
the existing state of active learning research by examining the
utilization and justification of the idea of active learning
research and the measurement approaches of learning
findings in active learning research. This paper is
contextualized in computer science education as teaching in
this discipline and information technology related subjects
have conventionally been more instructor-focused and
content-oriented as compared to student-centered. On the
contrary, computer science education has witnessed a
progressively growing interest towards active learning and
produced stimulating outcomes on the efficacy of active
learning in published studies. Thereby, in this specific
context, taking a look at the phenomenon of active learning is
further beneficial due to its high value to the overall higher
education.
Active Learning Multi-Strategies
Ibtehal Nafea
Active Learning Multi-Strategies
88
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
and Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijitee.A81191110120
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.A8119.1110120
Journal Website: www.ijitee.org
The extent of research examined in this study intends to
expand understanding of the researchers of the existing state
of knowledge regarding the methodological examination and
conceptual use of active learning and for providing
methodological and theoretical directions for future research.
Additionally, the study intends to offer guidelines for
instructors to improve their critical and theoretical
understanding of active learning in higher education.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Various studies have validated that active learning
increase learners’ content knowledge, enriches their learning
experience, develops critical thinking and problem-solving
skills, and enhances their enthusiasm and positive attitudes
towards learning [10,11]. The literacy of the information also
improved communication and interpersonal skills. [12]
describe that these methods develop learners’ cognitive skills
that eventually enable them to succeed in their academic
endeavors. The methods work better when they are
incorporated to complement one another. The incorporation
of the strategies varies, considering the course being taught
[13]. Hence, it is in the class teacher’s position to determine
the most effective approach for learning to take place. It is
important to note that active learning does not just happen; a
teacher must create an appropriate environment for it to
occur. [14] supplements that shun the passive modes of
teaching that are often ineffective.
Similarly, the teaching methods adopted for teaching
Computer Science (CS) are being modified driven by the
increased popularity of active learning [15]. This has further
raised several challenges in terms of pedagogical needs, such
as providing students with active learning experience [16].
Some of the strategies that are exercised in learning
institutions included flipped classroom, peer review, clickers,
and role-playing. For example, the teaching of programming
has been perfected through the stated teaching methods;
however, they are exercised independently. Evaluation of the
previous researches provides that incorporation of the active
learning strategies in the discipline of computer science
remains a foreign concept. Such as either the studies are too
old [17] or focused on a certain strategy such as flipped
classroom, peer review, and clickers [16,18,19]. Also, [20]
survey of the computer science student showed that only 20%
of the teaching faculty used active learning strategies while
remaining relied on the traditional approach of content
delivery. Based on the paucity of the information in the
existing computer science field, lack of integration and
advancing incorporation of the computer technology, the
present study evaluates the effectiveness of the active learning
strategies among CS students. This is also driven due to the
programming needs of the learners require them to actively
participate in learning activities instead of being passive
listeners or receivers. Thereby, the strategies incorporated
include peer review, clickers, and the flipped classroom. A
number of instructors have been enthusiastic for making
efforts for new procedures and for reporting them to their
fellow instructors as interest in active learning has expanded.
For instance, [21] recommend that action research is an
adequate approach for computer science educators for
studying active learning in their instructional practices. On the
contrary, the research on active learning is not regardless of
issues. For instance, measurement methods of learning and
their authenticity are rarely reported in the active learning
studies [22]. In addition, a review study [23] showed that
instructors actively piloted novel teaching methods regardless
of executing any research on them even though they agree
with researchers regarding the direction of Finnish
educational development. [24] reviewed studies that had
implemented simulation studies and reported that majority of
the studies were only explanations of procedures regardless of
offering any systematic evidence on their impacts on learning.
Additionally [25], have reviewed studies on experiential
learning strategies and reported that the methodological
examination revealed that the outcomes did not fulfill the
highest of research design as well as measurement standards,
and; therefore, can establish tentative conclusions regarding
the exact efficacy of approaches. [26] noted that deepened
evaluation of active learning is usually complicated as studies
do not often consider a wider range of findings and the
outcomes are usually mixed or a matter of interpretation.
Comprehensively, additional discussion is still required on
the measurement methods of active learning research.
A. Peer Review
Peer review is an established teaching strategy which helps
improve the student’s skillset and teaching quality. Various
scholars have recognized it as an efficient method for the
development of information literacy among students [27,28].
It is efficient in validating documents, especially student
assignments, and increases networking capabilities.
Generally, peer review involves peer project assessment,
collaborative working, and information sharing [28]. Often,
peers have a certain type of target which, in this particular
case, is classroom success. Hence, through peer grading or
feedback, they get into the position of developing the targeted
knowledge understanding [29].
Peer review is believed to help develop cognitive abilities
and the collaborative environment among the learners [30].
For instance, in a writing class, an instructor can ask a student
to read and respond to his peers’ writing sample. This practice
produces double impact; one for the student who reviews and
others for the student whose paper is being reviewed. This
activity improves students’ critical thinking, their ability to
develop responses, formulate, and communicate helpful
reactions, and effectively respond to the feedback.
Additionally, this review helps an instructor to assess the
evaluation skills of the student and its application. However,
this technique neglects the fact that a student may be unable to
review the paper. [31] introduced and popularized peer
review as a learning technique. Preliminarily, peer review has
been expanded to other areas such as computer science
courses among STEM faculty [32]. Peer review involves
students via activities throughout the class, which allows the
instructors for identifying any learning issues or
misunderstandings among the students about the core notions
experienced [31].
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE)
ISSN: 2278-3075 (Online), Volume-10 Issue-1, November 2020
89
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
and Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijitee.A81191110120
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.A8119.1110120
Journal Website: www.ijitee.org
The instructor merely continues to the next planned topic in a
typical peer review class if approximately 75% of the students
have adequately answered the contextualized questions.
Otherwise, students are stimulated for discussing the answers
among themselves in order to convince colleagues that their
viewpoint is appropriate.
The peer review technique is often encouraged by
technological devices including smartphone applications or
clickers. There are several positive aspects associated to the
use of peer review. In particular in computer science, peer
review is collaborated with cooperative learning in different
courses in order to verify a reduction in the number of
students that received lower grades or pull out from the course
[33]. Consequently, a positive impact was found in a study
performing peer review strategy with in-class quizzes and
pre-class activities on grades and passing rate of computer
science students [34]. Peer review elevates the self-efficacy
and exam scores of students than conventional lecture-based
learning [35].
B. Clickers
[36] insists that embracing technology has an advantage in
the development of active learning pedagogies. The use of
clickers enables anonymous answering during class sessions
[37]. This allows the instructor to sample the answers and give
feedback to learners instantly. This method keeps learners’
alert, providing a more engaging environment. This active
learning approach is believed to complement and even
surpass the other dynamic learning approaches. Mostly
because it hides the identity of the student who provides
specific answers, which motivates others to participate
without fear of being embarrassed or shy. Furthermore, it
integrates the ‘game approach’ that is comparatively more
engaging as compared to the traditional teaching approaches
[19]. However, the widespread use of clickers is yet to be
discovered, which pinpoints the need to mobilize more
learning institutions on its significance [38]. Consequently,
scholars have identified it as operative because of its
formative and summative characteristics that provide an
engaging and active learning experience [38,39]. It can also
provide feedback for class discussions, peer assessments, and
the fundamental teaching and learning process. It also
supports the student learning process as it allows for a
student-centered environment. Hence, it is easy to assess
individual student needs, and a student can take the initiative
to improve on their areas of weakness. The positive
applications of clickers might not be interactive to this
pedagogy. On the contrary, clickers implement techniques
presumed by other non-technological active learning
pedagogies other than learning activities, which include
asking students for responding to a particular question
implied by a facilitator [40,41]. Studies have found that there
are no differences between conventional classrooms and
clickers on exam performance or differences on exam
performance are comparatively minimal when controlling for
such similarities [40,19,42,43]. There have been mixed
insights regarding the overall advantages of clickers [44]. It
has been observed that researchers previously presented
performance advantages, other argued if advantages are
present, they are minimal and possibly outweighed by
financial and technical limitations. It is recommended that
research investigating student viewpoints of clickers in
combination with student performance can be vital in
decisions for or alongside clicker use in the classroom.
Additionally, there are several techniques an instructor can
bring into the classroom that generate preferable student
findings [45]. It is problematic that a number of studies
investigating clickers have compared this classroom
involvement strategy with control methods undertaking
arguments that research on a particular educational technique
can compare with established or standard practices [46,47].
This study intends to explain that clickers have a positive
influence on student learning outcomes and viewpoint as
compared to non-active learning control methods. On the
contrary, the paucity of evidence comparing clickers to other
influential active learning strategies makes it complicated for
making a valid comparison to established active learning
classroom strategies as compared to outdated control
techniques.
C. Flipped Classroom Approach
This strategy is often referred to as ‘schoolwork at home
and homework at school.’ The method allows instructors to
inculcate a variety of methodologies in their classes,
improving the learners’ content retention ability. Students
have more control over their learning. By having short class
lectures at home, they have the freedom to learn at their own
pace. This improves one’s performance since there is more
time to understand concepts and review content without
lagging in classwork. The lecture videos made enable learners
to catch up quickly, especially when they do not manage to
attend classes [48]. It also gives the teachers flexibility when
they do not participate in classes and even eliminates makeup
assignments. This form of learning also nurtures the learner’s
skills through collaborative projects and discussions in their
classes. This facilitates peer education under the guidance of
the class teacher. Students develop the ability to own the
knowledge they have through partaking in their learning
process. In turn, students develop their confidence, and their
behavior in class improves as well.
This method is effective in extra hours, which allows
students to practice their academic learning. In addition, it
allows parents to track the progress of their child through their
constant access to video lectures. This enables parents to
better understand the course and offers insight concerning the
educational quality that is being delivered. [49] asserts that
this method is practiced across different institutes since it
focuses on the student’s use of conceptual knowledge rather
than factual recall.
Establishing material for flipped classrooms is a
confronting task and different instructors have different
tactics. Some instructors and institutions are already reporting
their lectures for the objective of online courses, which make
it comparatively easier for such instructors for leveraging
those resources in their flipped classes [50-52]. On the
contrary, this can refer to very long created videos.
Active Learning Multi-Strategies
90
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
and Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijitee.A81191110120
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.A8119.1110120
Journal Website: www.ijitee.org
Recorded lectures are not preferred by all students as may
argued that sometimes the lectures were explicit and not
adequate for complicated course materials [50]. Majority of
the students recommended that optimal video length of
lectures must be 15-30 minutes [51,52]. Therefore, the three
strategies are adopted in the current study alongside the
traditional approaches for evaluating their impact on the
students learning. The findings are suggested to be helpful for
the teachers in devising new study plans for improving
students learning competence.
III. MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. Study Design
An action research design following a quantitative
approach is used. It is selected as it efficiently draws unbiased
statistical results. Accordingly, existing researches have
established its efficacy for drawing concrete findings [11,28];
however, the present study differs from these in terms of its’
objective and scope.
B. Study Population and Sample
Computer science students are categorized as the study
population. The sample is derived as per the inclusion criteria
which recruits students enrolled in first and second semester
only. 74 students were included for evaluating the
effectiveness of the active learning strategies.
C. Data collection
Data was collected through a survey using the close-ended
questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised of 9 items based
on the 6-point Likert scale. The gathered details include
participants with demographic information as well as the
effectiveness of teaching strategies. Before its distribution,
the reliability was assessed using Cronbach Alpha, while,
three social science experts reviewed it for its validity. Further
changes were made based on the received feedback.
D. Ethical Consideration
Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional
Review Board (IRB), while participants were communicated
the study goals, the confidential and anonymous handling of
data, and their right to withdraw at any point of the study. A
written consent form was also acquired from the participants.
E. Study Assessment Procedure
Students were assessed based on their understanding of the
programming concepts that are needed in the course.
Different assessment techniques were deployed, including
peer review, flipped classroom, and clickers to support
student learning. In this case, the same approaches and survey
were used among two students in two different semesters.
First, with peer review, students commendably assessed their
capabilities in the field. Through their instructor’s guidance,
they sought clarification on various concepts regarding course
objectives. The students worked in groups enhancing their
positive independence and individual accountability. Each
group reviewed other groups’ feedback about their work.
Secondly, using the flip method, the learners have links to the
class lectures that they review before class activities, which
motivates their self-learning and independence. The students
were instructed to explain what they have learned and how
they moderated the class discussion. Also, clickers have been
used at the end of every session to assess the class’
performance using their mobiles through Poll Everywhere
application. Clickers also provide the instructor with any
misconception in the student answers and can provide
students with early feedback in the class.
To fully bring to light the impact of their training, short
exercises were given, in the form of questions. This acted as
an evaluation of the quality of all that is delivered.
F. Data Assessment
The gathered data were statistically analyzed using SPSS
IBM Version 20.0. Results were represented in the form of
percentages to identify the effectiveness of active learning
among CS students.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Cronbach alpha was achieved to be 0.967, signifying
towards the high questionnaire reliability.
Table- 1: Questionnaire Reliability
Cronbach’s Alpha
N of Items
0.967
9
Table 1 exhibits the student’s response enrolled in the first
semester. It indicates that the methods applied were adequate
for the majority of the students. Self-study activities were
preferred by 77% of the students, followed by peer review
(70%), clicker (62%), role-playing (55%) and flipped
classroom techniques (31%). Low results were obtained by
increasing the number of instructors (30%), problem-solving
group (24%), and summative assessment (38%). Homework
for learning was found to be favorable for 46% of the
students.
Table- 2: Survey responses (first semester)
Questions
Excellent
Very
Good
Good
Acceptable
Need to
improve
Unacceptable
Using the method of learning
via videos. (Flipped
classroom)
24%
31%
23%
null
15%
7%
Using mobile applications
such as poll everywhere in
learning. (Clickers)
62%
24%
Null
7%
7%
null
Numerous instructors of the
same course.
30%
30%
17%
16%
Null
7%
Exchange of roles between
the instructor and student, for
example, giving the student a
chance to teach (Role
changing).
55%
30%
Null
15%
Null
Null
Using the group work method
(problem-solving group).
24%
62%
Null
7%
Null
7%
Use the method of
evaluation/self-assessment
among students (Peer
review).
70%
15%
15%
null
Null
Null
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE)
ISSN: 2278-3075 (Online), Volume-10 Issue-1, November 2020
91
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
and Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijitee.A81191110120
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.A8119.1110120
Journal Website: www.ijitee.org
Homework
46%
30%
17%
7%
Null
null
Additional questions and
helper sites help that sent by
e-mail for self-study
(Self-study).
77%
Null
15%
8%
Null
Null
The variety of exam questions
(Summative assessment).
38%
9%
38%
null
8%
7%
The responses of the second-semester students are
indicated in table 3. It provided that the online assigning of
the task through email which required self-study was high
(78%) following the peer review technique (72%).
Clickers were preferred by 63%, and role changing by
57%. Surprising results regarding the flipped classroom were
obtained as only 28% considered it to be excellent. The
summative assessment was high among the second-semester
students (41%). Also, 30% of the students showed inclination
towards the traditional approach of content delivery by
increasing the number of instructors while for the
problem-solving group, it was 26%. Similar to first semester
students, the homework was preferred by 47% of the
second-semester students.
Table- 3: Survey responses (second semester)
Questions
Excellen
t
Very
Good
Good
Acceptabl
e
Need to
improve
Unacceptable
Using the method of
learning via videos.
(Flipped classroom)
28%
30%
21%
1%
15%
5%
Using mobile applications
such as poll everywhere in
learning. (Clickers)
63%
25%
2%
5%
5%
null
Numerous instructors of
the same course.
30%
29%
18%
17%
Null
6%
Exchange of roles between
the instructor and student,
for example, giving the
student a chance to teach
(Role changing).
57%
30%
Null
13%
Null
Null
Using the group work
method (problem-solving
group).
26%
60%
2%
6%
Null
6%
Use the method of
evaluation/self-assessmen
t among students (Peer
review).
72%
14%
13%
1%
Null
Null
Homework
47%
32%
16%
5%
Null
null
Additional questions and
helper sites help that sent
by e-mail for self-study
(Self-study).
78%
12%
10%
null
Null
Null
The variety of exam
questions (Summative
assessment).
41%
16%
38%
null
Null
5%
The differences in the perceptions of 1st year and 2nd year
students are presented in Table 4 with respect to the use of
different active learning strategies. According to the findings,
it was found that there was positive and significant difference
between the uses of active learning strategies. Students in
both years were using flipped classroom strategy, summative
assessment, peer review, problem solving group, role
changing, and clickers, and found significant differences
individually.
Table- 4: Paired Sample T-test between 1st Year and
2nd Year Students w.r.t to different active learning
strategies
Strategies
F
Sig
T
Mean
Difference
Flipped
classroom
0.811
0.001
0.238
.517
Summative
Assessment
0.028
0.001
0.945
.192
Peer Review
0.397
0.003
1.620
.343
Problem
Solving
Group
0.456
0.006
1.241
.226
Role
Changing
0.107
0.028
.177
.033
Clickers
0.018
0.015
.695
.125
The findings revealed that the students were impressed
with the application of peer review and the use of clickers.
These approaches positively impacted their learning. Unlike
other methods, these encouraged self-study, enhancing their
anticipation for exams. The findings are endorsed by the
previous studies such as [53], who exhibited that peer review
improved 86% of the science students learning competency.
Along with it, [45] endorse the effectiveness of the clicker’s
information of a conducive learning environment augmenting
the learning capacity of the students.
A good number also agreed with role-playing, where they
would be allowed to teach; this enhanced their confidence in
classroom activities. These are in line with the research
evaluation of [54], which demonstrated its effectiveness in the
professional development of teachers. Homework also proved
to be useful since it boosted learning without the usual use of
formal examinations. [55] support these findings, which also
used online homework practice among the students and
illustrated improved academic performance.
Contrary to this, video uplinks were thought to be
ineffective by some learners since they could not have
one-on-one contact with instructors and immediate response
to their questions. [56] endorse these results by illustrating the
negative attitude of the students towards the video, which
often acts as a distracting factor. 6-7% of the students disliked
the multiple instructors teaching approach since they believed
it would negatively affect their results, which is similar to the
results of [57]. According to it, multiple instructions from a
different teacher make the student frustrated negatively
impacting their learning.
Active Learning Multi-Strategies
92
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
and Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijitee.A81191110120
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.A8119.1110120
Journal Website: www.ijitee.org
In the current study, few students disagreed with the
summative nature of the exams, contrary to the findings of
[58] study which reported the effectiveness of the summative
assessment.
This could be because most of them were not well
prepared, hence developed a negative opinion on the papers.
Additionally, some students disliked the group work
technique since they were not comfortable to engage or bond
with strangers, which impacted the learning outcomes.
Whereas, the summative form of assessment reflected
improved grades, indicating the efficiency of the applied
teaching approaches in the second-semester students.
It recommends future researches to evaluate the
effectiveness of active learning across different educational
stages. Such as students belonging to different domains can be
selected other than computer science. Furthermore, an
experimental design of the study comparing pre and post
results of the students’ academic performance can be carried
out for expanding the knowledge in the existing field. It is
important for using interactive approaches in education.
Active learning strategies are still not considered as renowned
approaches even though recent years have observed increased
research on such strategies. Teacher skills should be
developed both in the design and transforming their materials
as well as in the utilization of technological equipment for
disseminating these approaches. In addition, it is suggested to
expand computer science students on these active learning
strategies over the years for exploring whether their
perceptions are changed. This study offers evidence that these
perspectives elevate as the active learning strategies were
integrated over the years. Higher education must entail
computer science content in their curricula through such
methodologies that can facilitate learning in an adequate
approach as employers are commencing to be aware of the
need for training in computer science courses. The study has
recommended that universities need commitment to computer
sciences and the enhancement of transversal competences of
higher education students when using active learning
strategies for reaching reflexive learning. Furthermore, the
flipped class strategy assists in elevating the commitment to
information technology in the labor market as the findings
revealed it is higher in students who are working.
Several limitations were identified to be taken under
consideration. Firstly, this study is based on six active
learning strategies for computer science students. However,
the study has only included students from 1st and 2nd years;
therefore, further research is required to explore the evidence
regarding 3rd and 4th year students. Secondly, this study has
covered only one university, and it is probable that the same
survey done in another university or region would not reveal
the same outcomes. Thirdly, the study is based merely on the
measurement of students’ perceptions, and the measurement
of perceptions of educators must be further conducted to
compare both perceptions of active learning strategies.
V. CONCLUSION
The study concluded that the traditional approaches in
teaching and learning are often faced with several challenges
which impede the learning process.
With the case study on students in two semesters, this study
provides insights on different approaches that can improve
students’ learning and education quality. The learning
outcomes from the incorporation of the flip method, use of
clickers, and peer review exceeded the expectations
demonstrating a positive impact on student learning. These
procedures can be implemented in different educational
settings creatively for improving the students’ educational
outcomes and academic success.
APPENDIX
Statement
Excellent
Very
Good
Good
Acceptable
Need to
improve
Unacceptable
Q1: Using the method of
learning via videos.
(Flipped classroom)
Q2: Using mobile
applications such as poll
everywhere in learning.
(Clickers)
Q3: Numerous instructors
of the same course.
Q4: Exchange of roles
between the instructor and
student, for example,
giving the student a
chance to teach (Role
changing).
Q5: Using the group work
method (problem-solving
group).
Q6: Use the method of
evaluation/self-assessmen
t among students (Peer
review).
Q7: Homework
Q8: Additional questions
and helper sites help that
sent by e-mail for
self-study (Self-study).
Q9: The variety of exam
questions (Summative
assessment).
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE)
ISSN: 2278-3075 (Online), Volume-10 Issue-1, November 2020
93
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
and Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijitee.A81191110120
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.A8119.1110120
Journal Website: www.ijitee.org
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author is very thankful to all the associated personnel
in any reference that contributed in/for the purpose of this
research.
REFERENCES
1. Nguyen, K.; Husman, J; Waters, C; Henderson, C; Finelli, C.J.;
Demonbrun, M; Borrego, M. Students’ expectations, types of
instruction, and instructor strategies predicting student response to
active learning. Int J Eng Educ. 2017, 33, 2-18.
2. Entwistle, N.; Ramsden, P. Understanding student learning (routledge
revivals), Routledge, 2015
3. Freeman, S.; Eddy, S.L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M.K.; Okoroafor,
N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M.P. Active learning increases student
performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences. 2014, 111, 8410-8415.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
4. Fletcher, A. Parts of the Education System. Available online:
https://soundout.org/parts-of-the-education-system/ (9 Nov 2017).
5. Bachelor, R.L.; Vaughan, P.M.; Wall, C.M. Exploring the Effects of
Active Learning on Retaining Essential Concepts in Secondary and
Junior High Classrooms. Online Submission, 2012.
6. Tesfaye, S.; Berhanu, K. Improving Students’ Participation in Active
Learning Methods: Group Discussions, Presentations and
Demonstrations: A Case of Madda Walabu University Second Year
Tourism Management Students of 2014. Journal of Education and
Practice. 2015, 6, 29-32.
7. Gannon, F. Available online.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1084042/ (9 Nov
2017).
8. Al-Odwan, Y. Effectiveness of Active Learning Strategy in Improving
the Acoustic Awareness Skills and Understanding What Is Heard by
the Basic Stage Students in Jordan. Educational Research and
Reviews. 2016, 11, 1896-1905. https://doi.org/10.5897/err2016.2944
9. Patton, C.M. Employing Active Learning Strategies to Become the
Facilitator, Not the Authoritarian: A Literature Review. Journal of
Instructional Research. 2015, 4, 134-141.
https://doi.org/10.9743/jir.2015.17
10. Broadbent, J.; Poon, W.L. Self-regulated learning strategies &
academic achievement in online higher education learning
environments: A systematic review. Internet High Educ. 2015, 27,
1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007
11. Franco, P.F.; DeLuca, D.A. Learning through action: Creating and
implementing a strategy game to foster innovative thinking in higher
education. Simul Gaming. 2019, 50, 23-43.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118820892
12. Li, J.; Sander, J.; Campello, R.; Zimek, A. Active learning strategies
for semi-supervised dbscan. In Canadian Conference on Artificial
Intelligence. 2014, 179-190.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06483-3_16
13. Fayombo, G.A. Active learning strategies and student learning
outcomes among some university students in Barbados. Guest Editors.
2011, 2.
14. Thompson, J. 40 Active Learning Strategies for Active Students
Teaching. Available online:
http://teaching.monster.com/benefits/articles/8414-40-active-learning
-strategies-for-active-students- (9 Nov 2017).
15. Lockwood, K.; Esselstein R. The inverted classroom and the CS
curriculum. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on
Computer science education. 2013, 113-118, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445236
16. Maher, M.L.; Latulipe, C.; Lipford, H.; Rorrer, A. Flipped classroom
strategies for CS education. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical
Symposium on Computer Science Education. 2015, 218-223.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677252
17. Briggs, T. Techniques for active learning in CS courses. Journal of
Computing Sciences in Colleges. 2005, 21, 156-165.
18. Turner, S.; Pérez-Quiñones, MA. Exploring peer review in the
computer science classroom. 2009. arXiv preprint arXiv:0907.3456.
19. Martyn, M. Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach.
Educause quarterly. 2007, 30, 71.
20. Grissom, S.; Mccauley, R.; Murphy, L. How student centered is the
computer science classroom? A survey of college faculty. ACM
Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE). 2017, 18, 5.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3143200
21. Christie, M.; de Graaff, E. The philosophical and pedagogical
underpinnings of Active Learning in Engineering Education. European
Journal of Engineering Education. 2017, 42, 5-16.
22. Menekse, M.; Stump, G.S.; Krause, S.; Chi, M.T. Differentiated overt
learning activities for effective instruction in engineering classrooms. J
Eng Educ. 2013, 102, 346-74.
23. Jääskelä, P.; Nissilä, P. Identifying themes for research-based
development of pedagogy and guidance in higher education.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2015, 59, 24-41.
24. Ishiyama, J. Frequently used active learning techniques and their
impact: A critical review of existing journal literature in the United
States. European Political Science. 2013, 12, 116-26.
25. Gosen, J.; Washbush, J. A review of scholarship on assessing
experiential learning effectiveness. Simul Gaming. 2004, 35, 270-93.
26. Prince, M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng
Educ. 2004, 93, 223-31.
27. Abdullah, K.L.; Chan, C.M. A systematic review of qualitative studies
exploring peer learning experiences of undergraduate nursing students.
Nurse Educ Today. 2018, 71, 185-192.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.09.018
28. Baker, K.M. Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing
process. Active Learning in Higher Education. 2016, 17, 179-192.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416654794
29. Ueckert, C.W.; Gess-Newsome, J. Active learning strategies. The
Science Teacher. 2008, 75, 47.
30. Mulder, R.A.; Pearce, J.M.; Baik, C. Peer review in higher education:
Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in
Higher Education. 2014, 15, 157-171.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787414527391
31. Crouch, C.H.; Mazur, E. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and
results. American journal of physics. 2001, 69, 970-7.
32. Liao, S.N.; Griswold, W.G.; Porter, L. Impact of class size on student
evaluations for traditional and peer instruction classrooms. In
Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on
Computer Science Education 2017, pp. 375-380.
33. Chase, J.D.; Okie, E.G. Combining cooperative learning and peer
instruction in introductory computer science. In Proceedings of the
thirty-first SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science
education 2000, pp. 372-376.
34. Norris, C. An examination of layers of quizzing in two computer
systems courses. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical
Symposium on Computing Science Education 2016, pp. 48-53.
35. Zingaro, D. Peer instruction contributes to self-efficacy in CS1. In
Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer
science education 2014, pp. 373-378.
36. Bruff, D. Classroom Response Systems (“Clickers”). Vanderbilt
University 2017. Available online:
https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/clickers/ (9 Nov 2017).
37. Daniel, T.; Tivener, K. Effects of Sharing Clickers in an Active
Learning Environment. J Educ Techno Soc. 2016, 19.
38. Derringer, P. Learning by Clicker. Available online:
http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3755843 (9 Nov
2017).
39. Buil, I.; Catalán, S.; Martínez, E. The influence of flow on learning
outcomes: An empirical study on the use of clickers. Br J Educ
Technol. 2019, 50, 428-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12561
40. Anthis, K. Is it the clicker, or is it the question? Untangling the effects
of student response system use. Teaching of Psychology. 2011, 38,
189-93.
41. Kornell, N.; Rabelo, V.C.; Klein, P.J. Tests enhance
learning—Compared to what? 2012.
42. Morgan, R.E.; Berthon, P. Market orientation, generative learning,
innovation strategy and business performance inter‐relationships in
bioscience firms. Journal of Management Studies. 2008, 45, 1329-53.
43. Symister, P.; VanOra, J.; Griffin, K.W.; Troy, D. Clicking in the
community college classroom: Assessing the effectiveness of clickers
on student learning in a general psychology course. The Community
College Enterprise. 2014, 20, 10.
44. Kay, R.H.; LeSage, A. Examining the benefits and challenges of using
audience response systems: A review of the literature. Comput Educ.
2009, 53, 819-27.
Active Learning Multi-Strategies
94
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
and Sciences Publication
Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijitee.A81191110120
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.A8119.1110120
Journal Website: www.ijitee.org
45. Lloyd, E.P.; Walker, R.J.; Metz, M.A.; Diekman, A.B.; Comparing
review strategies in the classroom: Self-testing yields more favorable
student outcomes relative to question generation. Teaching of
Psychology. 2018, 45, 115-23.
46. Whitehurst, G.J. Get Ready to Read: Classroom Literacy Environment
Checklist. Zugriff am. 2013, 3.
47. Morling, B.; McAuliffe, M.; Cohen, L.; DiLorenzo, T.M. Efficacy of
personal response systems (“clickers”) in large, introductory
psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology 2008, 35, 45-50.
48. Roehl, A.; Reddy, S.L.; Shannon, G.J. The flipped classroom: An
opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning
strategies. J Fam Consum Sci. 2013, 105, 44-49.
https://doi.org/10.14307/jfcs105.2.12
49. Hung, H.T. Flipping the classroom for English language learners to
foster active learning. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2015, 28, 81-96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.967701
50. Gannod, G.; Burge, J.; Helmick, M. Using the inverted classroom to
teach software engineering. In 2008 ACM/IEEE 30th International
Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE, 2008, pp.777-786.
51. Gehringer, E.F.; Peddycord, B.W. The inverted-lecture model: a case
study in computer architecture. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM
technical symposium on Computer science education, 2013, pp.
489-494.
52. Toto, R.; Nguyen, H. Flipping the work design in an industrial
engineering course. In 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference, IEEE, 2009, pp. 1-4.
53. Trautmann, N.M. Interactive learning through web-mediated peer
review of student science reports. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2009, 57,
685-704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9077-y
54. Robertson, A.; Curtis, P.M.; Dann, C. Collaborative Inquiry and
Active Learning as the Focus of Teacher Professional Development in
Papua. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives.
2018, 17, 88-101.
55. Gross, D.; Pietri, E.S.; Anderson, G.; Moyano-Camihort, K.; Graham,
M.J. Increased preclass preparation underlies student outcome
improvement in the flipped classroom. CBE— Life Sci Educ. 2015,
14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-02-0040
56. Jensen, J.L.; Kummer, T.A. Godoy PDDM. Improvements from a
flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE—
Life Sci Educ. 2015, 14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0129
57. Khanova, J.; Roth, M.T.; Rodgers, J.E.; McLaughlin, J.E. Student
experiences across multiple flipped courses in a single curriculum.
Med Educ. 2015, 49, 1038-1048. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12807
58. Broadbent, J.; Panadero, E.; Boud, D. Implementing summative
assessment with a formative flavour: a case study in a large class.
Assess Eval High Educ. 2018, 43, 307-322.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1343455.
AUTHORS PROFILE
First Author Dr. Ibtehal Nafea, PhD, is an
assistant professor at Computer Science Department,
College of Computer Science and Engineering,
Taibah University.
Dr. Ibtehal's work has been published in Journal of
Network and Computer Applications and
International Journal of Parallel Programming. She is also a reviewer in
Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal
(ASTESJ), the CCPE Journal Special Issue and The Journal of Systems and
Software. She is a member of Artificial intelligent research group and
scientific research unit in computer Science College., Taibah University.
Saudi Arabia, Medina. She was a member of technical committee in WiDS
Medina 2020 and IRICT 2020. She participated in many conferences
