“It’s Like a Nice Atmosphere”—Understanding Physics Students’ Experiences of a Flipped Classroom Through the Lens of Transactional Distance Theory

Abstract

In this paper, physics students’ experiences of a flipped, active learning physics class are explored through the lens of transactional distance theory (TDT). Transactional distance (TD) is the psychological and communicative distance that may arise between students and their teacher in learning environments such as large classes. TD has been shown to have a negative impact on students’ satisfaction, engagement, and learning outcomes, yet there is lack of research on how pedagogical approaches, such as the flipped classroom and active learning, may ameliorate the impacts of TD. In this paper, I use a qualitative methodology to gain an in-depth understanding of the ways in which a flipped class can impact the experience of transactional distance for first year physics students. Eleven students took part in semi-structured interviews about their experience of the class, from which three themes were developed: (a) creating connections; (b) stimulating engagement; and (c) supporting responsiveness. These themes are interpreted through the lens of TDT to understand the ways in which the flipped class and active learning pedagogics reduced students’ experience of TD. This gives new insights into students’ experiences of small group discussions, pre-class quizzes, and in-class ‘clicker’ questions. The implications for the pedagogical design of flipped classes will be discussed.

1. Introduction

In recent years, low attendance and low engagement have been negatively impacting undergraduate courses in both the sciences and humanities (Basken, 2023; Williams, 2022). Although the reasons for this are complex and multifaceted, both attendance and engagement are affected by students’ experience of their learning environment. One aspect of this is whether they experience transactional distance, that is, the psychological and communicative distance that can arise in educational settings between students and between students and their teacher. Although transactional distance theory (TDT) was originally developed in the context of online and distance education, it has been shown that TD also affects students attending in-person classes, particular when the class sizes are large, as is often the case in early years physics courses. Transactional distance has a negative impact on a range of factors including students’ satisfaction, engagement, and learning outcomes (Kara, 2020). For this reason, it is important to understand what causes TD and to find strategies that can reduce it (Benton et al., 2013).

Flipped classes, coupled with active learning approaches increase students’ engagement, provide opportunities for students to interact with each other and encourage a deep understanding of the material (Prince, 2004). When used with Peer Instruction (Mazur, 1999), they have also been shown to reduce attrition rates (Lasry et al., 2008). It is therefore reasonable to hypothesise that flipped, active learning will reduce students’ experience of TD compared to traditionally taught classes. However, research in this area is still at an early stage, and there are substantial gaps in the literature, including a lack of research on TD specifically in physics courses (although Doo et al. (2020) is an exception), and a lack of research comparing students’ experiences of flipped and traditionally taught classes.

Further, much of the work on TD in flipped classes to date involves quantitative analysis utilising large scale questionnaires, often with a focus on the relationships between TD and other factors such as self-efficacy, self-regulation, student satisfaction and grades (Doo et al., 2020; Ekwunife-Orakwue & Teng, 2014; Swart et al., 2015). While this has produced important results for the field, qualitative research is also needed if we are to gain in-depth insights into the nuanced ways in which different aspects of a flipped class may impact TD.

Stöhr et al. (2020), Stöhr and Adawi (2018), and Y. Chen et al. (2014) argue that it is important to consider how activities in a flipped class impact TD as this will influence who benefits most from a flipped classroom approach. Stöhr and Adawi (2018) recommend a realist approach to studying the flipped classroom in order to ‘investigate how different learning activities contribute to different learning outcomes through specific learning mechanisms.’ [p. 3]. Furthermore, there have been calls for research that can ‘inform the design and implementation process’ of active learning pedagogies (Lee et al., 2018). This is important because both the design and implementation of active learning activities can significantly affect the success of a flipped class (Hodges, 2020).

The aim of this paper is to explore students’ experiences of a flipped first year undergraduate physics course at the University of Edinburgh, through the lens of TDT. A qualitative approach has been chosen, using semi-structured interviews, in order to gain an in-depth and nuanced understanding of students’ experiences, and the ways in which the activities in a flipped class impact them. The research question guiding this work is:

Does a flipped, active learning class reduce students’ experience of transactional distance compared to a traditionally taught class, and if so in what ways does this happen?

2. Transactional Distance

Transaction distance (TD) was defined by Moore (1983) as the psychological feeling of distance (such as feeling isolated or disengaged) and the communicative distance (such as misunderstandings) which students may experience in educational settings. Research has found that experiences of transactional distance have a negative impact on a variety of aspects of learning and teaching including perceived learning and satisfaction (Kara, 2020) and learner engagement (Doo et al., 2020). As a consequence of this, there has been a call for teachers to minimise transactional distance in order to positively affect student learning (Benton et al., 2013). Although transactional distance theory was developed in the context of distance and online education, it has been argued that it applies to any learning environment including in-person teaching. For example Bender (2023, p. 10) states: ‘if a teacher, whether online or on campus, can establish meaningful educational opportunities…then the transactional gap shrinks and no one feels remote from each other or from the source of learning’. The concept of TD is therefore not about geographical separation which may (or may not) exist between students and teacher, but rather the communicational distance that may appear, which can result in misunderstandings between what a teacher is trying to communicate and what a learner understands (Y. J. Chen, 2001). This connection between what the teacher is trying to communicate and what the learner understands was further explained by Bender (2023):

Transactional distance is the extent to which the teacher manages to successfully engage the students in their learning. If students are disengaged and not stimulated into being active learners, there can be a vast transactional distance, whether the students are under the teacher’s nose or on the other side of the city. But if a teacher, whether online or on campus, can establish meaningful educational opportunities, with the right degree of challenge and relevance, and can give students a feeling of responsibility for their own learning and a commitment to this process, then the transactional gap shrinks and no one feels remote from each other or from the source of learning.

(p. 6)

Moore (1983) proposed that there are three sets of variables, which together influence the level of TD that a student experiences: the structure of the course, the extent to which dialogue takes place and learner autonomy.

2.1. Structure

The structure of the course relates to how well defined or flexible the educational aims, learning activities, and evaluation are. It describes “the extent to which an educational program can accommodate or be responsive to each learner’s individual needs” (Moore, 1983, p. 26). In general, courses which have very rigid structures, where there is little room for students to make their own decisions about what and how they learn are equated with high transactional distance. However, a course which is too flexible and relies on students to have a high degree of self-motivation and autonomy may leave students feeling isolated and lacking guidance, which may also result in high TD. The degree of structure varies from course to course and depends on a variety of factors including the teaching philosophy of the instructor, the nature of the subject and the capacity of the learners.

2.2. Dialogue

Moore defines dialogue as a positive interaction “which is purposeful, constructive and valued by each party” (Moore, 1983, p. 24) and proposed that dialogue was one of the most important ways to reduce transactional distance (Stöhr et al., 2020). In contrast to structure, dialogue has an inverse relationship with TD, with a course which has a great deal of dialogue between student and teacher likely to have a reduced transactional distance. Moore uses the term dialogue rather than the more general idea of interactions in order to specify that the term should define ‘the kind of helping constructive and positive exchanges that are required in a teaching-learning relationship’ Moore (1983).

While the quality of interactions between student and teacher are important it has also been suggested that the quantity of dialogue should be analysed when thinking about transactional distance (McBrien et al., 2009). Three types of interaction have been identified as contributing to reducing TD—student-student, student-teacher and student-content.

2.3. Autonomy

The third element of TDT is learner autonomy. This refers to both personal autonomy, for example, the extent to which students take responsibility for their own learning, and to autonomy associated with the learning materials themselves (Garrison, 2000). Autonomy depends on a variety of factors, including the personality of the learner, the opportunities for making decisions about learning in the course (i.e., how rigid or otherwise the structure of course is), and the opportunities for dialogue.

Together, the three elements of TDT influence each other to affect the level of TD that is experienced by students. A course with a high degree of structure, for example a traditionally taught lecture, where students listen and take notes while the lecturer talks, is likely to have both fewer opportunities for dialogue, and less chance for learner autonomy than an active learning class. In contrast a course which is more flexible is likely to create multiple ways in which learners can interact with the teacher and with each other. There is however a limit to this relationship—a course which has extremely low structure may not support students sufficiently to engage with the content or with each other and result in a high TD. This may be a particular problem in the early years of a degree programme, for example Benson and Samarawickrema (2009) found that online learners had low levels of personal autonomy and thus high levels of structure were needed to adequately support students.

3. Large Classes

Large classes1 are a central part of the educational provision in undergraduate Physics courses, particularly in the early years, and with the massification of higher education, they are likely to continue for the foreseeable future (Hornsby & Osman, 2014; Wood & Labrosse, 2023). At the upper end, class sizes may be as high as 450 or more, however, there is no agreed definition of how many students constitute a large class in the literature, and instead it has been suggested that how large a class feels is more important (Wood & Labrosse, 2023) than exact numbers. Factors which influence how large a class feels include the pedagogical approach and the amount and structure of the interactions.

The value of large classes has been the subject of much debate in recent years. Those who are critical of large classes suggest that they lead to weak engagement and a surface approach to learning (Cuseo, 2007), that they are not conducive to developing higher order cognitive skills (Hornsby & Osman, 2014) and that students in large classes demonstrate low levels of engagement with the material and lower motivation compared to students in smaller classes (Mulryan-Kyne, 2010). Research on students’ experiences of large classes by Cash et al. (2017) found that the large class environment was experienced as being ‘impersonal and anonymous’ and that there was ‘an atmosphere where neither their peers nor their instructor noticed whether they were absent or attentive’ (Cash et al., 2017). Students also report that they do not have a sense of belonging (Cash et al., 2017; Shea et al., 2006; Weaver & Qi, 2005). and that they found it difficult to interact with the teacher both inside and outside scheduled classes. These findings indicate that students in large classes are likely to experience significant transactional distance.

However, Wood and Labrosse (2023) argue that ‘[while] large classes can be detrimental to student learning, achievement and completion rates … this doesn’t need to be the case.’ As discussed below flipped and active learning approaches can be effective learning environments which help students to engage deeply with the material and foster engagement (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018; Freeman et al., 2014; Hake, 1998). Large classes also create a collective experience of learning (Arvanitakis, 2014; Collins, 2014) and provide social connections for students which enables them to both get help from their peers if they need it and to feel less alone when struggling with difficult concepts (Loughlin & Lindberg-Sand, 2023). A systematic review of research into what influences the effectiveness of large classes by Jerez et al. found five conditions which make large classes successful: (1) student–teacher and student–student interaction, (2) implementation of active learning strategies, (3) classroom management, (4) students’ motivation and commitment and, (5) the use of online teaching resources (Jerez et al., 2021). This suggests that the careful design of the pedagogy used in a large class can reduce the TD experienced by students, compared to a traditionally taught class.

4. Flipped Classroom

Flipped classes, in which students encounter the material through pre-class resources and spend time during the class in deeper engagement with the content, have generated a great deal of interest in recent years as an alternative to traditional lecturing (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015). A flipped classroom consists of three key components: (a) new course content is first encountered before the class; (b) class time is used for learning activities that are active and social; (c) students are required to complete pre- and/or post-class activities to fully benefit from in-class work (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015).

A critical element of the flipped classroom is that class time is spent on active learning activities. Research by Jensen et al. (2015) found that any improvements in learning gains in a flipped classroom could be attributed to the active leaning, constructivist style of instruction in the classes, rather than to whether or not a flipped approach was employed. It seems that the ‘active ingredient’ in a flipped classroom is active learning. However, although a teaching approach does not need to be flipped in order to contain active learning components, using a flipped approach frees up time during the class for in-depth discussion about the course content.

A variety of active learning strategies may be incorporated into the flipped classroom; two of the most popular are Think-Pair-Share (Kothiyal et al., 2013) and Peer Instruction (Mazur, 1999). These approaches have a number of components in common. Importantly they introduce high quality and diverse types of interactivity such as opportunities for students to engage in small-group discussions, the chance to be involved in class-wide discussion with the lecturer as well as spending time thinking about problems individually.

Flipped classes which incorporate active learning approaches have a range of benefits for students’ learning outcomes. For example, in a meta analysis of 225 students, Freeman et al. (2014) found that active learning strategies led to increased student performance on examinations and concept inventories with an effect size of 0.46 SDs. Similarly, Deslauriers et al. (2011) found increased learning and student attendance, as well as higher engagement, in students assigned to active learning classes in a controlled experiment. Active learning strategies have also been shown to reduce the achievement gap for underrepresented students and improve student retention (Burke et al., 2020; Deslauriers et al., 2011; Freeman et al., 2014; Hake, 1998; Jensen et al., 2015). Flipped learning also helps teachers to understand their students’ learning progress and increases engagement (Fulton, 2012). However, successful flipped learning also requires students to be self-motivated and to organise their time effectively to complete the out of class activities (Wolters et al., 2005).

A meta analysis of the effects of the flipped classrooms on physics students found positive effects for learning outcomes compared to learning in a traditional classroom and that students were more motivated for learning in physics, were more engaged with the topic, showed less anxiety for physics and had a more positive attitude towards physics compared to their peers that attended regular teaching (Tunggyshbay et al., 2023). In contrast, Andrews et al. (2011) found that the beneficial effects of active learning are only found when the instructors were trained in how to use the techniques. This indicates that the nuance of how these techniques are implemented is critical to their success.

In recent years researchers have examined the impact of TD on flipped classes. Doo et al. (2020) studied large flipped physics classes and reported that TD affected students’ interactions with the instructor, the other students and the learning content, and this in turn then affected their engagement with the course. Similarly, Ekwunife-Orakwue and Teng (2014) studied blended and online learning environments and found that students’ interactions with the content had the greatest effect on student learning outcomes compared to other forms of dialogue.

Karaoglan-Yilmaz et al. (2024) found that students’ TD perceptions have a direct effect on both their engagement and satisfaction in flipped learning and Kayaduman (2020) found that one way to reduce TD is to carefully design the pre-class videos so that the content is understandable. This encourages students to attend the class and to engage in the class activities. Swart et al. (2015) also investigated TD in the flipped classroom and found that the success of the active learning activities depended on the distance experienced between the students and between students and the instructor as well as the attitude of students towards active learning, rather than solely on the TD between students. They concluded that teachers should be trained in how to effectively teach a flipped classroom and students should be guided in how to work together effectively. Stöhr et al. (2020) examined students’ participation and performance on an online flipped course compared to a campus-based course. They found that the online course had elements of both high and low TD and this might explain why there was a greater range of learning outcomes compared to the in-person course.

5. Materials and Methods

5.1. Context

The course studied in this research is a first-year introductory physics class at the University of Edinburgh which is described in detail elsewhere (Galloway, 2023). The course focuses on Newtonian mechanics featuring kinematics, Newton’s laws, forces, energy, linear and angular momentum, and simple harmonic motion.

There are approximately 300 students enrolled on the course, 75% of whom are students intending to complete a degree in physics, the remainder taking it as an elective course for another subject. As shown in Figure 1 the course structure consists of pre-class activities, the class itself, focused on problem solving, and then weekly workshops to spend time on more advanced and involved questions with the support of teaching assistants. The classes have three 50-min sessions per week that are billed as ‘lectures’; these take place in a traditional, raked lecture theatre with one instructor and no additional teaching assistants (Bates & Galloway, 2012). The course is taught in a flipped mode with an expectation that students will do pre-readings before the lecture and complete a short quiz which tests their level of understanding of the material. A final question on the quiz asks students which topics they found difficult. This then informs the direction of the class and is often presented to students as a ‘word cloud’ at the start of the lecture. All the course material is presented in the pre-readings, with no new material covered in the class.

Class time is spent on additional more in-depth explanations and on active learning through Peer Instruction (Mazur, 1999). In Peer Instruction, students are asked multiple choice questions which test their conceptual understanding. They initially have some time to think about the question individually, then they vote on their answer using their smart phones. If more than around 70% of the students get the answer correct, then the lecturer explains why this is the correct answer (to make sure everyone fully understands the reasoning, and to model expert thinking) and then moves on. If, however, fewer than 70% get the answer, correct then the students are invited to discuss the question in small groups, and then re-vote. In almost all cases, more students get the answer correct on the second vote. The lecturer then displays the graph of the responses from the whole class and leads a discussion with the whole class, asking for students to explain their reasoning for their answer. They then finish by explaining why the correct answer is correct, and why the incorrect answers are not correct.

Table 1. Summary of course activities and expected TD from a design perspective.

Transactional Distance Theory Dimensions			Element of Course
Autonomy	Dialogue	Structure
High	Low	High	Pre-reading
High	Medium	High	Pre-lecture quiz
High	Low	Low	Students solving problems individually
High	High	Low	Students working in small groups
Medium	Medium	Low	Class-wide discussion (student questions, lecturer questions)

shows the expected experiences of transactional distance for each of the elements of the active learning elements of the course.

5.2. Data Collection

In this study, eleven students (seven male and four female) took part in in-depth semi-structured interviews about their experiences of a first-year physics course using a flipped and active learning approach. Participants were recruited during semester one of the first year. A short video, created by the author, who is not connected to the teaching of the course was shown at the start of a lecture and a follow-up e-mail was then sent where it was emphasised that students with a range of opinions about the lectures were being sought. Two of these students were Scottish, two from the rest of the UK, six from the EU and one from a non-EU European country. Four were physics majors, the rest were majors in engineering (3), informatics (2), chemistry (1), and geosciences (1). Two of the participants were mature students who had some previous experience of studying at higher education level (though not necessarily successfully). In terms of gender this group is representative compared to the class as a whole which has 35% who identify as female (slightly higher than the national average). However, for the degree intention of the students, our cohort slightly over-represents non-physics majors compared to the class as a whole, who were split roughly 75:25 in terms of physics to non-physics majors. Similarly, the whole class consists of approximately 40% of students from Scotland, 40% from the rest of the UK with the reminder predominately from China and Europe. Our sample therefore over-represents students from outside the UK.

The interviews took place around half the way through the course being studied. This gave enough time for students to experience the course and ensured that their perspectives were still fresh in their minds. Interviews were conducted by video call or with instant messaging (text-chat), and in addition one interview took place in person. All interviews were recorded either as audio recordings or in the case of text-chat interviews, as text files. Giving students the option of format for the interview was important for gaining the widest possible range of participants. For example, one student who requested a text-chat interview later revealed that he had a speech impediment and that he would not have taken part if an oral interview was compulsory. During the interviews students were asked about their expectations of the course and how their experience was different to those expectations. They were also asked to describe what happens in the lectures and to talk about their experience of each of the key activities in the session. They were also asked about what they felt most helped their learning and what they saw as their role in the lectures, and what they thought the role of the lecturer was. Ethical permission was sought and granted through the School of Physics and Astronomy.

5.3. Data Analysis

Thematic analysis was used to identify common experiences and perceptions of the flipped active learning classes. The methodology of Braun and Clarke (2006) was followed, involving familiarisation with the data and initial coding. Here the transcripts were checked against the audio recordings and read through a number of times in order to become familiar with the interviews. Relevant passages were highlighted and notes were made about the key ideas being expressed. These were then collated into a single document and emerging codes were noted. Data extracts and codes were then reviewed together with the themes and detailed descriptions of the themes were developed. Throughout this stage the author returned to the data to check that the themes were representative of the interviews, so that themes were developed in an iterative process. Once the themes had been generated a secondary analysis was conducted, focusing particularly on the discussions of the different types of dialogue, in order to understand the impact on students’ experiences of transactional distance.

6. Results

Three themes were developed from the transcripts: creating connections, stimulating engagement, and supporting responsiveness.

6.1. Creating Connections

The first theme relates to the ways in which students felt that the class activities helped them to create connections, both with other students at an individual level and with the class as a whole.

Firstly, students felt that having the opportunity to discuss in small groups enabled them to meet other students and to make social connections to their peers. Students found these beneficial not just for class activities but also for studying outside of class. For example, Student J described the peer discussion sessions as ‘a nice ice breaker’ and that it ‘stops the awkwardness that sometimes creeps up’ when meeting new people. Student K also commented that it was a ‘great way to meet [people]’. He went on to describe how the people he met turned into an informal study group who would help each other out when they were stuck on physics problems outside class.

Students also talked about how the activities create a sense of community with the whole class. For example, Student A commented that the physics classes had “ almost like a nice atmosphere” compared to her more traditionally taught classes and Student I commented on the community-like feel created in the class:

‘When the audience is engaged with the lecturer, there is a sense of community that everyone is understanding and there are more people who would want you to ask those questions’.

[Student A]

Student F expanded on this, explaining that they felt they were learning alongside everyone else:

and being able to think along with everyone else at the same pace, that feels quite nice cause also, I mean, obviously everyone has this experience at least once in University where you sorta feel you’re behind everyone else.

[Student F]

Students also noted that the peer discussions helped them to connect to the class as a whole, by supporting them to feel more confident than they would normally about taking part in the whole class discussion in the public arena. For example, Student D commented that having the opportunity to try out or ‘rehearse’ the arguments during peer discussions enabled him to feel more comfortable being able to speak, either to ask or to answer questions in front of the whole class.

Well I think like it helps when you have your little private discussion, it’s much easier to go from answering a question in your own head and then answering it or talking to all your peers …. and then explaining it to the whole class rather than just asking the question to the whole class and then you’re going straight from answering it in your own head to explaining it to three hundred people.

[Student D]

Similarly, Student I explained that hearing other people ask questions reduced the barriers that he felt and made interactions feel like a normal part of the class activities.

When the lecturer asks us questions, when someone answers, it makes me feel more comfortable to ask questions and stop the lecturer. I think when the lecturer engages with the audience, it feels more inclusive and that it is acceptable and not awkward to ask questions.

[Student I]

This theme shows that some of the active learning strategies had not only an academic benefit, but a social one too. Students felt that these activities helped them to feel more connected, to each other, to the lecturer, and to the wider group of students. The activities also provided scaffolding, enabling them to feel more comfortable taking part in whole class discussions.

6.2. Stimulating Engagement

The second theme relates to the ways in which students felt activities stimulated their engagement with the class.

Firstly, students commented that in active learning lectures it was easier to stay focused. For example, students said that the activities “keep the whole audience engaged” [Student I] with the result that “it is much easier to focus and listen and understand” [Student E]. One consequence of this was that the class time passed easily, as Student F commented ‘we’re never looking at a clock’.

Student I added that in addition to keeping the audience engaged, the activities ‘slow the lecture down’. This relates to a common complaint from students in non-active lectures that they do not have the time or cognitive capacity to make sense of the lecturer’s discourse during the lecture itself, in part due to the need to multi-task in lectures, writing notes while listening to the lecturer (Wood et al., 2021). In contrast, in the active learning classes studied here, students commented that they had the chance to think about the content during the class itself. For example, Student F said

But using interactive tools certainly worked and it works for me because it makes me think in the lecture rather than just taking a bunch a’ stuff down and having to think about it later.

[Student F]

Similarly, Student A contrasted her experience of more traditionally taught lectures which involved ‘sitting in silence writing notes’ by explaining that

It kind of just makes the lectures a bit more enjoyable and interesting cause you’re kind of more involved with it.

[Student A]

Student B also felt that traditional style lectures did not engage students and that in contrast being asked questions gave him the ‘chance to get involved which I liked’. The use of the word ‘involved’ by both of these students indicates that they experienced a more active participation in their learning compared to more traditionally taught classes.

Students also commented that active learning approaches gave them a greater connection to the lecturer. For example, Student A felt that with traditional style lectures so much concentration was needed to make notes that she realised she ‘kind of blanked him [the lecturer] out’. She went on to say that

Whereas obviously in physics lectures that doesn’t happen because you’re just kind of listening and even if you’re writing notes you have the kind of time and explanations on like the paper or on the board.

[Student A]

This implies that students are more cognitively engaged with both the lecturer and the course content when class activities include active learning strategies.

In this theme, students discussed how the activities in the class helped them to feel focused during class which resulted in the classes being more enjoyable. They felt a greater connection to the lecturer and were able to be more engaged with the course content compared to traditionally taught classes.

6.3. Supporting Responsiveness

The third theme relates to the way in which students felt that the lecturer was able to respond to their needs during the class. A key element of this responsiveness was that activities provided immediate feedback both to the lecturer and to the students themselves. This was particularly apparent with the use of the electronic voting system which was accessed through students’ smart phones. The system produces graphs showing how the class as a whole had answered multiple choice questions. Students valued the feedback that they themselves received from the graphs:

[the graphs are] definitely the most helpful … and whilst at the same time you have your individual feedback as well’.

[Student F]

But in general, students tended to feel that the main benefit of this was to give feedback to the lecturer. For example, Student I commented that these graphs ‘allow the lecturer to see what people are stuck on there and then’ and student D believed that the reason the lecturer asked the whole class how they answered questions after the voting stage, was to get a snapshot of students’ level of understanding:

I think that’s probably for his own sort of understanding of how the class is getting along and how we as students think we need to solve the questions.

[Student D]

Students recognized that the feedback to the lecturer resulted in him being able to respond by adapting the content and speed of lecture according to their needs. For example, Student A noted that when the lecturer talked about the students’ responses to questions ‘it’s all kind of based on what everyone’s doing’ and student E noted that the lecturer would change direction if necessary, based on the results of the multiple choice question:

It gives an image of how many people understand what is going on in an exercise and then Dr. Ross knows which topics he has to focus more on.

[Student E]

Indeed, student D contrasted his experience of the Physics class with that of more traditionally taught lectures, where no evidence of responsiveness was present, noting that it felt as if the students had no influence on the direction or speed of the lecture:

Whereas previously I’ve just had lecturers who, it just seemed like they had a narrative that they needed to lecture us on. And basically just went from one point to another and just kept going, just sort of like a train without a stop’.

[Student D]

Another opportunity for responsiveness was during the short quiz that students were asked to complete before the pre-readings. Student G noted that the final question which asks students which topics in the readings they had found most difficult was then used as the basis for the lecture, giving students the feeling that they had influence on the direction of the lecture.

‘At the end of each quiz we are asked to leave our comments on the quiz what we found hard/interesting Ross uses the data to organize the lectures for the following week and we go through the hard parts of the quiz’.

[Student G]

In this theme students noted various ways in which the class activities resulted in the lecturer listening to students and responding to their needs. This led to either a change in focus of the lecture, or a change in direction during the class.

7. Discussion and Implications for Practice

Three themes which give insights into students’ experiences of transactional distance in a flipped active learning physics class were developed from the interviews: creating connections, stimulating engagement and supporting responsiveness. Here these findings are examined through the lens of TDT.

All three themes relate to the different ways in which students experience interactions in the class, therefore the focus here will be specifically on the three aspects of dialogue that are elements of TDT: (1) student-student interactions (2) student-teacher interactions and (3) student-content interactions.

7.1. Student-Student Dialogue

The students regularly referred to peer discussions in the interviews, however, it is notable that they focused on the social benefits of these interactions rather than on the direct benefits to their learning of the activity itself. For example, they found that being involved in peer discussions enabled them to create social connections with fellow students which made it easier for them to get to know each other. Some of them commented that this helped them to create a study group which benefited their learning outside of the class.

While Moore’s original description of student-student interactions in TDT primarily concerned the impact that they had on students’ learning (Moore, 1983, p. 37), more recent thinking has acknowledged the social benefits of student interactions may also reduce TD. Ekwunife for instance believes they have the potential to reduce ‘feelings of isolation and detachment that may contribute to perceived distance’ (Ekwunife-Orakwue & Teng, 2014). It has also been proposed that as student-student interaction is important for the growth and development of social skills it may therefore bridge any perceived distance and increase social presence (Anderson et al., 2001).

The findings presented here show that peer discussions help to reduce students’ feeling of isolation and increase their sense of being connected with each other. Peer discussion will therefore reduce their feeling of transactional distance compared to more traditionally taught classes which do not have the opportunity for student interactions. Although not explicitly discussed by students there are also likely to be academic benefits here, as De Felice et al. (2023) argue, there is a strong role for social interaction in the process of learning new knowledge. This may be because developing personal relationships with peers is likely to make learning conversations more productive, which also reduces transactional distance. This adds to the literature by providing evidence that students value the social benefits which are created by small-group discussions. When designing active learning classes, teachers should therefore ensure there are adequate opportunities for peer interactions, and be aware of the social as well as the pedagogical benefits of this type of activity, and the impact that this can have on students’ experience of the class.

Students also discussed how they felt a sense of connection with each other (and also with the lecturer), at an individual level, as well as to the class as a whole, with one student referring to ‘a sense of community’. While a sense of community is not directly a part of the original TDT, Shin (2002) proposed that TDT should include a 4th element—‘transactional presence’ which describes students’ perceptions of presence in relation to each other, the teacher and the institution. Transactional presence combines a sense of ‘availability’ and a feeling of ‘connectedness’. A sense of connection as described by the students, will therefore reduce feelings of TD. This sense of connection with others is important, as work has shown that students are less likely to leave the course if they experience a sense of belonging (O’Keeffe, 2013) and if they also report feeling part of a community (Boyd et al., 2022).

7.2. Teacher-Student Dialogue

Students discussed how they valued teacher-student interactions in a number of different ways. Firstly, students noted that they felt that they were able to pay more attention to the lecturer compared to their traditionally taught classes, as they had more time and cognitive capacity to focus on what he was saying. This is because in traditionally taught classes, students are required to multi-task, balancing listening and writing notes (Wood et al., 2021), whereas in flipped classes new material has been covered in pre-lecture activities, freeing up class time for in-depth problem solving. The students in this study felt that not having to make as many notes resulted in them being able to concentrate more deeply on what the lecturer was saying. Although this is one-way interaction, students reported that they felt a greater sense of connection to the lecturer. Work by Shea et al. (2006) proposes that developing a connection to the teacher is a promising mechanism for creating a learning community in online environments. It is reasonable to extend this finding to in-person classes, which adds weight to the idea that feeling more connected to the lecturer would contribute to reducing students’ experiences of TD.

Students also noted that the teacher did not have a pre-defined rigid plan, but instead was able to respond to the students in real time. This happened in two main ways—firstly by adapting the content of the lecture based on the answers to the pre-reading quiz question which asked which topics the students were struggling with, and secondly in response to the electronic voting system question results which showed the level of knowledge in the class. This process of listening to the students, and then responding can be understood as part of an ongoing dialogue between the lecturer and the class as a whole. Students also noted that the small-group discussions helped them to take part in whole-class dialogues because it enabled them to practice making their arguments in a low-stakes environment. This will result in increases in both the quality and the quantity of the dialogues that take place in the whole-class arena.

Moore defined teacher-student dialogue as positive interactions which aim to improve students’ understanding (Moore, 1983) and which are characterised by being ‘purposeful and constructive’ and ‘valued by both teacher and learner’ Xiao (2025). Moore believed that for teacher-student interactions to be conducive to learning they needed to be both two-way and dialogic, although he did not rigorously define dialogic. He believed that the quality of the dialogue was the primary concern, but others have argued that quantity is also important (McBrien et al., 2009).

The experiences of the students show that the teacher-student dialogues were both purposeful and constructive and were valued by the students. However, in the course studied here, a substantial proportion of the interaction was between the teacher and the class as a whole, rather than individual students. This is because even in an environment where students are encouraged to ask and answer questions, in a large class it is impossible for more than a few students to be actively involved during a lecture. In previous work myself and colleagues have argued that this type of interaction, which we named ‘vicarious interactive’, has value for learning, as even if the students are not directly involved in the dialogue themselves, they will be thinking along with the questions/answers given by others (Wood et al., 2016). Other work has shown that listening to dialogues in a video format (Chi et al., 2017) and from computer controlled virtual agents (Driscoll et al., 2003) was better for students’ learning compared to listening to monologues.

It is important to note that even when interactions are designed to be a major feature of the class, they may not be truly dialogic—a recent study by the author found that interactions in a flipped active learning physics class were predominantly monologic and authoritative (Wood et al., 2018) and Kranzfelder et al. (2020) made similar observations in an active learning biology class. Nevertheless Wood et al. (2018) argue that the dialogues still have value for learning as they incorporate student ideas into the discussions.

The experiences described by the students in this work show that they felt they were part of the dialogue with the lecturer, whether that was through being able to pay more attention when the lecturer was talking, feeling more comfortable taking part in whole-class discussions, or the way in which the lecturer listened to the students and responded to their needs. This was the case even though that dialogue was between a group of students and the teacher, rather than at an individual level. This adds to the literature by showing that interactions that are one-to-many are still experienced as a dialogue by students. Students value listening in to dialogues even when they are not taking part themselves and just as importantly, they themselves feel that they are part of that interaction, as a member of the class of students. Such dialogues are seen by students as valuable in helping them to communicate with the lecturer, to feel part of the class discussions and to enable them to connect with the course content. These interactions therefore increase both the quality and quantity of dialogue and therefore reduce students’ feelings of TD.

There are a number of implications for practice from these findings. Firstly it’s important to be aware of the cognitive load that is expected of students during the class (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015). If they are encountering new material, and this requires them to both listen and to write notes, they are unlikely to be able to simultaneously engage deeply with the concepts being discussed. Secondly, students value feeling that the lecturer is listening to them, gauging where they are in their learning and responding appropriately as this helps to create an ongoing dialogue between the students and the lecturer. Lecturers should find ways to generate feedback from students which they can act upon and there should be opportunities for this to happen on different time-scales, for example during the lecture itself as described here, but also at regular intervals during each module of study, and over the course as a whole.

Thirdly, activities should not be seen as standing alone, but rather as a sequence with each new step influenced by those that have gone before. These may either promote quality dialogues (as in the peer-discussions described here by students) or hinder dialogue, if they made students feel self-conscious or that their contribution wasn’t welcome. While too much structure increases a sense of TD, in this case some structure is beneficial for students, as it helps to scaffold students to take a more active part in interactions. Similarly spacing the interactions throughout the lecture (rather than, for example only having time for questions at the end of the lecture) will contribute to a sense of ongoing dialogue which is likely to reduce experiences of TD.

Finally, it is also important to consider the classroom ‘norms’ (Finkelstein, 2005; Turpen & Finkelstein, 2010), that are created by the approach used in the class. For example, a classroom norm where student participation, involving both asking and answering questions, is expected, encouraged, and welcomed is likely to create high quality dialogue between the teacher and the students, thus reducing TD. Creating such a class norm should be a conscious decision by the teacher. Indeed elsewhere, the lecturer on the course studied in this work describes how he purposely creates a class norm of students asking questions by asking ‘what questions do you have?’ rather than ‘do you have any questions?’ (Galloway, 2023).

7.3. Student-Content Dialogue

One often overlooked aspect of dialogue in TDT is the student-content interactions. The students in this study noted that when they were involved in the active learning activities such as solving problems, they were also more cognitively engaged in the lecture. As a result they felt that they were thinking about the content during the lecture, rather than having to do that after the lecture. They also felt that they were active participants in the lecture. As noted above, students felt that they could pay more attention to the lecturer as they were not having to write notes. This also created greater opportunities for students to interact with the content during the lecture.

8. Limitations

The primary limitations of this work are the small sample size, the focus on one course and one university, and the potential issue of self-selection bias. However, every effort was made to mitigate this by encouraging students with a range of different views to take part, so that the data was as diverse as possible. The participants are generally representative of the class as a whole, though representation should not necessarily be the primary goal, as humans are complex and their views and experiences can not be measured by external characteristics such as their country of origin or gender. Nevertheless, the participants represent the range of views, seen by the author and lecturer of the class, in other modes such as student surveys. In terms of the sample size, this was deemed sufficient to give a good depth of data while not being too overwhelming for the researcher to manage. The goal of qualitative research is not generalisability in the way that is expected of quantitative research. Rather, it aims for rigour and plausibility, by including detailed data about the students’ characteristics as well as the course being studied. Such qualitative work will also inherently be subject to the biases of the researchers. In order to counteract this, efforts were taken to be aware, throughout the coding process of my own thoughts and how this influenced the data analysis.

9. Conclusions

This article focuses on first year physics students’ experiences of an in-person flipped, active learning classroom, analysed through the lens of transactional distance theory. Three themes developed from the data, creating connections, stimulating engagement, and supporting responsiveness, show that the flipped classroom has the potential to reduce TD compared to a traditionally taught lecture. Peer discussions enabled students to make social connections with each other, and with the class as a whole, which will reduce their sense of isolation and therefore their TD. Students also valued activities such as the pre-lecture quiz and the in-lecture clicker questions, which led to increased dialogue between themselves and the lecturer and allowed them to give feedback to the lecturer. This in turn allowed the lecturer tto respond to their needs. These activities created an ongoing dialogue between the teacher and the students which reduced their TD. Finally, the class activities also enabled students to connect more deeply with the course content by encouraging them to engage in problem solving.

These findings show that a qualitative methodology can provide rich data about students’ experiences of a flipped classroom. This data gives insights into how different aspects of flipped and active learning classes can impact TD and consequently result in nuanced implications for ways to design flipped classes so that TD is reduced.