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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

"It's like a nice atmosphere" - Understanding Physics Students' Experiences of a Flipped Classroom through the lens of Transactional Distance Theory

 

The manuscript presents an analysis of flipped classroom pedagogies used in a first year undergraduate physics course, based on transactional distance theory (TDT). TDT characterises the opportunities for engagement with a course through the course structure, dialogue interactions and student autonomy. The authors employ thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with students to reach their conclusions. The authors find that many aspects of the flipped classroom pedagogy reduce transactional distance and stimulate learner engagement.

 

The manuscript is well presented. First giving a comprehensive overview of TDT and it's three major considerations. Then setting out the flipped large-classroom pedagogies that are employed in the class under study. The results and discussion are organised clearly into appropriate subsections that guide the reader well through the authors' arguments. The qualitative methodology used in the study is appropriate, and although the sample of 11 students out of about 300 is quite small, care has been taken to ensure a broad cross-section of students is represented.

 

I believe the manuscript to be interesting, timely and relevant to the readership of Educational Sciences. I can recommend publication with the following minor comments for the authors' consideration:

 

1. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain the qualitative data. It would be helpful to readers to have more information about the interview script and/or guidance given to the interviewer(s). Perhaps this could be included as an appendix?
    
2. The students recruited for interview represent a broad cross-section of the student population. It is worth adding how well the population of the sample represents the student cohort as a whole (e.g. gender balance).
    
3. It is also worth noting at what stage in the course students were recruited/interviewed, and to consider what effects this may have on the responses gathered.
    
4. Possible typographical errors to review:
1. Line 31: "transaction distance theory"
2. Line 89: "what a leaner understands"
3. Line 111: "leave students feel isolated"
4. Line 164: brackets around reference
5. Line 237: "Karaoglan_Yilmaz"
6. Line 282: "He then finishes" (replace with gender neutral term?)
7. Lines 450-452: Manuscript template note?
8. Line 480: "connected each other"

Author Response

Thank you for these helpful suggestions

 

1) Semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain the qualitative data. It would be helpful to readers to have more information about the interview script and/or guidance given to the interviewer(s). Perhaps this could be included as an appendix?

 

1) More detail on the questions asked during the interview has been included:

 

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.

 

2)The students recruited for interview represent a broad cross-section of the student population. It is worth adding how well the population of the sample represents the student cohort as a whole (e.g. gender balance).

2) More detail on the make-up of the class has been added:

 

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 physics to non-physics majors. Similarly the whole class consists of approxitely 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.

#

3)It is also worth noting at what stage in the course students were recruited/interviewed, and to consider what effects this may have on the responses gathered.

3) A sentence has been added to explain when the students were recruited:

 

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 persepectives were still fresh in their minds.

 

 

4) Thanks for these typographical errors, these have now been corrected

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The literature review is well-explained, particularly in relation to the active learning strategies incorporated into the flipped classroom. However, it is crucial to clarify the research findings (among others, those cited lines 212-220) that highlight the significant benefits of flipped classes, which incorporate active learning approaches, for students’ learning compared to traditional teaching. This will keep the audience informed and engaged in the research process.

Likewise, the qualitative methodology used for data analysis is appropriate and well-explained. On the other hand, it would be essential to provide more details on the participant selection to justify the validity of the results arising from the analyses carried out.

Finally, to enhance the scientific quality of the results presented, it is of utmost importance to specify their limitations regarding the theoretical and methodological framework. This will reassure the audience of the thoroughness and reliability of the research.

Corrections to be made related to the references are necessary to ensure the accuracy and trustworthiness of the research :

Doo (2020) [ligne 46] → Doo et al., 2020 [References]

Both Stöhr (2020; 2018) → Stöhr and Adawi, 2018

                                       → Stöhr et al., 2020

Chen (2014) [ligne 55] → Chen and Chen (2014) [References]

Moore (M. G. Moore, 1983) [ligne 73] → Moore (1983)

[ligne 89] :  what a leaner understands (Y.-J. Chen, 2001) → what a learner understands (Chen, 2001)

To be clarified (confusion):

• [ligne 91]Bender (2023, p. 10) :
• [lignes 92-99] Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. p. 6

[ligne 117] : (M. G. Moore, 1983, p. 24) → (Moore, 1983, p. 24)

[ligne 472] : (M. G. Moore, 1983, p. 37) → (Moore, 1983, p. 37)

[ligne 193] … class time is used for for learning … → class time is used for learning …

[ligne 237] Karaoglan_Yilmaz (2024) → Karaoglan_Yilmaz et al,(2024) [ligne 704]

[ligne 515] Shea (2006) → Not indicated in the references

[ligne 532] (M. G. Moore, 1983) → (Moore, 1983)

To be checked not indicated in the text :

• Benson, R., & Samarawickrema, G. (2009).
• O’Keeffe, P. (2013).
• Stöhr, C., Demazière, C., & Adawi, T. (2020).
• Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2010).
• Wood, A. K., Galloway, R. K., Donnelly, R., & Hardy, J. (2016).

Author Response

 

1)The literature review is well-explained, particularly in relation to the active learning strategies incorporated into the flipped classroom. However, it is crucial to clarify the research findings (among others, those cited lines 212-220) that highlight the significant benefits of flipped classes, which incorporate active learning approaches, for students’ learning compared to traditional teaching. This will keep the audience informed and engaged in the research process.

 

The paragraph on lines 212-220 has been extended to give more clarity:

 

For example, in a meta analysis of 225 students, Freemen et al., (2014) found that active learning strategies led to an ncreased student performance on examinations and concept inventories with an effect szie of 0.46 SDs. Similarly Deslauriers et al., (2011) found increased learning and student attendance, as well as higher engagement, in students asigned to active learning classes in a controlled experiement. 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).

 

2)Likewise, the qualitative methodology used for data analysis is appropriate and well-explained. On the other hand, it would be essential to provide more details on the participant selection to justify the validity of the results arising from the analyses carried out.

 

2)The data collection section (around lines 300) has been extended to add more detail about participant selection and characteristics:

 

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.

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 physics to non-physics majors. Similarly the whole class consists of approxitely 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 persepectives were still fresh in their minds.

 

Finally, to enhance the scientific quality of the results presented, it is of utmost importance to specify their limitations regarding the theoretical and methodological framework. This will reassure the audience of the thoroughness and reliability of the research.

 

A new section on limitations has been included:

 

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-selction 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 genreally representative of the class as a whole, though representation should not necessarily be the primarly 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 paticipants reprsent 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 sufficent to give a good depth of data while not being too overwhelming for the researcher to manage. The goal of qualitative research is not generlizability in the way that is expected of quantiatitve research, but for rigour and plausibility, and for this detailed data about the students’ characteristics as well as the course being studied have been included. Such qualitative work will also inherently be subject to the biases of the resarchers. In order to counteract this, efforts were taken to be aware, throughout the coding process of my own thoughts and how this was influencing the data analysis.

 

The references have been corrected, however Y-J Chen needs to be disambiguated from Y Chen, so this has not been changed. Similarly MG Moore remains, as there is a different Moore in references (a book editor). I’m not sure about the final list:

 

To be checked not indicated in the text :

• Benson, R., & Samarawickrema, G. (2009).

• O’Keeffe, P. (2013).

• Stöhr, C., Demazière, C., & Adawi, T. (2020).

• Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2010).

Wood, A. K., Galloway, R. K., Donnelly, R., & Hardy, J. (2016).

 

– they all seem to be both in the text and in the reference list. References were generated using Zotero, so it’s unlikely there is an error here.