Flipped Classroom with Problem Based Activities: Exploring Self-regulated Learning in a Programming Language Course

Abstract

Introduction In recent years, researchers reported that students in many higher education programs cannot have opportunity for being active namely applying theoretical knowledge on real problems in the classrooms (NMC, 2015). In this sense, problem solving, collaborative group works, self-evaluation, peer tutoring as the active learning strategies become more preferable for making students active in the environment (Kim et al., 2014; McLaughlin et al., 2015). In this sense instead of traditional teaching methods, it is suggested to create learning environments including active learning strategies for problem solving (Barak et al., 2007; Marbach-Ad & Sokolove, 2002). On the other hand, programming language course is one of the prominent courses in which active learning strategies may be conducted. Since learning programming is generally difficult including programming structures and syntax, critical thinking, and acquire problem solving which are considerably related to problem solving (Kelleher & Pausch, 2005). Thus, programming instructors work on various approaches in order to make students active in learning process. Strayer (2012) asserted that, it is not easy for the teachers to balance presentation and active learning strategies in face to face (F2F) settings. At this point, one such approach gaining popularity in recent years is flipped classroom model (FCM) or flipped learning. This study focuses on teaching programming via FCM by providing problem based activities. Students' experiences are analysed through understanding how they act during FCM in terms of self regulation. Flipped learning Flipped learning suggests students studying through interactive technologies such as watching videos at home online and preparing themselves to apply active learning strategies in the classroom (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Herreid & Schiller, 2013; Roach, 2014). Students take notes and prepare questions about the topics with the theoretical knowledge on the videos at home. They electronically share their questions with the teacher at home and receive instant feedback in F2F settings (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). Teacher classifies the questions regarding the qualifications of the students and can prepare for discussions and feedback in the classroom (Fulton, 2012). Teacher and student roles in FCM are briefly summarized in Figure1. Since, FCM includes both F2F and online settings, the focuses of the research studies are somewhat different from typical F2F settings. In this regard, academic achievement (Al-Zahrani, 2015; Giannakos et al., 2015; Wanner & Palmer, 2015) and the attitude (Davies et al., 2013; Roach, 2014) were frequently investigated in FCM studies. In this regard, FCM was found to promote the participation of the students, enhance their problem solving abilities in group work (Berrett, 2012) and give opportunity to the teacher for individual guidance (Mok, 2014). Some other studies analysed students' perceptions, motivation and their self-efficacies (Findlay- Thompson et al., 2014; Kong, 2014; Mason et al., 2013). On the other hand, self-regulation is another issue addressed in online learning environments (Tabak & Nguyen, 2013; Yukselturk & Bulut, 2009). Self-regulation is generally considered from the point of revealing students' control skills about what, when and how to study (Cunningham & Billingsley, 2002). In this sense, self- regulation has a remarkable place in FCM whereas majority of learning in FCM occurs in online learning settings. Study framework This study focuses on self-regulation in the problem based activities. It considerably goes around the aspects of FCM, problem based learning and self-regulation including the framework summarised in Figure 2. Problem solving contributes to develop real life problem solving skills, creativity, productivity and flexibility (Lazakidou & Retalis, 2010). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 109 citations exist upstream.