Coding Decoded: Exploring Course Achievement and Gender Disparities in an Online Flipped Classroom Programming Course

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would thanks the opportunity to review this paper.

Although the idea of studying gender differences regarding programming skills is a very interesting idea, I find that the authors used references that were too old to validate their analysis. The authors conducted the study more than 5 years ago and it is not clear that the discussion is up to date. The instruments they use are also too old (around 20 years) so it is possible that there will be new innovations related to this type of analysis. The authors do not offer conclusions nor do they explain whether the ethics committee of their institution approved a study of this type with a gender perspective.

Regarding the Discussion section, the authors compare their results with studies that are too old, so it is not clear the innovation of the present study.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Title

·       Change in title suggested is.  At present it is bit long and not substantive

 Abstract

·       Abstract needs a bit of revision to emphasis more on methodology, important conclusion and research questions. Initial context can be shortened.

·       Section 1

1.      Section 1.1. title needs careful revision as flipped is student centric approach whereas didactive learning is more associated with traditional learning- “sage on the stage” type.

2.      As the present work is based on flipped classroom model, authors are suggested to elaborate on flipped classroom and in particular online flipped classroom.

3.      Sentence in line 57: “Hence …studies” need clarification.

4.      Argument presented in line 73 in support for alternative forms of instruction for IPC need further elaboration. Class size and student cohort are not the prime factors in deciding the need for alternative methods of teaching.

5.      It would be beneficial to the readers if authors can discuss a bit on asynchronous learning part of flipped model which also constitutes “After Class Learning” not only “Before Class Learning”.

6.      Authors in line 110 mentioned low learning participation in the online learning but this can be true for face-to-face or any other learning environment. Therefore, the author needs to elaborate how engagement in online learning is/will be reduced. Online learning is well tested and researched pedagogy.

7.       In line 156, in a new paragraph, author introduce the idea of “self-concept” but it is not clear how this idea is related to the ideas explained in earlier paragraphs. Some coherence in writing is required.  This will help readers to understand the context further.

8.      The author needs to elaborate a bit more on how gender is an antecedent for learning which has been introduced in line 169.

9.      In line 200, author presented an argument of male gender superiority over female in the programming course with reference to 2015 article, this needs careful revision. In practice, we see female students are no less competent than male student in such programming units. A few more recent articles on the subjects need to be reviewed to support the conclusion.

10.  The rational for innovative and unconventional teaching approach for programming unit presented in paragraph starting from line 208 in page 5 are primarily based on old publications, except one which is recent. Over the period of 10 years, the landscape of pedagogical innovation has changed a lot. This needs careful revision.

11.  Authors are suggested to revise the RQ in Section 1.3 as it is lengthy and not so focused. The author may include sub-questions if required. RQ should be clear and focused.

Section 2

1.      Methodology is a more appropriate title for Section 2.

2.      The course structure described in Section 2.2 is more appropriate for Section 1.

3.    Does the asynchronous part of online flipped involve only the short video or is it accompanied by some preliminary questions? This information needs to be clarified. Simply watching videos may not supplement the kind of ideas that will be discussed in synchronous learning.

4.      As self-learning phase plays vital role in flipped learning, what measures are used to ensure that students are fully engaged with online materials before the class? An explanation of this aspect would be beneficial to the readers. A self-reporting end of term survey (which was reported in the study) does not accurately give the picture of this weekly engagement with learning materials.

5.      What is the average class size for online Flipped? If the class size is large, the effective interaction as mentioned is very difficult to achieve.  Do Twitch has features like “breakout rooms” in Zoom which gives student more opportunity for collaborative learning.

6.     Flipped models need more elaboration with details of engagement, especially in synchronous mode of learning. How was the 90-minutes session planned? What activities are carried out?

7.      Some information of assessment types, weighting, due date etc. are required to understand the overall context of student learning.

8.      Information in Section 2.3 can be presented in a tabular form with Cronbach value in one column and sample items in another column. This can be augmented by some critical analysis.

9.  Though writer has mentioned about adherence to American’s Psychological Association’s Ethics Code in line 328, it would be beneficial to readers to know how authors have addressed the issue of response bias, socially desirable answer, confidentiality, anonymity, etc. related to survey. Also did this research get ethical approval from the institution ethics committee? Did author get participant informed consent prior to conducting the survey?

10.  Author needs to describe more on suitability of using LimeSurvey as a tool for conducting online survey.  

3. Results

·       Authors need to explain why a particular analysis method was used and need to explain the result in the context of their research question. 

    2. Conclusion based on only one survey questionnaire to measure synchronous and asynchronous engagement along with course satisfaction is not sufficient. More measures are needed.  Conclusion based on only one survey questionnaire to measure synchronous and asynchronous engagement along with course satisfaction is not sufficient. More measures are needed. This needs major revision.

33.  To measure the course achievement, a survey is not required as it is based on summative task. However, the author has mentioned in Section 2.3 that questionnaires were sent at two instances to students (t1 and t2). This also need careful and thoughtful revision.

44.  The author need to explain why three different rating scales were used in a same study (5-point Likert, 6-point Likert and 7-point point-Likert) and how results obtained from different rating scales are correlated? Each rating scale has a different purpose of use.

In addition, rationale for present study, which is based on online flipped is not well established. What is the contribution of the present study in a context of widely available literature on online learning, flipped learning and online-flipped learning is also not well established.  Therefore, authors need to show how their present study fits within the body of knowledge related to flipped and online flipped learning and what are their main contribution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A careful review of sentence structure is suggested.

Some coherence in writing is required.

 Typo in line 257- revise the word “junks of information”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

The current research stated that programming stands as one of the most valuable skills in the contemporary digital age, though it isn't always eagerly embraced by students. Already in introductory programming courses (IPC) students encounter various difficulties which are related to low achievement, high dropout, and failure rates. Technology-rich approaches that promote self-directed learning while facilitating competency development and knowledge construction through social collaboration may offer advantages in this context. The current study assesses such an instructional approach by (1) identifying antecedents and process variables related to course achievement in an online flipped classroom IPC, and (2) testing for gender-differences regarding antecedents, process variables and course achievement. A total of 144 university students participated in survey. Using multiple linear regression variables related to course achievement were identified: gender, achievement-avoidance goals, academic self-concept, engagement in asynchronous learning, and course satisfaction were positively related course achievement, whereas work avoidance was identified as a barrier to course achievement. MANOVA revealed significant gender differences regarding learning goals, mathematical self-concept, work avoidance and engagement in synchronous learning. There were no gender differences regarding course satisfaction or achievement. The investigation reveals implications for designing innovative programming courses that could foster course satisfaction and achievement, and thus, reduce dropout and failure rates. Also, the following research questions have been addressed: 1. To which degree may antecedents for learning such as gender, students´ goal orientation, and self-concept support or impair achievement in introductory programming course in an online FC setting? 2. To which degree may process variables such as engagement in synchronous and asynchronous learning and course satisfaction support or impair achievement in introductory programming course in an online FC setting? 3. Do the female and male participants differ in their goal orientation, self-concepts, engagement in learning, course satisfaction, and course achievement? However, the paper can offer insights pertaining to such context. Abstract and literature review are adequate. Methodology is clear; precise analyses have been carried out with the research objectives. Findings are perfectly presented, and the analysis is presented in a good manner and presenting new ideas. Also, this research covered proper theoretical & managerial implications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the manuscript and addressed all the comments adequately. In its present form, the manuscript is more understandable, and all the references have been updated.

The manuscript can be accepted in its present form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thanked authors in revising and improving the manuscript based on earlier comments. To further improve the quality, authors are advised to address the following minor comments:

 1 The title has been changed but a minor adjustment is suggested. As the term “achievement” can be interpreted in different ways, it is advised that authors clarify this either by adding another word such as “Academic” or “Course” in conjunction with the term “achievement”.  To be consistent in the meaning of the term used, authors may adopt the term “Course Achievement”.   The term “Course Achievement” has been introduced in line 12.   

2. Though writer has mentioned about adherence to American’s Psychological Association’s Ethics Code in Section 2.3, authors are advised to address the followings:

a) How authors have addressed the issue of response bias, socially desirable answer, confidentiality, anonymity, etc. related to the online survey?

b) Does author get any Ethical approval from the institution ethics committee before collecting the primary data?

c) Does author get participant informed consent prior to conducting the survey?

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality is acceptable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf