TPC Journal-Vol 9- Issue 2-Full-Issue

The Professional Counselor | Volume 9, Issue 2 117 Table 4 Statistical and Practical Significance from Experimental and Control Group Comparisons CEI Scale p Cohen’s d Affective Engagement .013 0.61 Behavioral Engagement–Compliance .038 0.50 Behavioral Engagement–Effortful Class Participation .344 Cognitive Engagement .013 0.64 Disengagement .005 -0.70 Overall Classroom Engagement .005 0.70 Affective and Behavioral Engagement First, we compared the affective engagement between students in the experimental group (flipped) and the control group (non-flipped) courses. Based on a scale of 1 ( never ) to 4 ( weekly ), scores on the Affective Engagement subscale averaged 3.68 ( SD = 0.32) for the experimental group and 3.44 ( SD = 0.48) for the control group. This was a statistically significant difference ( p = .013) with a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.61), indicating that students in the flipped course self-reported significantly more affective engagement than students in the non-flipped course. We also compared Behavioral Engagement–Compliance subscale scores among both groups. Experimental group participants had an average Behavioral Engagement–Compliance score of 3.93 ( SD = 0.18), whereas control group participants had a lower average Behavioral Engagement–Compliance score of 3.79 ( SD = 0.35). This was a statistically significant difference ( p = .038) with a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.50), indicating that students in the flipped course self-reported significantly more behavioral engagement in terms of compliance compared to the students in the non-flipped course. We further compared Behavioral Engagement–Effortful Class Participation subscale scores. Although the average experimental group score for this dimension ( M = 3.40, SD = 0.50) was higher than the average control group score ( M = 3 .28, SD = 0.47), the difference was not statistically significant ( p = .344), indicating the students in the flipped counseling course were not significantly different in regards to their reported effort in class. Cognitive Engagement and Disengagement Next, we examined cognitive engagement for both groups. Students in the experimental group had an average Cognitive Engagement subscale score of 3.43 ( SD = 0.38), and those in the control group had a lower average Cognitive Engagement score of 3.13 ( SD = 0.54). This was a statistically significant difference in cognitive engagement levels ( p = .013) with a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.64). Students in the flipped course self-reported significantly more cognitive engagement than students in the non- flipped course. We also compared classroom disengagement among participants in both groups. Experimental group participants had an average Disengagement subscale score of 1.81 ( SD = 0.50), and control group participants had a higher average Disengagement score of 2.25 ( SD = 0.68). These scores indicate that experimental group participants had lower perceived levels of disengagement, a difference that was statistically significant ( p = .005) and had a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = -0.70). In other words, students in the non-flipped course self-reported significantly more disengagement than those in the flipped course. Overall Classroom Engagement Lastly, we examined overall classroom engagement between both groups; despite its dimensions, classroom engagement can be considered a single overall construct (Wang et al., 2014). To do so, we