Quectures - Flipped Classrooms and Polling
Updated May 28, 2026
Flipped classrooms and polling both try to solve the same problem: students learn more when they do something with the material. Quectures sit between those two approaches. They ask students to prepare before class, then use their questions to shape what happens in the lecture.
McQueen and McMillan describe Quectures as a way to make lectures more personalised and constructive without abandoning the structure students often need. The format is useful because it keeps the lecturer's role visible while giving students more responsibility for identifying what they do not understand.
What the paper shows
Before the lecture, students receive learning objectives through a mobile app and are directed to material on the virtual learning environment. The preparation is designed to take about an hour and may include readings, videos, interactive activities and a short quiz. The quiz ends with an open question that asks students to reflect on the topic before class.
During the session, students submit questions about the material and discuss them with peers. The lecturer can then respond to the most common or important questions. This gives staff a live view of misconceptions and lets the lecture focus on the areas where students need expert explanation.
That is the main difference from a conventional flipped classroom. Students still prepare before class, but the live session is explicitly shaped by the questions they bring. It is also different from simple polling because students are not only choosing between options; they are articulating uncertainty.
The approach also manages one of the risks of flipped learning. Some students prefer traditional teaching or struggle with large amounts of preparation. Quectures retain some lecturer-led time and keep the preparation bounded, which may reduce cognitive overload.
What universities can do with this
Preparation needs to be purposeful and limited. If the pre-class material is too long or poorly connected to the lecture, students will experience it as extra workload. Clear objectives, short activities and a visible link to the live session are essential.
The lecturer should explain what will happen to student questions. If questions disappear into the system with no response, trust will fall. Even when not every question can be answered, staff can group themes, address common misunderstandings and carry unresolved issues into follow-up material.
Technology should remain simple. Mobile polling and question tools can help, but they should not become the point of the session. The educational value lies in surfacing misconceptions and using lecture time more intelligently.
Student feedback can help tune the model. Ask whether preparation time felt realistic, whether the questions were addressed, and whether the format helped students understand difficult topics. Those comments will show whether the Quecture is acting as a bridge or just adding another layer of work.
Limits of the evidence
Quectures need careful facilitation. Large volumes of student questions can be hard to manage, and mobile tools may not work equally well for every cohort. The approach is most promising where staff can keep preparation short, respond visibly to student questions and maintain a clear link between pre-class work and lecture activity.
FAQ
Q: How is a Quecture different from a flipped classroom?
A: A Quecture keeps the pre-class preparation, but the live lecture is shaped by student questions as well as planned teaching.
Q: What should the pre-class work include?
A: Keep it short and focused: learning objectives, a small amount of reading or video, a quiz and an open question that prompts students to identify uncertainty.
Q: What is the main risk?
A: The format can feel like extra work if questions are not used in class. Students need to see that preparation changes what happens in the session.
References
[Source Paper] McQueen, Heather A, and McMillan, Craig. "Quectures: Personalised Constructive Learning in Lectures." Active Learning in Higher Education 21.3 (2020): 217-31.
DOI: 10.1177/2F1469787418760325
[1] Stowell, Jeffrey R. "Use of Clickers vs. Mobile Devices for Classroom Polling." Computers and Education 82 (2015): 329-34. Web.
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.008
[2] Aceti, Victoria. "Perceptions of the Effects of Clicker Technology on Student Learning and Engagement: A Study of Freshmen Chemistry Students." Research in Learning Technology 20.2 (2017): 16150-11. Web.
DOI: 10.3402/rlt.v20i0.16150
[3] Stevens, Niall T, McDermott, Hélène, Boland, Fiona, Pawlikowska, Teresa, and Humphreys, Hilary. "A Comparative Study: Do "clickers" Increase Student Engagement in Multidisciplinary Clinical Microbiology Teaching?" BMC Medical Education 17.1 (2017): 70. Web.
DOI: 10.1186/s12909-017-0906-3
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround