Presentation by Anton Thiart et al at the ICEL2013 in June 2013 in Cape Town

1. A lecturer’s perceptionof the
adoptionof the invertedor flipped
methodof curriculumdeliveryin a
Hydrologycourse,in a resourcepoor
Universityof Technology
Ivala,E,Thiart,A,Gachago,D.

2. HEI’s Traditional classroom?
- Qualityteachingandlearning?
- Deeplearning?

3. TWOPHASESOF LEARNING
AND
THE TRADITIONALCLASSROOM

4. Humanlearning takes placein
two phases:
TRANSMISSION/ ACQUISITION ASSIMILATION
Acquiring information, understanding
through
Lectures, reading & listening
Making meaning, connections,
integrating
through
Homework, lab work,
cooperative learning, projects,
discussions,

5. Bloom (1956)
Assimilation>> Transmission
from a cognitive standpoint

6. Potentiallyserious issue
withtraditionalmodel!
COGNITIVE
LOAD
ACCESSIBILITY
OF HELP

7. Students have the GREATEST accessibility to expert
learner/content domain during the tasks of LOWEST
cognitive complexity.
Students work on tasks of GREATEST cognitive
complexity and DEEPEST learning when the instructor
is LEAST accessible.
False sense of mastery
Disengagement
Academic dishonesty
Shallow learning

8. Howdo we respond?
COGNITIVE
LOAD
ACCESSIBILITY
OF HELP
ACCESSIBILITY
OF HELP

9. THEINVERTEDCLASSROOMMETHOD
(ICM)

10. TRANSMISSION
By “inverting”the classroomwe mean:
ASSIMILATION
In class Outside class
ASSIMILATION TRANSMISSION

11. Shift in what happens
during class time!

12. TRANSMISSION
Mainly
Outside
CLASS

13. The basicinvertedclassroomworkflow
Front-loading

15. Sometips on out-of class work
e.g basic exercises such as crosswords

16. Inclass on mobile devices

17. Theoretical Framework

18. External
variables
Technology Acceptance model
(Davis1989)
Perceived Ease of
use
Perceived
usefulness
Actual system
use
Behavioural
intention of use
Technology self
efficacy

19. Adapted Framework (Chigona)
Technological
Self-efficacy
Teacher Self-
efficacy
External
Variables
Perceived ease of
use of ICM
Perceived
usefulness of
ICM
Behavioural
intention to use
ICM

20. Data analysis and results

21. Technological self-efficacy
• “Perception of the individual’s ability to use technology in
accomplishment of a sophisticated task….”
• ICM relies heavily on Technology
• other faculty lacks knowledge and experience
in Technology – reluctant to implement ICM
• However, lecturer implemented ICM partly
because of technological self-efficiency

22. Teacher self-efficacy
• “belief in the individual’s capabilities to bring about desired
outcomes of student engagement and learning, even with
unmotivated students”
• Lecturer had very high levels of SE
• reflect on
• own teaching methods
• context of teaching
• Impact on learning
• Adopt alternative methods e.g. ICM
• Increased levels of work enjoyment

23. Perceived usefulness of ICM
• “degree to which an individual believes a particular system
would enhance the job of teaching”
• The lecturer believed in ICM as an effective
means of curriculum delivery to
• facilitate deep learning
• Enhance job satisfaction

24. Perceived ease of use of ICM
• “the degree to which the individual believes that using a
particular system would be free of effort”
• Labour intensive and time consuming to develop
learning material
• Co-teachers using different methods of teaching
• Poor classroom conditions
• Lack of technology and support in poor
universities

25. Conclusions
• The lecturer perceived ICM as
• Significant for promoting deep learning
• Enhance job satisfaction
• Adoption of ICM by other teachers affected by
teacher’s
• Technological self efficacy coupled by teacher self-
efficacy
• Negative impacts such as labour intensive
production of learning materials and contextual and
social issues at the particular university