Homework answers / question archive / CASE STUDY A Chat With the Survey Monkey: Case Studies and the Flipped Classroom By Clyde Freeman Herreid, Nancy A

CASE STUDY A Chat With the Survey Monkey: Case Studies and the Flipped Classroom By Clyde Freeman Herreid, Nancy A

Writing

Share With

CASE STUDY A Chat With the Survey Monkey: Case Studies and the Flipped Classroom By Clyde Freeman Herreid, Nancy A. Schiller, Ky F. Herreid, and Carolyn B. Wright O ur lives are filled with polls and surveys. We are asked to participate in dozens every year. We all face the same onslaught. There are pollsters everywhere. It is part of modern life and the ubiquitous presence of phones and the crushing onslaught of the electronic juggernaut, leading us to be wary of anyone approaching with a clipboard in a neighborhood mall or a stranger at a table hailing with a hearty greeting in an airport—especially at election time, when everyone has their own polling agency and spins the results in their own inimitable style. And we can’t just be part of a poll; we have to be enlightened with the results. We are then bombarded with statistics on our computer, on our iPad, and from nattering nabobs on television. Nowhere are we safe from intrusion, be it in our bedroom or bath. And you are not safe in this essay either. For we are here to tell you the results of a survey that we posted for folks who regularly peruse the website of the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (NCCSTS). We asked faculty about their use of case studies and videos in their General Biology classrooms. We think the results are enlightening because General Biology is arguably the course most commonly taught to students in high schools and college. And the flipped classroom is the hottest ticket in town. What prompted our interest in all of this is that we submitted a successful grant proposal to the National Science Foundation making the argument that case study teaching is now one of the favorite methods of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers because it engages students with real-world problems. It promises to help overcome the disenchantment found in 60% of the STEM students who choose to leave the disciplines. According to an editorial in Science by Gates and Mirkin (2012), three factors are responsible for the attrition: uninspiring introductory courses (86% of science faculty use lecture as their primary mode of teaching), difficulty with the required math, and an unwelcoming academic culture in STEM. One of the major innovations in the college STEM classroom developed to help correct this situation is case-based learning (Herreid, 1994), which teaches scientific content, concepts, and skills in a realworld, problem-solving context that provides the kind of active, studentcentered learning called for in Vision and Change (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011). In fact, Gates and Mirkin recommended that the “federal government catalyze widespread adoption of active learning approaches using case studies, problem-based learning, peer instruction, and computer simulations” (p. 1545). As much as we favor case study teaching (Herreid, 2007), there are some critics who have argued that it uses too much class time. Faculty who are concerned with the coverage issue say they can’t afford to turn over a class to a case study because they won’t be able to get through the material that they believe is essential or is mandated. Faculty making this assertion often ignore two important facts, of course: (a) many students who have suffered through the lecture method still receive Ds and Fs or withdraw—the method clearly doesn’t work for them, and (b) you can still get coverage without the teacher having to say it all out loud; there are other ways to get coverage. That’s where the flipped classroom comes in. The classical flipped approach advocates that teachers give the students homework that covers the essential material habitually presented in lecture, then when class time rolls around, the teacher has time for practical exercises such as case studies, games, contests, problem solving, etc., which reinforce the key points of the material. Thus, the approach flips the normal classroom pedagogy on its head, reversing the usual procedure of lecture first, homework after. Now let’s be clear about this: There is little new about this approach. Ever since the invention of the printing press, countless teachers have implored their charges to read Vol. 44, No. 1, 2014 75 CASE STUDY the chapter in the book ahead of time, often to no avail. Additionally, this approach is the centerpiece of team learning, developed by Larry Michaelsen, where students are given reading assignments before class, and then in class they encounter individual quizzes, group quizzes, and finally case studies (Michaelsen, 1992, 2002). Herreid (2002, 2004) has described the successful use of Mi- chaelsen’s method in STEM courses. Just-in-time teaching (JiTT) requires significant student preparation too. Students are required to accomplish web-based assignments that are due shortly before class. The instructor reads the student submissions and adjusts the classroom lesson to suit the students’ needs. Class time is spent dealing with questions and introducing material on a need-to-know FIGURE 1 Topics covered in General Biology classes by case study teachers. 76 Journal of College Science Teaching basis (Novak, Patterson, Gavrin, & Christian, 1999; Simkins, Maier, & Rhem, 2009). “Hybrid courses” and “blended courses” (Buzzetto-More & Sweat-Guy, 2006; Wu, 2010) have students learning their subject matter via a combination of traditional classroom interactions and some form of internet-based learning. These and related methodologies, cooperative learning (Slavin, 1990), collaborative learning (Dillenbourg, 1999), and process-oriented guided inquiry learning (Farrell, Moog, & Spencer, 1999; Hanson & Wolfskill, 2000) share some of the same advantages and challenges. Like the flipped classroom, all of these methods allow instructors to cover principles, facts, and terms as part of out-of-class student preparation and use classroom time to engage in active learning exercises in which they apply what they have learned. But what’s new about the flipped method is this: We now have the internet, YouTube, and a host of other websites like the Kahn Academy and Bozeman Science that provide high-quality short videos that cover key concepts in STEM education. In less than 10 minutes one can see an animation video of the differences in mitosis or meiosis, an explanation of DNA replication, or how the planets move. A student can look at these repeatedly. When made well, these videos appeal to a crop of students who are immersed daily in a visual culture with high entertainment value. There are two clear problems however. The first is how to get the students to watch and learn from these sources. This problem is often solved by giving short exams either online or in the classroom before the classroom exercises begin. The second problem is that not enough high quality video material or case studies exist. This challenge is now partially being met with videos that are produced by groups such as the Khan Academy (www.khanacademy. org) and Bozemanscience (bozemanscience.com/science-videos/) or by faculty who are creating their own using software programs like Camtasia, PaperShow, and ShowMe or apps on the iPad like Educreations and Explain Everything, which they then post to YouTube, iTunes U, and Podcasts (Vodcasting) or on course management systems such as Blackboard or Moodle. Still, we are a far cry from having high-quality free videos that cover the fundamental topics in general biology. It is the latter problem that our current National Science Foundation grant is trying to address over the next 3 years. As a preliminary step to that work, we invited members of the NCCSTS’s listserv to take a survey designed to find out how many of them are currently using cases and the flipped classroom approach. This survey was only intended for faculty teaching General Biology at the college level. Over 1,300 people answered the Survey Monkey’s call, 46% of them high school teachers of Advanced Placement (AP) biology courses. Virtually all respondents were teaching face-to-face classes, although a handful was also teaching via distance learning. The typical class size was 11–25 students (47%) or 26–50 students (34%). These sizes are quite favorable to various forms of case study and flipped classroom exercises. Not all of us have such luxury. Some of the key findings are not too surprising to those of us immersed in the day-to-day operations of General Biology, but they are nonetheless relevant to those of us interested in seeing that the flipped classroom gets a fair shake. First, let’s look at the topics covered by the teachers who responded to our survey. A typical General Biology textbook gives us a sense of the material, but what is the emphasis we find among case study teachers? Figure 1 provides the answer. What is striking from Figure 1 is that the topics that many of us took as young biology students are still being taught today, but the emphasis is quite different. The course called “biology” didn’t exist at all until the 1960s. Students took separate courses in zoology and botany, a year of each. And those courses were totally focused on taxonomy, diversity, life cycles, anatomy, and physiology, with a bit of Mendel, ecology, and evolution thrown into the mix. One FIGURE 2 Subjects in General Biology where teachers use case studies. Vol. 44, No. 1, 2014 77 CASE STUDY FIGURE 3 Top cases on the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science website chosen by General Biology teachers (college, university, and AP biology) at the time of the Survey Monkey (January, 2014). 11. The Mystery of Seven Deaths (17.6%)—Cell respiration 12. Osmosis is Serious Business! (8.7%)—Chemistry of life 13. My Dog is Broken (6.8%)—Cell signaling 14. A Can of Bull? (6.3%)—Animal structure and function; cell metabolism 15. Little Mito (6.1%)—Cell division 16. The Case of the Dividing Cell (5.4%)—Cell division 17. Those Old Kentucky Blues (5.4%)—Genetics 18. Chemical Eric (5.2%)—Animal structure and function 19. I’m Looking Over a White-Striped Clover (5.2%)—Evolution 10. Classic Experiments in Molecular Biology (4.7%)—Molecular biology; chemistry of life 11. Newsflash! Transport Proteins on Strike! (4.7%)—Chemistry of life 12. Diabetes and Insulin Signaling (4.7%)—Cell signaling 13. But, I’m Too Young! (4.2%)—Cell cancer 14. Identical Twins, Identical Fates? (4%)—Genetics 15. The Case of the Druid Dracula (4%)—DNA structure 16. Darwin’s Finches and Natural Selection (3.8%)—Evolution 17. Mystery in Alaska 16 (3.8%)—Conservation 18. Water Can Kill? (3.8%)—Animal structure and function 19. Bad Fish (3.8%)—Animal structure and function; cell function 20. The Return of Canis lupis? (3.5%)—Animal structure and function 21. Why is Patrick Paralyzed? (3.5%)—Cell metabolism lecture (repeat: one lecture) in each of zoology and botany on the cell was standard; we didn’t know much about it in the old days. Today, the curriculum is turned on its head. Our standard course in biology focuses heavily on the cell and molecular biology, with genetics and heredity leading the way. Biodiversity, if it is taught at all, is relegated to a few survey classes. And life cycles? Forget it. Anatomy and physiology topics don’t fare much better, especially if we are talking about plants. Evolution actually is much better represented today than in the previ- 78 Journal of College Science Teaching ous generation, unless you are in a creationist stronghold. Figure 2 shows how teachers use case studies to teach these subjects. You might expect it to be pretty much the same as in Figure 1, but there are differences because the pattern also reflects the availability of cases. For example, there are very few cases available in plant structure and function. The same is true in biodiversity, so these topics receive even less emphasis then we might expect. Contrariwise, there are a large number of cases in genetics and heredity, evolution, and ecology, as these fields are easier to find suitable topics for cases. They receive more attention than expected. When we asked teachers where they got their cases, overwhelmingly, it was from the NCCSTS website. This is to be expected, given that the survey emanated from this site, but further, the site is arguably the largest and best known peer-reviewed case repository of STEM cases, with over 500 cases published. Other sources are less well used. A handful of instructors (6%) said that they used their own cases or had picked them up from the news media; (3%) said they got them from textbooks or journals (Waterman & Stanley; Campbell & Reese; McGraw Hill texts; The American Biology Teacher; Sadava et al.; Journal of Heredity; The American Biology Teacher); and 1% came from other case study websites (Environmental Protection Agency; Howard Hughes Medical Institute; Evergreen State College’s Native American Case Collection; TED talks). What kinds of cases studies do the General Biology faculty actually find most useful in their classrooms? Surprisingly to us, there was abundant diversity: 275 different cases were chosen out of a total of 500 cases available (55%), but 80 of these cases were only chosen one time (i.e., these cases were specific to the tastes and needs of only one teacher). On the other hand, 195 cases were identified by more than one person. The Mystery of the Seven Deaths (the top choice), which teaches students about cellular respiration and the electron transport chain though a story based loosely on the real-life 1982 Chicago Tylenol murders, was chosen by 75 different faculty (17.6% of total taking the survey), but because 46 faculty said they used cases but didn’t identify the particular cases used, the percentage is probably higher. This is especially likely since most of these folks said they used cases exclusively from the NCCSTS website. Figure 3 shows the distribution of the choices and the overwhelming number of faculty who favor cell and molecular biology. With this as background, let’s turn to how these case study teachers are responding to the flipped classroom movement. Our survey shows that only 20% have seriously integrated the method into their classrooms, with over 40% rarely or never using it, and 35% using it occassionally. So far it seems that the method hasn’t been widely adopted. Figure 4 shows the subject areas where videos are used; recognize that this reflects on both the teachers’ choices and the limited avialabiltiy of videos in certain subject areas. Most faculty who use videos don’t make them themselves. Only 20% of the faculty who responded to our survey do so. And the ones that have been submitted to the NCCSTS as examples are mostly slide show presentations with the teacher’s disembodied voiceover explaining all. A few showed an inset with a headshot of the instructor as well. Interestingly, in a survey of 200 faculty who said they were crafting instructional videos, 47 different software programs were identified. The most common ones were Camtasia (44%), iMovie (24%), Windows Movie Maker (9%), and Tegrity (8%). In spite of the different programs used, creative videos were rare (e.g., there were none like the animations showcased by The Virtual Cell Animation Collection at the Molecular and Cellular Biology Learning Center (http://vcell.ndsu. edu/animations/). But because no one seems to have studied the impact of these different styles of presentation, it is hard to be critical except on aesthetic grounds; indeed, the videos showing a student teacher giving a minilecture might be the most compelling and enlightening after all. If the teachers are not making them, where do they find them? Few of our survey group reported that they used the case studies commissioned by textbook companies. Regardless of their quality, these cases are under proprietary protection and are hardly free of charge. Instead faculty depend FIGURE 4 Subject areas in which faculty use videos in teaching General Biology. Vol. 44, No. 1, 2014 79 CASE STUDY on open-access sites. And in spite of its great publicity, few biology teachers use those of the Khan Academy; the latter are basically chalkboard descriptions with a voiceover. Students are not enchanted with such presentations in our experience. In contrast, the Bozemanscience series has a wide audience (see http://www.bozemanscience.com/about/). This site is maintained by Paul Andersen, a high school science teacher in Bozeman, Montana, who has produced hundreds of videos published on YouTube in all fields of science. His videos are brief, with large numbers of pictures and always with a headshot of him talking. He is young, energetic, and articulate. Take a look at him giving a TED talk and you will get the idea (http://www.bozemanscience.com/ speaking-workshops/). Returning to the theme of this essay, case studies in science have a great potential; thousands of instructors are using them. But their use would be much more common if we solved the major problem of coverage. It is a given that teachers need to feel that that they are treating their subject matter in sufficient depth in their classes. The flipped classroom approach—with its reliance on excellent videos—is one solution to this dilemma. But the bottom line is that we need more excellent cases supported by videos that are targeted, readily obtained/accessible (e.g., via YouTube), and need we say it again . . . free. n Acknowledgments This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant Nos. DUE-0341279, DUE-0618570, DUE-0920264, and DUE-1323355. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the 80 Journal of College Science Teaching authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. References American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Retrieved from http://visionandchange. org/finalreport Buzzetto-More, N. A., & Sweat-Guy, R. (2006). Incorporating the hybrid learning model into minority education at a historically black university. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 153–162. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. New York, NY: Elsevier Science. Farrell, J. J., Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (1999). A guided inquiry chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 570–574. Gates, S. J., & Mirkin, C. (2012). Engage to excel. Science, 335(6076), 1545. Hanson, D., & Wolfskill, T. (2000). Process workshops: A new model for instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 120–129. Herreid, C. F. (1994). Case studies in science: A novel method of science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23, 221–229. Herreid, C. F. (2002). Using case studies in science, and still covering content. In L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight, & L. D. Fink (Eds.), Teambased learning: A transformative use of small groups (pp. 109–118). Westport, CN: Praeger, Herreid, C. F. (2004). Using case studies in science—and still “covering the content.” In L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight, & L. D. Fink (Eds.), Teambased learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching (2nd ed., pp. 105–114). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Herreid, C. F. (Ed.). (2007). Start with a story: The case study method of teaching college science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. .Michaelsen, L. K. (1992). Team learning: A comprehensive approach for the harnessing of small groups in higher education. To Improve the Academy, 11, 107–122. Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (Eds.). (2002). Teambased learning: A transformative use of small groups. Westport, CN: Praeger. Novak, G. M., Patterson, E. T., Gavrin, A. D., & Christian, W. (1999). Justin-time teaching: Blending active learning with web technology. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. Simkins, S., Maier, M., & Rhem, J. (2009). Just-in-time teaching: Across the disciplines, and across the academy. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Wu, J., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55, 155–164. Clyde Freeman Herreid (herreid@ buffalo.edu) is a Distinguished Teaching Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Buffalo, State University of New York. He is also the director of the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (NCCSTS; http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu) and editor of the Case Study column in the Journal of College Science Teaching. Nancy A. Schiller is codirector of NCCSTS and engineering librarian at the University of Buffalo, Ky F. Herreid is the web manager of NCCSTS, and Carolyn B. Wright is project coordinator of NCCSTS. Copyright of Journal of College Science Teaching is the property of National Science Teachers Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Volume 41, 2014, Pages 25-41 © The Graduate School of Education The University of Western Australia Flipping the Learning: An Investigation into the use of the Flipped Classroom Model in an Introductory Teaching Course Michelle Vaughan? Florida Atlantic University With a classroom full of millennial learners, it is essential that teacher educators adjust their pedagogy to meet their students’ needs. This study explores the use of a flipped classroom model to engage preservice teachers in an Introduction to the Teaching Profession course. In addition, it explores the need for teacher education coursework to model innovative teaching strategies, such as flipped classrooms, in an effort to prepare preservice teachers for future students. Results indicated that students displayed a higher level of reflection and inquiry in their coursework and a greater number of instructional strategies were modelled within the course. Introduction The integration of technology into the higher education classroom presents an opportunity to transform traditional pedagogy so that it reaches millennial learners. In teacher education, an additional opportunity exists; through the use of innovative teaching models that capitalise on technology use, teacher educators can seize the opportunity to arm preservice teachers with the pedagogical skills and strategies they will need to engage their own students. Not only is it necessary to engage students in coursework so they can have a rich experience in their teacher preparation program, but it is essential that teacher educators in colleges of education remain aware of the changing nature of education and prepare students accordingly. This is a challenge on multiple levels. To plan for what the next generation of students will need is difficult to comprehend, let alone address thoroughly. The notion that higher education ? Address for correspondence: Michelle Vaughan, Department of Curriculum, Culture, and Educational Inquiry, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431. Email: mvaugha3@fau.edu. 25 Michelle Vaughan teacher educators must begin to employ pedagogical models in their courses that capitalise on the technological mindset of millennial learners is the basis of this inquiry. Simultaneously, teacher education coursework must adjust to focus on new and innovative models of teaching, such as the flipped classroom, to prepare preservice students to teach the students they will encounter. The purpose of this inquiry was to examine the construction and initial implementation of a flipped classroom in an Introduction to the Teaching Profession course. Particular attention was paid to the management strategies used and how this model impacted on engagement in the classroom and built a broader understanding of instructional strategies. Teaching the Younger Generation Prensky (2008) discussed how the historical purpose of school was to educate students about the world outside of their own small town. Teachers opened the eyes of their students to places they had never seen, languages they had never heard, and stories that were timeless. Prensky went on to discuss the fact that many students come to school with knowledge that they have been gathering from pieces of technology since birth. The students in today’s higher education, as well as in K-12, classrooms are “plugged in” to a wider world, full of instantaneous knowledge, communication, and collaboration. The only place where they may not be able to embrace this new and exciting world seems to be school. The current set of traditional pedagogical models may not integrate technology in ways that make sense for students. The disconnect between how students learn out of school and how they learn in school can lead to boredom, passivity, and, ultimately, a decreased amount of learning (Roehl, Reddy & Shannon, 2013). One of the most effective ways to teach preservice students how to engage their future students is by engaging them through their own coursework. The millennial learners are individuals born between 1982 and 2002 (Wilson & Gerber, 2008) and, from a very young age, have been engaged with information technology. These so-called “digital natives” often have access to information at their fingertips and prefer to learn in active and collaborative environments (Prensky, 2001). This assumption means 26 Flipping the Learning teacher educators must adjust their own curriculum in an effort to meet the needs of millennial learners while preparing them to teach the next generation. Understanding the millennial learners in higher education is essential to maximise their learning potential in the classroom. However, for teacher educators, it is also imperative to keep focus on the types of classrooms that preservice teachers will be entering. The use of computers in classrooms has a long history. The United States National Center for Education Statistics (2010) found that 97% of their classrooms have computers in them with 93% having internet access every day. In addition, 40% of teachers in the United States report using computer instruction as part of their curriculum often. These statistics paint a picture where, regardless of the access students have to the Internet at home, students in developed countries can consistently connect at school. Beyond computers in classrooms, it is significant to note the growing involvement in distance education that is occurring in public school districts. In 2009, 55% of districts across the United States have students enrolled in distance education courses, with the majority of those students at the high school level. Distance education in public schools has grown steadily since 2003 and new teachers need to be prepared for the notion that students are already comfortable with online, independent learning in K-12 and may actually prefer it (NCES, 2010). Today’s preservice teachers are preparing to teach students who are often fluent online learners and have spent most of their life integrating technology into their own learning. Are teacher preparation programs preparing them to reach these learners? Are teacher educators adjusting their pedagogy to include the modelling of instructional strategies that support flexible learning through technology? Exploring the Flip A flipped classroom delivers the content to students outside of the classroom using taped lectures, videos, or other pieces of technology. What would traditionally be considered the “teaching portion” of the 27 Michelle Vaughan class session now occurs in the students’ own time. When students go to class, they participate in application activities using the content they have watched or read (Tucker, 2012). This model is a particularly good match for teacher preparation coursework because it encourages student ownership over their own learning, and simultaneously frees up class time to expose preservice teachers to myriad instructional strategies during the application of the content they have learned. As modelling is seen as ‘best practice’ in the field of education (Conklin, 2008; West & Graham, 2008), it is essential that teacher educators build in time to highlight and use the instructional strategies that consistently increase student learning. Additionally, it addresses the needs of millennial learners by allowing them to learn on their own time and integrate technology in an authentic manner. Although research on the impact of flipped classrooms on student achievement is in early stages, benefits such as student engagement, increased student-teacher feedback, and self-paced learning have been well-documented in the literature (Goodwin & Miller, 2013; Roehl, Reddy, & Shannon, 2013; Sadaghiani, 2012). These outcomes create the classroom environment that teacher educators strive for and hope that their students will recreate in their own classrooms. Again, the flipped classroom creates alignment between what the teacher educator models and what the teacher educator expects preservice teachers to be able to do. Higher education classes across the United States have documented increases in student engagement, preparation, and achievement using the flipped model. However, it appears that very little has been done in applying this model to a teacher education course, as most courses have been in the sciences (Sadaghiani, 2012; Steed, 2012). Modelling innovation and creativity for preservice teachers should be the foundation of any education class (Goubeaud & Yan, 2004). Coursework is the most valuable opportunity for them to learn from experts in their field. As instructional strategies often need practice in order to be perfected, students benefit greatly from seeing an expert example. It is not enough to read about cooperative learning and problem-based learning; students need to experience these 28 Flipping the Learning models firsthand. In a time of differentiated instruction, it is essential to develop a plethora of instructional strategies that can be used to engage students in ways that create ownership over their own learning on their own time. The flipped classroom is one such strategy. Method Guiding Questions Three inquiry questions guided this investigation into the use of a flipped classroom in an introductory education course. ? How does using the flipped classroom model impact on the engagement millennial students have with course topics? ? What are the management strategies necessary for successful implementation of the flipped classroom model? ? How does the flipped classroom model build a broader understanding of instructional strategies in preservice teachers? Beginning with the existing literature in the field and the inquiry questions, the process and decisions made while building a flipped classroom for an introductory education course were carefully documented through versions of syllabi development and professor notes. Reflections, challenges, and celebrations were documented in weekly journals and collaborative emails to peers. Three informal classroom observations focusing on student discussion were done by the professor. In addition, attendance, assignment completion and discussion board posts were collected to assess the overall impact of the model in this course. Lastly, this preliminary investigation will help define future research parameters in this line of inquiry and identify areas of research still needed. Discussion board notes, journals and observations were reviewed and coded according to the categories of engagement, management strategies and instructional strategies. Initial findings were discussed with the participants – this method of respondent validation was used 29 Michelle Vaughan to increase validity of the findings and avoid bias (Maxwell, 2005). In the role of participant observer in this study, the author regularly discussed the study with knowledgeable peers, or “critical friends,” to ensure findings were accurate and to overcome obstacles in the study (Anderson, Herr & Nihlen, 2007). Journals and syllabi version were also used to create a timeline of decisions made during construction of the course. Constructing the Flip Once the decision was made to implement a flipped classroom, defining what this model would look like in an education course was the next step. The Introduction to the Teaching Profession students were the target audience for this model as it was decided that they would benefit most from outcomes such as student engagement and self-paced learning. The students taking this course are often in their second year of college and have either recently decided to be an education major or are considering it as a possibility. It has always been of goal of the author to present introductory students with a realistic view of the teaching profession so they can make an informed decision about whether this is a career they want to pursue. Introductory courses can have a significant impact on whether students choose a career in the field of education (Jaschik, 2013), making it a perfect place to highlight some of the innovations in teaching that are currently taking place. In the literature, there is some level of agreement to flip one unit in a course to test the model on students (Steed, 2012). In this course, there was concern about students buying into the model and the negative impact of an inconsistent structure within the semester. The author of this paper, as a professor, made the decision to go “all in” and flip the entire semester to get a true sense of the impact this model might have on students. This meant that every chapter covered in the introductory text for the course would have a taped lecture and “at-home” activity and every class that students attended face to face would be an active learning experience. By flipping the entire semester, the model would truly be executed with fidelity and the 30 Flipping the Learning students would have a rich lesson in experimenting with innovative teaching. Exploring technology was the next decision for the author. Our university currently uses Blackboard as a learning management system and the tools provided within the system were very useful to a flipped model. There were particular objectives and questions surrounding the management of this system detailed in the following sections. Outside the Classroom The first challenge was determining the best method for taping lectures and delivering content to students outside the classroom. The web conferencing tool Blackboard Collaborate was chosen to tape lectures as it had three necessary components for this model; audio, video, and the ability to display a presentation or application share. A bonus to this tool was that the lecture could be converted to an mp3 or mp4 so students could access the lecture from whatever device they wanted to use. The vision of students listening to a lecture while working out or watching the presentation on their device while waiting for a bus completely aligned with the flexibility in curriculum access of the flipped model. There was a series of trial videos completed before taping lectures, checking for sound and video quality. An unintended outcome of these trials was the increased clarity of the taped lectures. Lectures were shorter in length and contained less superfluous information than in-class lectures. Brunswell and Horejsi (2013) discuss this as a form a professional development for teachers. Longer lecture content can be delivered more efficiently because instructors focus on delivering a quality video and reduce tangents and other unrelated information. Taped lectures ranged from 20-30 minutes (significantly shorter than traditional in class lectures) and often included additional content for preservice teachers to read or watch, such as classroom videos, pieces of documentaries, or student interviews. Much of this additional content used to take place within the classroom, and a discussion usually followed. However, in this 31 Michelle Vaughan model, one of the objectives was to free up as much in-class time as possible for active learning and the use of additional instructional strategies; therefore, anything that students could do on their own time was included as part of the taped lecture. Lectures for the next chapter were taped directly following a class meeting. This allowed for references to discussions that took place in class and kept the continuity of the course intact. For example, in a class discussion on multiple intelligences and IQ testing, many students shared personal stories about their own learning styles, strengths and weaknesses when it came to learning in a classroom. Their insights about how their former teachers either capitalised on their strengths or ignored them were an important segue into our chapter on students with special needs. Referring back to key points in that conversation throughout the next taped lecture helped students to see connections within topics and build their learning. The last activity that students needed to complete before class was a discussion question. In order to ensure that students reflected on the course material and came to class prepared for an activity, they needed a space for reflection that also allowed the professor to view and record learning. In addition, a way to document who had watched the lecture in its entirety was helpful for taking “attendance.” The answer to this was a creative form of discussion board posting. Within each lecture, there was an embedded discussion prompt that students needed to listen for and write down. As the objective was to make sure students were actively listening, the prompt was not listed on a slide and the location varied within the lecture. The placement depended on what they were to reflect on and was given out where it was appropriate. Students were required to watch the lecture and respond to the discussion question by midnight on the day before class met. The professor could log into the discussion board before class, have a read through the postings and gain an instant idea of what the students took away from the lecture, where they needed support and what misconceptions needed to be addressed. This was invaluable to creating a successful learning experience in class and required students to be active listeners not passive recipients of knowledge. 32 Flipping the Learning Inside the Classroom As much of the ‘traditional’ learning was taking place outside of the classroom, the actual challenge for this professor was to engage students in authentic and meaningful activities that deepened their knowledge of both content and pedagogy. When this course is taught in a traditional model, there is a struggle between “getting through” all the content and allowing students to experience some of the concepts in discussion or hands-on activities. For example, in an introductory chapter on educational policy, the professor previously used a large amount of time to explain the landmark policies that influence the education system in the United States. Students never got beyond learning when the policy was enacted, what was included and who was impacted. However, in the flipped model, students watched the lecture at home, investigated one to two policies that were particularly interesting and posted findings on the discussion board. When they came to class, they were prepared to engage in small group debates on the impact of those policies. Debate groups argued both sides of an issue and presented their findings to the rest of the class so each student could hear pros and cons of major policies in the United States. Students were passionate about their topics, highly engaged in learning and, for the first time, truly understanding how policy shapes a teacher’s job. This activity highlights the deeper learning taking place and also shows preservice teachers the power of using instructional strategies like classroom debates within their own teaching. This is a prime example of the power of flipping your classroom. Avoiding Pitfalls Part of successful teaching is being able to anticipate what may go wrong in the classroom. Using a new teaching model, this is particularly relevant, and it was necessary to explore online management strategies that would both lead to the intended outcome of student learning and also maintain academic integrity. One of the positive outcomes of using a flipped classroom is the time gained for students to reflect on their learning (Strayer, 2012). Students can watch lectures a number of times, think about some of the questions posed, and come to class with questions of their own. In a traditional 33 Michelle Vaughan classroom, students were often still processing the content of the lecture when the class was quickly moving to the application of that content. The flipped model would provide more time for this processing, but there was concern that students would not reflect on their own learning if they read what other students were writing on the discussion board. The answer to this issue was hidden in the functionality of the discussion board settings. Blackboard discussion board contains a setting that allowed the professor to restrict student viewing of posts until they have posted their own response. So, during this innovation, students could not view any other posts until they had listened to the lecture, heard the discussion board prompt, and responded independently. After posting on the discussion board, all responses became visible, and students could read the responses of their peers. This gave a clear idea of how each student in the classroom interpreted the lecture and reflected on the material without interference from any other student input. It also served as lecture attendance for each taped session. Another pitfall to avoid was student confusion about their role in this model. The flipped model is not based on the lecture style used traditionally in higher education (Goubeaud & Yan, 2004), and the students needed to fully understand their role in this approach (Pierce & Kalkman, 2003). The professor used the Blackboard messaging system to send reminders and technology tips to the class every other day for the first few weeks. The goal was to get students into a routine: lecture posted on Thursday afternoon, post response by Tuesday, attend class prepared to work on Thursday morning. This cycle repeated throughout the semester, so students always knew what to expect. In addition, careful attention was paid to students who were absent, late or had missed a discussion board posting. Students received personal emails from the professor in the first few weeks to highlight the importance of their participation in this course. As veteran teachers know, it is often the structure and management of a classroom that can have the most impact on student success. Strayer (2012) noted these themes of student confusion in his work with flipped classrooms, and the goal was to create a clear set of 34 Flipping the Learning instructions that were consistent throughout the semester. The hope was that this increased clarity would carve out additional class time for the application of content. Results and Discussion Addressing the Inquiry Questions The first inquiry question focused on how the flipped model impacted on the engagement of students in this course. The first few weeks of this investigation required a high amount of communication between the professor and students as technology glitches were worked out and instructions reinforced. Open feedback sessions revealed that there continued to be sound quality issues within the taping that needed to be worked out. The location of lectures on the learning management system and the devices used to record them needed to be changed so students could access material with ease. Despite those challenges, every single student watched the lectures and posted their response to the discussion board within the time given to them. Students had the ability to watch lectures in various formats (mp3 and mp4) and every student in the course easily located a device to access the lectures. In fact, one student mistakenly watched the wrong lecture and posted incorrectly and, after realising his error, attended during office hours to prove he had read the correct chapter and could participate fluently in the group activity. The drive to prove he was on track with expectations was impressive and something that was an unexpected outcome of experimenting with this model. This student began to take ownership over his own learning quicker than anticipated and rose to meet the challenge of the flipped model. Students also indicated a high level of reflection and making connections within their discussion board postings. Within one taped lecture, students were asked to watch a video documenting Jane Elliot’s classroom experiment, A Class Divided, and then reflect on their thoughts and post. Five students reported within their posts or in class that they had watched the video multiple times that week, showed it to family members and/or had conversations about it outside of class with peers. One student addressed this deeper level of learning in his own post: 35 Michelle Vaughan I watched the video several days ago and then allowed the information to marinate in my head for awhile. Still a few days later the lessons learned are powerful…it almost seems silly that we do not do something similar to this in our classrooms now. Are we too sensitive and worried about being politically correct? After only watching about 25 minutes of video, I had to question some of the beliefs I have. It really hit the mark when one of the children spoke about the feeling of helplessness and that nothing good could happen. This was only in one afternoon…as I develop my skills as a teacher in the next few years I will find a way to incorporate cultural diversity into my teaching toolbox. As more discussion and collaboration took up the bulk of class time, the higher-level questions from students in class, as well as their answers, indicated that they had engaged in reading set texts as well as additional texts. In an activity on creating accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities, groups of students used their knowledge from the text to create a successful space and curriculum for a special needs student. In the past, it had been apparent that students used their own background knowledge to inform this activity because the ideas were often recreations of older inclusion practices they had most likely seen occur within their own school experiences and were not the knowledge and practices described in the text. However, in the flipped classroom, students asked more questions about what “was allowed” as far as a modification, pushing the boundaries and creating new and innovative ideas to meet the needs of these students. While it is not possible to answer the question as to why this might be, it is possible to infer that students had ample time to grasp this new knowledge, reflect on what it means to them as a learner, and be able to apply it meaningfully in class. The increased depth in the outcome of this group activity, as well as others, illustrates what can happen when students understand and reflect on the content prior to class. The second inquiry question addressed the management strategies needed to implement the flipped model successfully. The details of this process have already been discussed, but it is most important to note that the parameters set for students were easy to understand and that all students came to class prepared to engage thoughtfully in 36 Flipping the Learning what they had learned from the readings and videos. Teacher educators often spend a portion of each class ensuring students understand the information, getting a feel for the preparation level of the students and filling gaps in knowledge. In this scenario, students responded to a discussion board prompt tied to the work they were about to do in class. By reading those prompts before class begins, the professor walks into class knowing how well students have understood the chapter content. This quick formative assessment is a true gain in efficiency and allows more class time to be devoted to authentic group activities that expand thinking and model instructional strategies for future use. While all of the management strategies needed for this flip were able to be found within the current learning management system (Blackboard), it is important to note that as innovative teaching models grow, so should the capabilities of the systems implementing them. The last inquiry question focused on how the flipped classroom could foster the awareness of instructional strategies in preservice teachers. Modelling instructional practices for preservice teachers has become a goal of many teacher education programs (Goubeaud & Yan, 2004). While this question will be addressed in future research, the beginning stages of awareness have emerged. In the latter half of this course, students are required to use what they have learned about teaching to plan and implement activities to teach topics to their peers. Working with a small group, students have traditionally created a PowerPoint presentation of information and shared that work with the class. It is argued here that the presentations did not promote active learning, but they directly aligned to the model they have seen used in their previous coursework. However, in the flipped model, learning is taking place outside of the classroom, so students need to think about how they can best engage their peers in active learning when they come to class. The challenge becomes how to teach their peers, not what to teach them. Students used strategies such as class debates, scenariobased role playing and small group discussion based on videos. The hope was that preservice teachers would continue to use the strategies they had seen modelled for them and be able to engage their own students in ways that make it easier for them to learn. 37 Michelle Vaughan Flipped Classroom as Professional Development Perhaps the most surprising outcome of this systematic inquiry into the construction and implementation of a flipped classroom was the professional growth experienced by the author as a teacher educator. It was necessary to learn more about technology and the tools available to teach preservice educators in this course. Collaborative meetings with specialists to learn about Blackboard tools, as well as meetings with experts in video and audio equipment, occurred regularly throughout the initial planning and implementation. There was significant growth in the professor’s knowledge about the capabilities of all the available tools in order to pinpoint which software or hardware was most appropriate for the intended objective. However, an unexpected amount of learning took place in the development of the classroom activities for the in class portion of the course. As previously mentioned, a significant amount of time was gained by using this model and this required the careful and thoughtful planning of authentic class activities. The objective of a flipped classroom is that students are more engaged and active in their learning (Goodwin & Miller, 2013; Steed, 2012; Tucker, 2012). This new opportunity meant revisiting class activities and adjusting, expanding, or recreating the experiences to match the new, deeper knowledge of students. This was both exciting and terrifying as a professor. With the opportunity to model best practices for students while teaching them introductory content, it was necessary to relearn some instructional practices and study new ones in order to create variety and excitement. The instructional strategies being modelled were named, discussed and documented for students each class. Thus, students would leave with a large amount of introductory content into the field of education and a plethora of instructional strategies modelled for them. Again, there is hope that this experience will impact on their future students and increase their strength as a preservice teacher by expanding their knowledge of pedagogy and their understanding of the teacher they need to be. 38 Flipping the Learning Reflections and Future Direction A primary reflection from this inquiry relates to the classroom management strategies applied to the implementation of the flipped model. Some previous uses of the flipped model in higher education have resulted in student confusion (Strayer, 2012) and it is worth noting that teacher educators in colleges of education have a large amount of background in pedagogy and classroom management which may support the implementation of new instructional models. This background was a contributing factor in the organisation and management of the details of this flipped classroom. As the popularity of this model grows, more research should be done to examine how it can be managed successfully in the classroom. Specifically in the area of higher education, it would perhaps be fruitful to examine the different versions of management of the flipped model in faculties across a campus or between universities. The flipped model gives the gift of time to a teacher educator. With the traditional lecture occurring outside of the classroom, the challenge becomes how to maximise the additional instructional time. There is plenty of information on the organisation of the portion of the flip that occurs at home with the students (Brunsell & Horejsi, 2013; Steed, 2012; Tucker, 2012). But with more time gained for teaching and learning in the classroom, there is more opportunity for depth and creativity. How are teacher educators who are using the flipped model using that time? With lecturing out of the way, what methods are being employed for student learning? Specifically in teacher education, where modelling is a best practice, the types of instructional strategies used can make a significant difference in student learning. Lastly, this inquiry supports the need for teacher preparation programs to reflect on the job they are doing preparing preservice teachers for today’s classrooms. As the gap grows between traditional pedagogy and the needs of “plugged in” students (Prensky, 2008), how are colleges of education reflecting, analysing, and adjusting their coursework and methods? New teachers rely heavily on the knowledge and skills learned in their teacher preparation program (Conklin, 2008; West & Graham, 2007). It is 39 Michelle Vaughan critical that the courses they take be aligned with the job they will do in schools and the students they will need to serve. References Anderson, G. L., Herr, K. G., & Nihlen, A. S. (2007). Studying your own school: An educator’s guide to practitioner action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Brunsell, E. & Horejsi, M. (2013). Science 2.0: Flipping your classroom in one “take.” The Science Teacher,80(3), 8. Conklin, H. G. (2008). Modeling compassion in critical, justiceoriented teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 78(4), 652-674. Goodwin, B & Miller, K. (2013). Evidence on flipped classrooms is still coming in. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 78-80. Goubeaud, K. & Yan, W. (2004). Teacher educators’ teaching methods, assessments, and grading: A comparison of higher education faculty’s instructional practice. The Teacher Educator, 40(1), 1-16. Jaschik, S. (2013). Majoring in a professor. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/12/study-findschoice-major-most-influenced-quality-intro-professor Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Pierce, J. W. & Kalkman, D. L. (2003). Applying learner-centered principles in teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42(2), 127132. Prensky, M. (2008). Turning on the lights. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 40-45. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Roehl, A., Reddy, A. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family & Consumer Science, 105(2), 44-49. 40 Flipping the Learning Sadaghiani, H. R. (2012), Online prelectures: An alternative to textbook reading assignments. The Physics Teacher, 50(5), 301303. doi: 10.1119/1.3703549 Stayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15, 171-193. doi:10.1007/s10984-0129108-4 Steed, A. (2012). The flipped classroom. Teaching Business & Economics,16(3), 9-11. Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 8283. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Teachers' Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: 2009. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2010040 West, R. E. & Graham, C. R. (2007). Benefits and challenges of using live modeling to help preservice teachers transfer technology integration principles. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(4), 131-141. Wilson, M. & Gerber, L. E. (2008). How generational theory can improve teaching: Strategies for working with the ‘millenials.’ Currents in Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 29-44. 41 Copyright of Education Research & Perspectives is the property of University of Western Australia, Department of Education and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects Volume 10, 2014 Cite as: Geri, N., Gafni, R., & Winer, A. (2014). The u-curve of e-learning: course website and online video use in blended and distance learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 10, 1-16. Retrieved from http://www.ijello.org/Volume10/IJELLOv10p001-016Geri0473.pdf The U-Curve of E-Learning: Course Website and Online Video Use in Blended and Distance Learning Nitza Geri Ruti Gafni Amir Winer The Open The Academic The Open University of Israel, College of Tel Aviv University of Israel, Yaffo, Israel and Raanana, Israel Raanana, Israel The Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel nitzage@openu.ac.il rutigafn@mta.ac.il amirwi@openu.ac.il Abstract Procrastination is a common challenge for students. While course Websites and online video lectures enable studying anytime, anywhere, and expand learning opportunities, their availability may increase procrastination by making it easier for students to defer until tomorrow. This research used Google Analytics to examine temporal use patterns of course Websites, with an emphasis on online video lectures. We analyzed pageview data of 8,977 students enrolled in two compulsory undergraduate courses, one of which is offered exclusively fully online, and three elective courses, one for undergraduates, and two for master of business administration (MBA) students, over a period of two years. Our findings showed a significant u-curve of e-learning for all courses, during all the examined semesters, for courses’ homepage views, as well as for their main video page. We evaluated the depth of the mid-semester decline in e-learning and generally found no significant differences among courses, or over time. However, the relative decline in access to the main video page of undergraduates enrolled in compulsory courses was significantly larger than that of undergraduate and MBA students in elective courses, thus, suggesting that procrastination of video views was slightly higher in compulsory courses. The implications of the findings are discussed. Keywords: online video lectures, procrastination, effectiveness of instructional technologies, blended learning, distance learning, continued use of information systems, attention economy. Material published as part of this publication, either on-line or in print, is copyrighted by the Informing Science Institute. Permission to make digital or paper copy of part or all of these works for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage AND that copies 1) bear this notice in full and 2) give the full citation on the first page. It is permissible to abstract these works so long as credit is given. To copy in all other cases or to republish or to post on a server or to redistribute to lists requires specific permission and payment of a fee. Contact Publisher@InformingScience.org to request redistribution permission. Introduction Online technologies have greatly enhanced distance and blended learning over the last 20 years. However, perseverance is considered harder in elearning environments. The flexibility and availability of e-learning, particularly online video lectures, make it easier for students to procrastinate. While in Editor: Janice Whatley The U-Curve of E-Learning informal e-learning courses, such as Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS), procrastination may cause withdrawal, in formal e-learning contexts we would expect most students to have a ucurve e-learning pattern similar to that of the familiar traditional face-to-face learning cycle. At the beginning of the semester students may be enthusiastic or feel committed and allocate adequate attention resources to learning, during the middle their learning effort decreases, toward the end it increases, and just prior to the exam they exert the greatest efforts to study the course content. Online video lectures are sometimes perceived as substitutes for face-to-face class meetings (Copley, 2007). There is a growing trend of online video lecture use in distance learning, blended learning, traditional face-to-face learning that migrates to blended models, MOOCS, and diverse sorts of life-long learning. Thus, it is important to study the temporal use patterns (Grinberg, Naaman, Shaw, & Lotan, 2013) of online video lectures and analyze their implications for procrastination and e-learning processes. The purpose of this study is to examine temporal use patterns of course Websites and focus on the use of online video lectures on their own, as well as relative to general use patterns of course Websites, as expressed in pageviews of their homepage. The majority of prior studies of procrastination in learning (e.g., Ackerman & Gross, 2005; Cao, 2012; Kachgal, Hansen, & Nutter, 2001; Özer, Demir, & Ferrari, 2009; Wang, He, & Li, 2013), and online learning (e.g., Michinov, Brunot, Le Bohec, Juhel, & Delaval, 2011; Rakes & Dunn, 2010) were based on surveys, in which students self-reported their perceptions. Some studies, such as Ariely and Wertenbroch (2002), used experiments. However, just a few studies that investigated procrastination in learning (e.g., Levy & Ramim, 2012) were based on objective data of student behavior (Hershkovitz & Nachmias, 2009) or utilized data analytics (LaValle, Lesser, Shockley, Hopkins, & Kruschwitz, 2011). This study used Google Analytics (Clifton, 2012) to examine e-learning temporal patterns (Grinberg et al., 2013) of a sample that included 8,977 students who were enrolled in selected five courses during the years 2012 and 2013. Diverse types of courses were included in the sample in order to explore other factors that may affect e-learning and online video lecture temporal use patterns, as well as increase the generalizability of the findings. The sample included compulsory and elective courses, fully online and blended courses, as well as undergraduate and master of business administration (MBA) ones, and various topics: finance, information systems analysis, political science, project management, and strategy. All courses have been offering online video lectures for at least two years prior to the investigated period. Hence, this study examined continued use (Bhattacherjee, 2001; Geri, & Naor-Elaiza, 2008) patterns rather than adoption of online video lectures. We used an interdisciplinary theoretical background, which included procrastination literature (Steel, 2007), cognitive fit theory (Adipat, Zhang, & Zhou, 2011; Vessey, 1991), attention economy (Davenport & Beck, 2001; Geri & Geri, 2011; Shapiro & Varian, 1999), distance learning (Moore & Kearsley, 2011), informing science (Cohen, 1999, 2009), and more, to develop hypotheses regarding the following research questions: 2 • What are the general temporal use patterns of course Websites? • What are the temporal use patterns of online video lectures? • Does the temporal use pattern of online video lectures differ from the general temporal use pattern of a course Website? Geri, Gafni, & Winer • Do fully online courses have temporal use patterns of video that are different than those of blended courses? Are there differences in online video lecture use for exam preparation? • Are there differences in procrastination between undergraduates and postgraduates, as observed in e-learning temporal use patterns? • Is there more procrastination, as observed in e-learning temporal use patterns, in compulsory courses than in elective ones? • Are there differences over time in the temporal e-learning patterns, which may imply changes in procrastination? The most important finding of our study is the significant u-curve of e-learning, which was found in all courses. To the best of our knowledge there are hardly any similar empirical reports that are based on objective data of the learning u-curve in the literature, Therefore, this study contributes to the understanding of e-learning temporal patterns, as well as procrastination in e-learning settings, and its implications suggest valuable theoretical and practical insights. Theoretical Background The theoretical background of this study relates to three perspectives, which are intertwined in explaining the rationale of the hypotheses. The first one is temporal learning patterns (Gafni & Geri, 2010; Spennemann, 2007), and the main concept is procrastination (Steel, 2007). The second aspect is e-learning, and the unique attributes that distinguish it from traditional face-to-face learning (Guri-Rosenblit, 2009). The third perspective pertains to online video lectures and their effectiveness as an informing system (Cohen 1999, 2009; Gill & Bhatacherjee, 2007, 2009; Gill & Cohen, 2009). Procrastination is a well-known, as well as a widely-studied phenomenon, which is the tendency to postpone an activity under one's control to the last possible minute, and sometimes to not perform it at all (Ariely & Wertenbroch, 2002; Gafni & Geri, 2010; Steel, 2007; van Eerde, 2003). Chu and Choi (2005) observe that procrastination should not automatically be labeled as a negative phenomenon. Considering our limited attention resources (Davenport & Beck, 2001), individuals must set their priorities and rationally decide to postpone certain assignments. People who are active procrastinators prefer to work under pressure and make intentional decisions to procrastinate, notwithstanding, they generally manage to complete their tasks on time. On the other hand, passive procrastinators are paralyzed by their indecision and consequently fail to complete their assignments on time. Since students have limited attention and time resources, they may decide on active procrastination and focus on studying for the exam. Other students might have difficulties in studying the course and become passive procrastinators. Although the reasons for procrastination are very different, their consequences as reflected by temporal learning patterns are similar. Our first hypothesis is that in general, there is a u-curve of e-learning. H1: General temporal e-learning patterns follow a u-curve, with decreased use in the middle of the semester that increases toward the end, and becomes highest prior the exam. Online video lectures have become affordable and ubiquitous (Copley, 2007). Previous research reports on successful use of asynchronous online video lectures to support face-to-face learning (Brecht, 2012; Brecht & Ogilby, 2008; Whatley & Ahmad, 2007), which actually became a blended learning model. The video option is very helpful for those who cannot attend class (Wieling & Hofman, 2010), and current technologies offer interactivity, which may improve its 3 The U-Curve of E-Learning effectiveness (Zhang, Zhou, Briggs, & Nunamaker, 2006). However, the flexibility that online video lectures offer students in time, place, and space of learning, has a dark side since they are provided with a comfortable opportunity to procrastinate, which may cause them to fail the course. While it is expected that students would use course websites the most prior to the exam, it is unclear if they would watch online video lectures during the last days before the exam because watching them is time-consuming. According to cognitive fit theory (Vessey, 1991) compatibility between task and information presentation format is expected to result in superior task performance. Two opposing forces may affect the temporal use patterns of online video lectures. Videos are a time-consuming rich medium of communication (Daft & Lengel, 1986) that from an attention economy (Shapiro & Varian, 1999) perspective may be regarded as less efficient than other learning alternatives. Therefore, it might be expected that students would use them less during the last days before the exam. However, if the course is fully online, and is based on those videos, then they may be an essential tool for exam preparation. Moreover, even in blended learning settings, an instructor may prepare a special online video lecture that is intended to help students study for the exam (Brecht & Ogilby, 2008). Furthermore, procrastinators may delay until the very last days before the exam (Ariely & Wertenbroch, 2002), and only then attempt to watch the video lectures. This leads us to the next hypothesis regarding online video lecture temporal use patterns. H2: online video lecture temporal e-learning patterns follow a u-curve, with decreased use in the middle of the semester that increases toward the end, and becomes highest prior the exam. From a cognitive fit (Vessey, 1991) perspective, there may be differences between pageviews of the homepage, which is intended to help students remain current and informed regarding the course in general, and video, which is time-consuming and requires more effort. However, there is no reason to assume differences between the relative mid-semester decline in homepage views and online video lecture views from the procrastination theatrical angle (Steel, 2007). Since we could not rely on prior research that examined a similar issue, the following hypothesis is exploratory and, therefore, assumes no differences. H3: There would be no difference between the relative mid-semester decline in homepage views and online video lectures views. Blended courses and fully online courses are expected to have different temporal use patterns of video. There are several potential reasons why students of fully online courses would relatively view more video during the week before the exam. From the perspective of passive procrastination (Chu & Choi, 2005), these students might delay viewing the video lectures until just before the deadline (Ariely & Wertenbroch, 2002), which in this case is the exam day. Another plausible explanation is that in such courses, the video lectures have an important role in conveying the course essentials, so students tend to devote more attention to these videos when preparing for the exam. As we shall further explain in the methodology section, we calculated the ratio of video to homepage views. While according to cognitive fit theory (Vessey, 1991) generally we would expect relative video consumption to decrease, or remain similar to its ratio throughout the semester, in fully online courses that are based on video lectures, we expect the ratio to become higher, as the videos may be a central learning tool in such courses. H4a: the ratio of video to homepage views would be higher in fully online courses than in blended courses. H4b: In blended courses, the ratio of video to homepage views would decrease prior to the exam. 4 Geri, Gafni, & Winer H4c: In fully online courses that are based on video lectures, the ratio of video to homepage views would increase prior to the exam. Prior research found differences between undergraduate and postgraduate students in procrastination (Cao, 2012; Wang et al., 2013) and their preference for online video lectures, as well as their achievements and retention. Postgraduates are more experienced learners, who have already demonstrated that they have learning abilities and enough perseverance to succeed. Moreover, their previous academic success may decrease their risk of becoming passive procrastinators. This same good experience may make them successful active procrastinators who do not delay too many tasks (Gafni & Geri, 2010). Therefore, when it comes to time-consuming e-learning activities, like watching video lectures, postgraduates are expected to show less deferment than undergraduates. However, both undergraduates and postgraduates may have similar temporal patterns of viewing the course homepage. This activity keeps the students updated and informed about the course, and it does not necessarily involve actual learning. It may relate to assignment submission dates, updates on learning materials that have been uploaded to the Website, notifications about more or less relevant topics within the course context, and so forth. There is no theoretical justification to assume differences between undergraduates and postgraduates in this regard. H5a: There would be no difference in the relative mid-semester decline in homepage views between undergraduates and postgraduates. H5b: There would be a greater relative mid-semester decline in online video lecture views of undergraduates than that of postgraduates. Steel (2007) observed that task-aversion alone is not enough to predict procrastination, it actually predicts task avoidance. However, combined with other factors, such as the timing of rewards and punishments, it foretells procrastination. Students cannot avoid compulsory courses. Sometimes, they just dislike the subject, other times they may be afraid of failure, or have low self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1997), which is also expected to increase their proclivity to procrastinate. Occasionally, all conditions may occur. A meta-analysis of procrastination (Steel, 2007) indicated that task aversiveness and low self-efficacy are primary reasons for procrastination. In our context, we would expect higher levels of task aversion and low self-efficacy of students enrolled in compulsory courses than of those enrolled in elective ones. This study does not measure these two factors, but rather their consequences, and the literature implies that there would be more evident procrastination in compulsory courses. This is relevant to online video lecture views, which involve learning. However, as mentioned above, it may not hold for homepage views, which may be intended to keep students informed about the course but may not involve active learning. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses. H6a: There would be no difference in the relative mid-semester decline in homepage views between compulsory and elective courses. H6b: There would be a greater relative mid-semester decline in online video lecture views of compulsory courses than that of elective courses. Steel (2007) proposed that procrastination appears to be growing and urged further investigation. Therefore, we shall examine whether there were changes in procrastination trends over the two year period examined in this study. An increasing trend of procrastination may be explained from an attention economy perspective (Davenport & Beck, 2001; Geri & Geri, 2011), as an unfavorable consequence of information overload. However, the pressures of information overload have been evident for several years already, so perhaps they have reached equilibrium in their influence on procrastination. Furthermore, this study is concerned with continued use (Bhattacherjee, 2001; Geri, & Naor-Elaiza, 2008) patterns, and the examined courses were beyond the stage of online video lecture adoption. The investigated courses included online video lectures for at least 5 The U-Curve of E-Learning two years prior to the analyzed period. Therefore, we hypothesize that there would be no difference in the observed procrastination during the period (late 2011 until 2013) examined in this study. H7a: There would be no differences over time in the general temporal e-learning patterns. H7b: There would be no differences over time in the online video lecture temporal elearning patterns. Methodology This study used data analytics (LaValle et al., 2011) for analyzing objective data collected by Google Analytics (Clifton, 2012; Pakkala, Presser, & Christensen, 2012) from the Website of the Open University of Israel that offers its students either distance or blended learning. Several sorts of online video lectures were included in hundreds of the University’s course Websites. Students who chose the blended model combined face-to-face class meetings with online support through course websites. These supplemented traditional means of distance education, such as books and study guides. A course Website usually contained the following components: the homepage, which served as a portal to all the other parts of the website, as well as a bulletin board that the course instructors might use for notifications; discussion boards; supplementary learning materials, such as presentations, sample exams, exercises and solutions; and a main video page that provided access to all the video lectures of the course. The actual data of students’ visits to course Websites was employed to measure temporal use patterns. Two measures were used for each course: • Pageviews of the course homepage, which represented the general use of the Website. • Pageviews of the course main video page (if there were two or more entry pages per course all of them were measured, and the aggregated result was used), which represented the use of the online video lectures. The sample was comprised of 8,977 students, who were enrolled in selected five courses during the years 2012 and 2013. The courses were selected in a manner that would enable exploring other factors that may affect e-learning and online video lecture temporal use patterns. Table 1 presents the five courses and their various categorizations. All the courses were in social sciences. Table 1: Categorization of the courses Course Level Degree Format Finance Compulsory BA Mainly blended Information systems Compulsory BA Fully online Political science Elective BA Mainly blended Project management Elective MBA Mainly online Strategy Elective MBA Mainly online Although the university has been using several video technologies, each one of the courses in our sample has been using the same technology of online video lectures for at least two years prior to 6 Geri, Gafni, & Winer the investigated period, and was taught by the same instructor (different instructors for each one of the courses) during the four examined semesters. Generally, the students were experienced in e-learning. Therefore, the data measured continued use (Bhattacherjee, 2001; Geri, & NaorElaiza, 2008) patterns of online video lectures. Furthermore, none of the selected courses was considered as introductory, so it was presumed that the students were experienced and had already completed a few courses prior to their inclusion in this study. In order to measure temporal patterns, each semester was divided into four periods: • The beginning of the semester, which included its first four weeks. This period was defined according to general observations of aggregate data that relates to all the courses of the university, and it was supported by findings of Michinov et al. (2011). • The mid-semester. • The end of the semester, from three weeks prior to the last day of the semester until the day of the last exam, excluding the exam period. • The exam period, which is defined below. All the data was standardized as average pageviews per student per week. There were three alternative dates on which a student might take the exam: two dates immediately following the end of the semester (hereafter, A1 and A2), and one later date (B). Undergraduates might have taken the exam twice, either in A1 or A2, and exam B (or in the following semester). Graduates might have taken the exam only once, either in A1, A2, or B, and the purpose of offering three alternatives was flexibility and convenience. The unique exam period of each course included the combined total of seven days prior to each one of the alternative three dates. The exam day was included as one of the seven days, since the exams always took place in the afternoon. Pageviews per student for the exam period were standardized by the number of students who took the exam in each of these dates. We evaluated the depth of the mid-semester decline in learning (i.e., the lowest part of the ucurve) by calculating the ratio of pageviews during the mid-semester to the total pageviews. A lower percentage suggests higher procrastination level. The range of the depth was 10% -17% for the homepage, and 10%-19% for the main video page. Results The first two hypotheses, suggesting a u-curve temporal use pattern of e-learning and of online video lectures, were examined by conducting paired-samples t-tests for each of the four periods, together for the five courses, and separately for each one of them. Cohen’s d effect sizes were calculated for all the significant results and were found large (over |.96|, meaning less than 50% overlap). Table 2 provides data on average weekly pageviews per student during the semester, as well as standard deviation for each of the courses alone and for all of them combined. Table 3 presents the paired-samples t-tests results. Figure 1 depicts the u-curve of e-learning. It is evident that for the five courses, for the four examined semesters (2012A, 2012B, 2013A, 2013B) the weighted average pageviews per student per week follow a very similar pattern, with a drop of pageviews during the mid-semester. It is also obvious that the pageviews during the exam period are considerably higher than all the previous periods. 7 The U-Curve of E-Learning Table 2: Average weekly pageviews per student during the semester Course Period 4 4 4 4 4 20 1 - beginning Mean 5.78 (SD) (.79) 5.25 (1.05) 3.85 (.98) 4.89 (1.08) 6.22 (1.63) 5.20 (1.31) 2 - middle Mean 3.07 (SD) (.32) 3.81 (.85) 2.40 (.59) 3.12 (.34) 3.82 (.83) 3.25 (.78) 3 - end Mean 5.07 (SD) (.33) 5.14 (.62) 3.22 (.32) 4.51 (.48) 6.34 (.27) 4.86 (1.10) Exam Mean 13.57 (SD) (1.82) 15.89 (2.17) 8.70 (1.37) 11.14 (1.52) 14.52 (3.54) 12.76 (3.28) 1 - beginning Mean 1.30 (SD) (.19) 1.64 (.45) .77 (.17) .88 (.25) 1.37 (.24) 1.19 (.41) 2 - middle Mean 1.04 (SD) (.10) 1.23 (.25) .52 (.17) .51 (.08) .84 (.15) .83 (.32) 3 - end Mean 2.09 (SD) (.44) 1.69 (.47) .67 (.14) .58 (.12) 1.23 (.23) 1.25 (.66) Exam Mean 3.81 (SD) (.28) 6.14 2.21) 1.69 (.15) 1.48 (.26) 2.09 (.20) 3.04 (2.01) n Home page views Main video page views Finance Information Political Strategy Project All systems science management Table 3: paired-samples t-tests of temporal patterns Home page views Main video page views Compared periods Finance 1-2 6.554** 1-3 Information systems Political science Strategy 2.499* 4.819** 3.47** 2.763* 7.684** 1.381 0.235 1.759 0.508 -0.131 1.326 1-exam -7.862** -9.59** -10.212** -8.563** -8.598** -13.273** 2-3 -6.462** -1.959 -5.385** -4.303** -5.415** -7.47** 2-exam -10.667** -9.625** -9.561** -11.416** -6.249** -14.54** 3-exam -10.315** -9.362** -8.934** -9.079** -4.460** -13.049** 1-2 2.401* 1.365 2.96* 3.986** 3.700** 5.142** 1-3 -2.665* -0.119 1.525 2.015 0.699 -.442 1-exam -54.637** -3.608* -17.228** -2.935* -4.428** -4.504** 2-3 -4.275** -2.21* -2.672* -0.75 -2.257* -4.061** 2-exam -19.818** -4.803** -30.427** -7.452** -7.556** -5.674** 3-exam -5.08** -5.026** -16.992** -5.385** -6.638** -5.008** ** One-tailed significant p