Advertisement

Lessons Learnt from Teaching and Learning During Disruptions

  • Marietjie PotgieterEmail author
  • Lynne A. Pilcher
  • Rethabile R. Tekane
  • Ina Louw
  • Lizelle Fletcher
Chapter

Abstract

Student protests that are associated with disruption of teaching activities occur sporadically in many countries. Such events usually have a negative impact on teaching and learning, but also provide the impetus for experimentation and renewal of practices. During the student led protest movement #FeesMustFall in South Africa in 2016, three campuses of the University of Pretoria were closed for normal activities for an extended period and most teaching activities went online almost overnight. This study reports on insights gained about the affordances and weaknesses of the online learning environment using self-report data from both lecturers and students. A thematic approach was used to analyse the lecturers’ reflections on challenges faced and lessons learnt. The findings exemplify the resilience of lecturers as they embraced blended learning and their willingness to experiment and improve their practice. A mixed-methods approach was used to explore the student experience of the blended learning offering of first-year organic chemistry. The sample was stratified based on prior performance to uncover possible differences between subgroups. The pre- and post-chemistry e-learning surveys, comprising open and structured response questions, were completed by 1166 and 565 respondents, respectively. Inductive analysis of free response data generated themes on the student experience. A negative correlation was found between preference for online learning and performance, which is a reason for concern. The results offer useful pointers for instructional design of blended organic chemistry courses, but they also raise questions about equity and students’ metacognitive awareness in a virtual learning environment.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge an allocation from a DHET Teaching Development Grant for a SOTL project.

References

  1. Acton, T., Scott, M., & Hill, S. (2005). E-education-keys to success for organizations. In 18th Bled eConference eIntegration in action. Sloveni, 6–8 June. https://domino.fov.uni-mb.si/proceedings.nsf/0/b2f6ff8014823eabc1257014004916dc/$file/12acton.pdf. Accessed 3 August, 2017.
  2. Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC horizon report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2017-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN.pdf. Accessed 7 August, 2017.
  3. Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M. Y. (2008). A study of student perceptions in a blended learning environment based on different learning styles. Educational Technology and Society, 11(1), 183–193.Google Scholar
  4. Alammary, A., Sheard, J., & Carbone, A. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Three different design approaches. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 440–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beyer, A. M. (2011). Improving student presentations: Pecha Kucha and just plain PowerPoint. Teaching of Psychology, 38(2), 122–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks, R. (2016). Politics and protest—students rise up worldwide. University World News, 13,413. http://www.universityworldnews.com. Accessed 25 September, 2017.
  7. Brown, M. G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on instructors’ adoption and use of online tools in face to face teaching. Internet and Higher Education, 31, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandra, V., & Fisher, D. L. (2009). Students’ perceptions of a blended web-based learning environment. Learning Environment Research, 12, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, C. C., & Jones, K. T. (2007). Blended learning vs traditional classroom settings: assessing effectiveness and student perceptions in an MBA accounting course. Journal of Educators online, 4(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christiansen, M. A. (2014). Inverted teaching: applying a new pedagogy to a university organic chemistry class. Journal of Chemistry Education, 91, 1845–1850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(3), 1–16.Google Scholar
  14. Flyn, A. B. (2015). Structure and evaluation of flipped chemistry courses: organic and spectroscopy, large and small, first to third year, English and French. Chemistry Education and Research Practice, 16, 198–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W. J., & Harrison, B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 18, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill, T., Chidambaram, L., & Summers, J. (2013). A field experiment in blended learning. Performance effects of supplementing traditional classroom experience with web-based virtual learning environment. In 13th AMCIS Proceedings 15–17 August 2013. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2013/ISEducation/GeneralPresentations/5. Accessed 1 August, 2017.
  17. Ibrahim, Y. (2010). Between revolution and defeat: Student protest cycles and networks. Sociology Compass, 4(7), 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Isilow, H. (2016, October 5). South Africa university shuts for week after protests. http://aa.com.tr/en/africa/south-africa-university-shuts-for-week-after-protests/658825. Accessed 14 June, 2017.
  19. Kritzinger, A., Lemmens, J.-C., & Potgieter, M. (2018). Learning strategies for first-year biology: Toward moving the “Murky Middle”. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 17: ar42, 1–13.Google Scholar
  20. Lewis, S. (2016, June 8). Papua New Guinea moves to end student protests after violence. Time, Available at: www.time.com. Accessed 25 September, 2017.
  21. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Marin, M. (2012, April 22). Student protestors in Quebec are safeguarding the future. University World News. www.universityworldnews.com. Accessed 25 September, 2017.
  23. Ossiannilson, E. (2017). Blended learning: State of the Nation. https://icde.memberclicks.net/assets/RESOURCES/BlendedLearningICDEInsightPaper2017compressed.pdf. Accessed 6 September, 2018.
  24. Potgieter, M., Ackermann, M., & Fletcher, L. (2010). Inaccuracy of self-evaluation as additional variable for prediction of students at risk of failing first-year chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reid, S. A. (2016). A flipped classroom redesign in general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 914–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Renner, D., Laumer, S., & Weitzel, T. (2014). Effectiveness and efficiency of blended learning: A literature review. In 20th Americas conference on information systems proceedings 7–9 August 2014. https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1286&context=amcis2014. Accessed 11 August, 2017.
  27. Smith, J. D. (2013). Student attitudes toward flipping the general chemistry classroom. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 607–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tekane, R. Louw, I., & Potgieter, M. (2018). #Fees must fall: Science Teaching during Student Unrest. Alternation, 25, 161–180.Google Scholar
  29. Teo, T. W., Tan, K. C. D., Yan, Y. K., Teo, Y. C., & Yeo, L. W. (2014). How flip teaching supports undergraduate chemistry laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 550–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Twigg, C. A. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning. Educause Review, 38(5), 28–38.Google Scholar
  31. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 633–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yeung, K., & O’Malley, P. J. (2014). Making the flip work: barriers to and implementation strategies for introducing flipped teaching methods into traditional higher education courses. New Directions, 10, 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marietjie Potgieter
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lynne A. Pilcher
    • 3
  • Rethabile R. Tekane
    • 3
  • Ina Louw
    • 2
  • Lizelle Fletcher
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department for Education InnovationUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  4. 4.Department of StatisticsUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations