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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
In South Africa, the academic year stretches from February to November of a calendar year.
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
Beyer, A. M. (2011). Improving student presentations: Pecha Kucha and just plain PowerPoint. Teaching of Psychology, 38(2), 122–126.
Brooks, R. (2016). Politics and protest—students rise up worldwide. University World News, 13,413. http://www.universityworldnews.com. Accessed 25 September, 2017.
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.
Chandra, V., & Fisher, D. L. (2009). Students’ perceptions of a blended web-based learning environment. Learning Environment Research, 12, 31–44.
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.
Christiansen, M. A. (2014). Inverted teaching: applying a new pedagogy to a university organic chemistry class. Journal of Chemistry Education, 91, 1845–1850.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ibrahim, Y. (2010). Between revolution and defeat: Student protest cycles and networks. Sociology Compass, 4(7), 495–504.
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.
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.
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.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.
Marin, M. (2012, April 22). Student protestors in Quebec are safeguarding the future. University World News. www.universityworldnews.com. Accessed 25 September, 2017.
Ossiannilson, E. (2017). Blended learning: State of the Nation. https://icde.memberclicks.net/assets/RESOURCES/BlendedLearningICDEInsightPaper2017compressed.pdf. Accessed 6 September, 2018.
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.
Reid, S. A. (2016). A flipped classroom redesign in general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 914–922.
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.
Smith, J. D. (2013). Student attitudes toward flipping the general chemistry classroom. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 607–614.
Tekane, R. Louw, I., & Potgieter, M. (2018). #Fees must fall: Science Teaching during Student Unrest. Alternation, 25, 161–180.
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.
Twigg, C. A. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning. Educause Review, 38(5), 28–38.
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.
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.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge an allocation from a DHET Teaching Development Grant for a SOTL project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Seven Items from the Pre-course Survey Coded for Online Preference
Appendix: Seven Items from the Pre-course Survey Coded for Online Preference
Responses to seven items in the pre-survey were coded as indicated below. The sample was divided into three groups of roughly equal size (high, medium and low) based on their scores for OL preference.
Question 6 (Multiple Choice):
If you have used Connect platform previously, rate how well it assisted you to master the course(s) (e.g. MLB or PHY).
 | Not used connect before | 1. Not at all helpful | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10. Very helpful |
Code | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Question 7: (Multiple Choice):
If you have used Learnsmart previously, rate how well it assisted you to master the course.
 | Not used learnsmart before | 1. Not at all helpful | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10. Very helpful |
Code | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Question 9 (Multiple Choice) (coded in conjunction with Question 17):
If there is something you do not understand in class, how do you prefer to get additional information?
 | Online | Textbook | Lecturer | Tutor | Classmate | Another person | Unanswered |
Codes for OL preference | 3 | 1a | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
aCoded as 3 if students selected e-book in Question 17
Question 13 (Multiple Choice):
When studying for a semester test, I will rely on online material for my learning:
 | Never | Rarely | Usually | Always | Unanswered |
Codes for OL preference | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 |
Question 14 (Multiple Choice):
Which type of compulsory tutorial do you think would help you understand the course better?
 | Class tutorials | Online tutorials |
Codes for OL preference | 1 | 3 |
Question 15 (Multiple Choice):
Which type of compulsory tutorial do you think you would enjoy more?
 | Class tutorials | Online tutorials |
Codes for OL preference | 1 | 4 |
Question 17 (Multiple Choice):
Do you prefer to read from a (i) paper-based book; (ii) e-book?
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Potgieter, M., Pilcher, L.A., Tekane, R.R., Louw, I., Fletcher, L. (2019). Lessons Learnt from Teaching and Learning During Disruptions. In: Schultz, M., Schmid, S., Lawrie, G. (eds) Research and Practice in Chemistry Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6998-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6998-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6997-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6998-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)