Many researchers have largely been waiting for the change in the traditional education market to flipped learning. Transformation from traditional teaching systems to flipped learning does not match the object of teaching and learning. Furthermore, the diffusion of flipped learning is slow and there are some underlying inhibitors of disruptive innovation.
This paper aims to explain why flipped learning has not spread rapidly in terms of disruptive innovation. We will empirically study the main factors—path dependence, perceived efficacy, and perceived risk—that may inhibit the spread of reverse learning. Teaching practices must be transformed from traditional lecture style to flipped learning.
In fact, students spend more time in the course, as instructors cover more material in the flipped learning format than the traditional lecture format. Furthermore, the spread of flipped learning is progressing slowly due to doubts about the efficacy of flipped learning in the research community (Heilesen & Josephsen, 2008). This paper aims to explain the reason for the proliferation of flipped learning in terms of disruptive innovation.
The main factors – path dependency, perceived effectiveness and perceived risk – that inhibit the spread of flipped learning will be studied.
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
A flipped learning model can only be successfully implemented if it is adapted to each of the instructor's learning styles. In fact, flipped learning places a greater emphasis on design and problem solving than traditional education and improves student understanding of subject matter (Mason et al., 2013). There is also some disagreement about the appropriateness of the flipped learning model (Mason et al., 2013).
For instructors, the implementation of flipped learning can be time-consuming as it requires a lot of work and planning before the class (Mason et al., 2013). The nature of the inhibitors would describe the impact they have on the spread of flipped learning. The main factors expected to have an effect on the students' intention to adopt flipped learning are path dependence, perceived effectiveness and perceived risk (Figure 1).
Based on the idea, path dependence examines how students' prior experiences and knowledge influence the adoption of flipped learning. Students' attitude towards flipped learning system will directly affect their intention to adopt flipped learning. Students will perceive flipped learning lectures as more effective than the traditional lecture when they are interested in the main benefits of flipped learning.
There is a mismatch even if flipped learning is not much different from traditional teaching. The most striking discrepancy between students and teachers is identified (Scanlon & Issroff, 2005) regarding the expected quality of flipped learning. These gaps would cause students to experience the uncertainty and risk of the flipped learning lecture, and thus prefer the traditional lecture.
If flipped learning merely replaced traditional lecture without adjuncts (Missildine et al., 2013), students would refuse to adopt it, even if it did. Path dependence will negatively moderate the relationship between perceived efficiency and intention to adopt flipped learning. Path dependence will positively moderate the relationship between perceived risk and the intention to adopt flipped learning.
Methods
Moreover, students may realize the uncertainty and risk of flipped learning, so they are likely to become path-dependent on the traditional lecture. From the conceptual model of disruptive innovation inhibitors (Assink, 2006), adoption barrier was introduced to generate the questionnaire items for adoption intention and path dependence, attitude barrier for perceived effectiveness and risk barrier for perceived risk each. All questionnaires were translated into Korean for the survey and back to English to recheck the accuracy of translation.
The items for perceived efficacy and intention to adopt were reverse coded because their large values indicate small values of each construct ( DeCoster & Claypool, 2004 ). Using LISREL, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the validity of the factor model with different fit indices. The value of the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) and the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) are only acceptable if the value is higher than 0.90 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).
We controlled for two demographic variables to examine the relationship between the independent variables (path dependence, perceived efficacy, and perceived risk) and the dependent variable (intention to adopt) through linear regression analysis.
Results
Perceived effectiveness also had a positive significant coefficient for intention to use flipped learning (β=.921, p<0.001), supporting hypothesis 2. Therefore, the moderating effects of path dependence on the relationship between perceived effectiveness and intention to adopt decreased. learning, as well as perceived risk and the intention to adopt flipped learning, were investigated. The interaction between path dependence and perceived effectiveness (Figure 2) showed a positive but no significant effect on intention to use flipped learning, so it does not support hypothesis 4a.
The interaction for path dependence and perceived risk (Figure 3) showed a positive significant influence on intention to adopt flipped learning (β=.059, p<0.01). This implies that students who perceive risk tend to be dependent on traditional lectures, so they are more likely not to adopt flipped learning.
Discussion
However, for a better result, individual responses should be aggregated at the department level so that researchers can investigate the variance between individual groups of departments. Finally, items measuring perceived risk may not be sufficient to measure student satisfaction with flipped learning. Although students are offered the same format of education, they receive it in a different way (Sams & Bergmann, 2013), so the degree to which students perceive risk will vary.
Future research should include more questionnaire items that measure risk related to student competence. The strategy for better acceptance of flipped learning is to provide students with a lot of information so that they understand how flipped learning is effective and useful. According to Stone (2012), students should be informed about the flipped learning structure of the course before the start of the semester.
They should also be informed at the end of the semester about the outcome of their efforts so that they can compare it with the traditional lecture style. When the traditional lectures are supplemented by flipped learning, it will integrate innovative educational strategies and the lecture will become more productive (Missildine et al., 2013; Berret, 2012).
Survey Items
Information and communication technologies (ICT) in higher education teaching - a story of gradualism rather than revolution. Comparing the effectiveness of a flipped classroom versus a traditional classroom in a postsecondary engineering course. Effects of the flipped classroom on the learning environment: A comparison of learning activity in a traditional classroom and a flipped classroom that used an intelligent teaching system.
감사의 글
