Advertisement

Understanding the Habits: Inertia in Flipped Classroom

  • Christin Voigt
  • Kristin Vogelsang
  • Kirsten Liere-Netheler
  • Linda Blömer
  • Henning Brink
  • Uwe Hoppe
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 365)

Abstract

The digitalization increasingly determines the way knowledge is conveyed at universities. A concept resulting from this is Flipped Classroom (FC) that reverses the structure of the classical teaching concept and integrates the use of digital media. The introduction of new concepts is often challenging and therefore associated with inertia. We have examined the structure of inertia in a FC course with the aim of a better understanding of which components favor the adherence to old habits. The empirical analysis of a questionnaire carried out led to two important results. First there was no cognitively based inertia observed in the course. The tendency to status quo results purely from emotional and routine-based motivations in the course. Secondly, we were able to make conclusions about the different factors influencing affective and behavioral inertia, which among other findings showed a clearer division of the perceived value in the Flipped Classroom.

Keywords

Flipped classroom Inertia Digital learning Barriers of change Habit Quantitative research 

References

  1. 1.
    Brynjolfsson, E., McAfee, A.: Race Against the Machine. Digital Frontier, Lexington (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pareja-Lora, A., Calle-Martínez, C., Rodríguez-Arancón, P.: New perspectives on teaching and working with languages in the digital era. Research-publishing.net (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergmann, J., Sams, A.: Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day. International Society for Technology in Education, Alexandria (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Handke, J., Sperl, A. (eds.): Das Inverted Classroom Model: Begleitband zur ersten deutschen ICM-Konferenz. Oldenbourg, München (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vogelsang, K., Hoppe, U.: Development of an evaluation for flipped classroom courses. In: Proceeding of Multikonferenz der Wirtschaftsinformatik (mkwi), pp. 821–832 (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rafferty, A.E., Jimmieson, N.L.: Subjective perceptions of organizational change and employee resistance to change: direct and mediated relationships with employee well-being. Br. J. Manage. 28, 248–264 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pardo del Val, M., Martínez Fuentes, C.: Resistance to change: a literature review and empirical study. Manag. decis. 41, 148–155 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Polites, G.L., Karahanna, E.: Shackled to the status quo: the inhibiting effects of incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance. MIS Q. 36, 21–42 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baytiyeh, H., Naja, M.K.: Students’ perceptions of the flipped classroom model in an engineering course: a case study. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 42, 1048–1061 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abrahams, D.A.: Technology adoption in higher education: a framework for identifying and prioritising issues and barriers to adoption of instructional technology. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 2, 34 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bishop, J.L., Verleger, M.A.: The flipped classroom: a survey of the research. In: ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, pp. 1–18 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schryen, G.: Writing qualitative is literature reviews—guidelines for synthesis, interpretation, and guidance of research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 37, 286–325 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baker, E.: Flipped classroom learning outcomes in intro to is class: looking at student outcomes and professor performance evaluations. In: IAIM Conferenc Proceedings (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Song, Y., Kapur, M.: How to flip the classroom - “productive failure or traditional flipped classroom” pedagogical design? J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 20, 292–305 (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vogelsang, K., Droit, A., Liere-Netheler, K., Hoppe, U.: Designing a flipped classroom course - a process model. In: Proceedings of the Internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI 2019), Siegen (2019)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mahoney, E., Zappe, S., Butler Velegol, S.: The evolution of a flipped classroom: evidence-based recommendations. Adv. Eng. Educ. 4, 1–37 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mattis, K.V.: Flipped classroom versus traditional textbook instruction: assessing accuracy and mental effort at different levels of mathematical complexity. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 20, 231–248 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9238-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gillette, C., Rudolph, M., Kimble, C., Rockich-Winston, N., Smith, L., Broedel-Zaugg, K.: A systematic review and meta-analysis of student pharmacist outcomes comparing flipped classroom and lecture. Am. J. Pharm. Educ.  https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe6898
  19. 19.
    Baker, E.W., Hill, S.: Investigating student resistance and student perceptions of course quality and instructor performance in a flipped information systems classroom. Inf. Syst. Educ. J. 15, 17–26 (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gibson, C.F.: IT-enabled business change: an approach to understanding and managing risk. MIS Q. Executive 2, 6 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ye, C., Seo, D., Desouza, K., Papagari, S., Jha, S.: Post-adoption switching between technology substitutes: the case of web browsers. In: ICIS 2006 Proceedings, pp. 1940–1958 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Murray, K.B., Häubl, G.: Explaining cognitive lock-in: the role of skill-based habits of use in consumer choice. J. Consum. Res. 34, 77–88 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wood, W., Neal, D.T.: The habitual consumer. J. Consum. Psychol. 19, 579–592 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rumelt, R.P.: Precis of inertia and transformation. In: Montgomery, C.A. (ed.) Resources in an Evolutionary Perspective: Towards a Synthesis of Evolutionary and Resource-Based Approaches to Strategy, pp. 101–132. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Polites, G.L., Karahanna, E.: The embeddedness of information systems habits in organizational and individual level routines: development and disruption. MIS Q. 37, 221–246 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smollan, R.: Engaging with resistance to change. Univ. Auckland Bus. Rev. 13, 12 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barnes, W., Gartland, M., Stack, M.: Old habits die hard: path dependency and behavioral lock-in. J. Econ. Issues 38, 371–377 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim, K.: Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: a status quo bias perspective. MIS Q. 33, 567 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.2307/20650309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27, 425–478 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I.: Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 2, 192–222 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bovey, W.H., Hede, A.: Resistance to organisational change: the role of defence mechanisms. J. Manag. Psychol. 16, 534–548 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E., Mothersbaugh, D.L., Beatty, S.E.: The positive and negative effects of switching costs on relational outcomes. J. Serv. Res. 9, 335–355 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thompson, R.L., Higgins, C.A.: Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Q. 15, 125–143 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., Angst, C.M.: Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology acceptance. MIS Q. 30, 781–804 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vogelsang, K., Liere-Netheler, K., Packmohr, S., Hoppe, U.: Barriers to digital transformation in manufacturing: development of a research agenda. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2019)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    D’Este, P., Iammarino, S., Savona, M., von Tunzelmann, N.: What hampers innovation? Revealed barriers versus deterring barriers. Res. Policy 41, 482–488 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tan, E., Pearce, N.: Open education videos in the classroom: exploring the opportunities and barriers to the use of YouTube in teaching introductory sociology. Res. Learn. Technol. 19, 7783 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v19s1/7783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shnai, I.: Systematic review of challenges and gaps in flipped classroom implementation: toward future model enhancement. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on e-Learning ECEL, pp. 484–490 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christin Voigt
    • 1
  • Kristin Vogelsang
    • 1
  • Kirsten Liere-Netheler
    • 1
  • Linda Blömer
    • 1
  • Henning Brink
    • 1
  • Uwe Hoppe
    • 1
  1. 1.OsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations