1. Emma Senior & Mark Telford.
Evaluating student experience of in-class
and out-class activity within a flipped classroom
approach.
©2015 Emma Senior and Mark Telford Northumbria University. All material provided subject to copyright permission.

2. Challenges Academic Student Engagement Topic
Professional drivers (DoH & NMC Council).
Make ‘face to face’ sessions count.
Greater utilization of self directed learning and class time.
Support knowledge retention & creative enquiry.
Scaffold the students learning.
Staff engagement.
Engagement
Topic
Inter-Professional Learning
2. Enable application of theory in a safe environment prior to practice.
©2015 Emma Senior and Mark Telford Northumbria University. All material provided subject to copyright permission.

3. The Flipped Classroom model.
: Flipped classroom approach. Embedding technology into the curriculum required careful consideration in pedagogical design. In particular online or face-to-face activity should be dependent on the knowledge to be conveyed, the task at hand and the desired outcomes (Fleck 2012, Abeysekera & Dawson 2014). The main aims of this project were: For students to develop a greater appreciation of Inter professional learning. Improved student engagement with the subject matter through active learning. Greater utilization of self-directed learning to increase information-transmission teaching. In-class time to promote peer learning and problem solving. Standardise delivery and after initial development see a reduction in teaching load.
The project involved development and implementation of five online interactive educational packages which replaced traditional lectures. Reflective of the ‘flipped classroom’ methodology these are completed prior to the in-class active learning sessions. In order to scaffold the learning both the summative assessment and the subsequent seminars and practical’s were constructively aligned to the five online interactive educational packages engaging the student in achieving the module learning outcomes.
©2015 Emma Senior and Mark Telford Northumbria University. All material provided subject to copyright permission.

4. Context to the mixed methods research evaluation.
What did we do? The aim of the evaluation was to look at the e learning sessions/material only within the context of the module.
©2015 Emma Senior and Mark Telford Northumbria University. All material provided subject to copyright permission.

5. Examples.
©2015 Emma Senior and Mark Telford Northumbria University. All material provided subject to copyright permission.

6. Examples.
©2015 Emma Senior and Mark Telford Northumbria University. All material provided subject to copyright permission.

7. Quantitative Evaluation Results
420 students were asked to complete the questionnaire.
265 respondents. Response rate of 63%.
Professional groups who responded:
125 Adult Nursing
19 MH Nursing
27 Children’s Nursing
17 LD Nursing
19 Midwifery
22 OT
21 Physiotherapy
14 ODP.
©2015 Emma Senior and Mark Telford Northumbria University. All material provided subject to copyright permission.

8. Descriptive Statistics
Quantitative Evaluation Results
Descriptive Statistics N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Activity Quiz
264
4.54
1.525
Activity Fast facts
4.67
1.585
Activity Carousel
4.40
1.537
Activity Booklet
263
1.581
Activity Visual clips
262
4.90
1.613
Activity Web links
1.513
Activity Click to reveal
4.78
1.504
Activity Time line
4.70
1.556
Valid N (listwise)
261
To evaluate how the eLearning activities enabled the students to learn a seven point likert scale was utilised (0 –Did not help my learning at all, 1- Not much help for my learning, 2-
Neither helpful or unhelpful for learning, 3-Helped my learning a little, 4-Helped my learning somewhat, 5-Helped my learning a lot and 6-Helped my learning greatly). From the analysis of these statistics it is interesting to note that participants learning was assisted through the use of visual clips and web links as activities within the eLearning resources. The carousel and booklet activities were the least favourable amongst the participants when considering how they ‘helped’ their learning.
Correlation of e learning activities: (Table would be too small to present.)
This element of the questionnaire was further analysed utilising the Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient to test the statistical dependence between two variables (activities). From this, a strength was noted that those participants who found one of the eLearning activities helpful to their learning, it was the same for all.
©2015 Emma Senior and Mark Telford Northumbria University. All material provided subject to copyright permission.

9. Quantitative Evaluation Results
Correlations
Amount of e-learning
Amount of face to face
Spearman's rho
Correlation Coefficient
1.000
-.150*
Sig. (2-tailed) .
.015 N
265
Participants were then asked to rate the amount of eLearning and face-to-face contact in the module utilising an alternative 3 point Likert scale (too little, about right, too much).
Interestingly when the students were asked about the amount of eLearning in the module, and the amount of face to face contact with an academic where students identified there was too much eLearning we tested the hypothesise whether they also perceived that the amount of face to face contact was too little. The results from applying the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient showed that this was not significant
A significant finding applying the Mann Whitney U test showed that ODP’s in comparison to other healthcare professionals (non-nursing) found that the eLearning resources were not relevant to the practical’s and seminars, did not allow flexibility in their learning, were not easily accessible and did help them to learn. In addition to this a significant finding was that the ODP students evaluated the eLearning activities as less helpful to their learning in comparison to other healthcare professional students (non-nursing). There was an exception here relating to the use of web links. Learning Disability Nursing evaluated in a very similar way. Why do we think this? Not a scientific answer and may be further explored in the qualitative element of the Evaluation Study.
Gender difference relating to accessibility of e learning materials and nursing students found them more accessible than other health care professional students.
©2015 Emma Senior and Mark Telford Northumbria University. All material provided subject to copyright permission.

10. Sustainability and next steps.
Qualitative evaluation:
focus groups completed
thematic analysis planned.
? Here or move to the final slide
©2015 Emma Senior and Mark Telford Northumbria University. All material provided subject to copyright permission.

11. Thank you for listening. Any questions:
©2015 Emma Senior. Northumbria University. All material provided subject to copyright permission.