UTL510 Assessment 2 S328527

PSY504 Biological and Neurological Perspectives on Disorders is a core component

of 1st year in the Master in Psychology (Clinical) program at Charles Darwin
University. This Unit has a small cohort of 11 domestic students who study full-time
in internal mode due to Psychology Accreditation standards. Taking advantage of
this traditional mode of teaching (Bates, 2015), I make use of two different teaching
approaches to achieve my teaching goals and learning outcomes: (1) create a
dialectical environment, in which information is transmitted to students within a
lecture that encourages enquiry and discussion, utilising Socratic techniques for
learning (Hickey, 2014); and (2) create a social environment in which students work
together to apply the knowledge learnt, utilising social constructivist techniques for
learning (Hickey, 2014). The typical mode of study changed from internal to external
in Week 06 of Semester 1 as a result of COVID-19 restrictions. Initial transitioning of
PSY504 to external mode using the same approaches as above was not successful
as technological issues broke down the rapidity and depth of engagement. A
decision was, therefore, made to flip the classroom, wherein students are introduced
to the requisite content at home then come to the online class to work through the
content together (Hamden et al., 2013), in order to preserve the effectiveness of
teaching. To assess whether or not this change in the structure of the class achieved
the desired outcome (maintaining a quality learning environment), a review process
was actioned.
Method
The enacted review process had three components, including peer-review, student
feedback, and self-reflection. Initiating this review process required first identification
of what aspect/s of the teaching process upon which I wanted to reflect or I wanted
reviewed; given the context detailed above, I wanted the review process to focus on
whether or not the selection of a flipped-classroom approach to learning was an
appropriate student-focused solution that enabled meaningful, interactive exchange
between student-teacher and student-student, whilst circumventing decrements to
interaction due to technological difficulties; thus fostering an effective learning space.
To initiate the peer review process, I invited a colleague, Hamid Karimi, who is
a Lecturer in Speech Pathology, to join my online classroom. Hamid was aware of
the lesson context and he was provided with the lesson plan beforehand so that he
can use it as a benchmark by which to review my teaching. To help Hamid frame his
review of the lesson more clearly, we utilised the Centre for the Study of Higher
Education model of peer review (Farrell, 2011). This model emphasises reciprocal
exchange, wherein Hamid and I both act as reviewee and review for each other.
Hamid and I are not from the same discipline, same classification nor have the same
number of teaching experience years. As such, we can approach each other’s
lessons with “fresh eyes”, within a flat non-hierarchical structure, and turn the review
process into one that is iterative rather than uni-directional. Within this model, the
role of the reviewer (in this case Hamid) is to act as a silent observer, which keeps
review process casual, so that I can teach naturally and give Hamid an honest
perspective of my instruction method/s.
To initiate the student review process, I asked students to provide me with
their feedback either verbally or via e-mail following class completion to get their
perspective about how the lesson went. The change in the teaching approach was
instigated following a student poll to determine the best way to approach teaching
UTL510 Assessment 2 S328527

this Unit in online, external mode. The poll indicated that students wanted more self-
paced learning that made use of different online platforms to deliver the course
content. Hence, given that the change in teaching approach was instigated by
student feedback, I wanted to know whether the change met their expectations and
needs.
The last part of the process is self-reflection, which will be relayed herein as
descriptions of reactions, feelings and observations about the lesson for evaluation.

Criterion and Review

Four criterion were used by the peer-reviewer to provide feedback on the lesson: (1)
enthusiasm and stimulating curiosity. This criterion required assessment of whether
or not the methods and strategies I used attracted and maintained student
enthusiasm and interest, in addition to my own reflection of the extent to which I
found the lesson engaging; (2) effective communication. This criterion required
assessment of whether or not my interpersonal skills were adequate in building
rapport and relaying the content, in addition to my own reflection of what aspects of
my presentation skills could use improvement; (3) critical thinking and student
learning. This criterion required assessment of whether or not the methods and
strategies I used encouraged students’ participation, in addition to my own reflection
of whether or not I could gauge a leap in students’ understanding of the content; and
(4) session mechanics. This criterion required assessment of whether or not the
lesson structure was appropriate given its objectives, in addition to my reflection on
the appropriateness of the resources I used. These criterion were selected as they
assess different components of the lesson including its objectives, materials, student
participation, classroom management and my teaching style. Collection of such a
wide array of data would highlight areas that require improvement in the flipped
classroom approach for formulation of tangible solutions and concrete discussions,
and areas that worked successfully when flipping.
On the basis of the aforementioned criteria, Hamid was asked to provide me
with feedback in written-form. Below is a summation of the feedback that I received:

1. “Shahd was great in stimulating curiosity…students enthusiastically

participated in all quizzes/discussions…I liked the way Shahd grouped
students to groups of 3 people and provided them with opportunity to
discuss related practical subjects…I found the pre-recorded section less
engaging… the monotonous and high rate of speech … could be
improved”.

2. “Shahd frequently asked students such questions as “Is that make

sense?”, which was great for checking their understanding.,,however, at
time, she did not wait for students’ responses … I liked the way Shahd
phrased/ rephrased students’ written questions before answering them...
when she switched between different presentations, she made sure that all
students can see her slides ... Shahd was pretty good at paying attention
to students.”

3. “Shahd used an appropriate pace of speech and loudness. Her speech

was completely clear, and the answers were to the point. I liked the way
she interacts with students in group discussions and she provided very
UTL510 Assessment 2 S328527

good topics from real clinical life for discussions which was attractive and
practical…I liked to see more pauses after asking questions or when she
described a concept in pre-recorded session so that the students could
digest those concepts easier…I believe she was successful in making a
good rapport with her students … the flow of the class activity was
smooth.”

4. “I believe Shahd spent good amounts of time on preparing the class

materials and for presenting the concepts. I really liked her teaching
methodology. She started the class by greeting with students and then
created a fun activity to attract all participants. She concluded the class by
reviewing previous conversations and by letting students know about the
topic of next session. The time management was great, and she
completed the session on-time. I also liked the way she made a couple of
pre-recorded lectures instead of one long one which might be too long to
follow.”

The feedback students provided were in-line with that of the peer-reviewer.
Students noted that the “move to pre-recorded information delivery with quiz/tute for
face-to-face time was incredibly useful for … learning.” They found that the
“transition to online learning has been really great” because the results of the earlier
consultation was fed into the design and delivery of content. As a result, students
noted that they “felt a great deal of comfort during this time” and that they “are
getting the same learning experience from home because of the effective way
[lectures are delivered] and all the additional material … provided on LearnLine to
consolidate learning.”
In all, it seems that flipping the classroom facilitated student-focused learning
in external (online) mode, circumventing the technological issues (network drop-outs,
microphone issues, slow interaction, etc.) that were detracting from application of the
Socratic and Social Constructivist approaches in online mediums (e.g., Hickey,
2014).

Self-Reflection

Fostering an interactive lecture environment using a communication platform

(LearnLine, Microsoft Teams, etc.) that was susceptible to internet connectivity
(drop-outs) and technological suitability (no/poor microphone) issues proved difficult
following transition to external teaching; in short, the quick and meaningful exchange
that typically subserved Socratic approaches was not achieved. The Social
Constructivist portion of the class is dependent on the students having an
environment in which they can collaborate with each other to produce a body of
work. Fostering social interaction in real-time using a communication platform that
allowed only voice discussions or short messages proved difficult; in short, the Social
Constructivist approach was not achieved as students were unable to build in-depth
work together. Flipping the classroom was used as a way to circumvent these issues
as it, should enable students to come to the online class prepared to engage with the
content via discourse and class activities that clarify concepts, contextualise
knowledge, and test application (Anderson et al., 2001); in short, it is self-paced
UTL510 Assessment 2 S328527

learning that accounts for technological issues, thereby reducing associated

frustration and lack of enthusiasm.
As I reflect on the lesson, I believe that I was successful in better engaging
the students because they were thinking critically and actively participating in the
quiz, practical activity and any ensuing discussion/s. There is room for improvement;
they would have been more engaged if I provided more pointed questions to open
the floor to discussion and more practical examples of the content (Executive
Functioning Disorders), in addition to providing room for content digestion and asking
questions.
By improving student engagement, I believe the students learnt what I had set
out to teach them (i.e., my instructional goals and objectives were met); indeed,
students correctly applied their new knowledge of Executive Functioning Disorder s
diagnosis and assessment to both the quizzes and the practical activities. Student
learning may have been more effective, though, if I had broken up the pre-recorded
lectures into even shorter segments to make the dense content even more
digestable.
I did not need to alter any of my activities as I taught the lesson; I was able to
assess gaps in students’ knowledge by application of a Kahoots! Quiz. I used
students’ responses to the quiz questions as a way to determine whether or not I
needed to review any of the pre-recorded lecture material, and I did that instantly
following each response; the depth of the review depended on the number of
students who responded inaccurately so as to make sure that no student is left
behind, but also that no student feels bored that the material is not sufficiently
challenging. Following administration of the Kahoots! Quiz, the students worked on a
practical activity in pre-assigned groups using Padlet. At the end, we re-grouped and
each group presented their work to the rest of the class. This wrap-up session
provides students another opportunity to solidify their learning. I believe this lesson
structure was effective because it scaffolded learning, thereby increasing student
confidence and rapport in the classroom between myself and the students and the
students amongst each other, which, as a result, students felt increasingly safe to
share their ideas about the content either via messaging during the lesson or by
using their microphone to speak. The scaffolding of the lesson made students much
more likely to pursue discussion in line with Socratic and Social Constructivist
learning, which contributed to their learning.
Through engaging activities like Kahoot! and Padlet, this lesson allowed
students to collaborate with me and each other in order to achieve the goal of
learning. Splitting the students into small groups allowed all students an opportunity
to share their ideas via voice and/or video calls, even those who are typically shy.
Assessment, whilst informal, occurred at every level of the lesson, but the wrap-up
session, specifically, gave me a quick way to assess knowledge through a student-
centred environment in which students shared what they have discovered with each
other. I was able to hear a substantial difference in students’ thinking as they were
able to address cause-effect issues and appraise the implications of the knowledge
they have gained to their future clinical practice; I tried to give specific verbal
feedback to guide them in the direction that I wanted them to head and praise their
correct responses.
UTL510 Assessment 2 S328527

Evaluation
The findings of the review process are, overall, favourable. The flipped classroom
approach worked within this context because it provided students with an opportunity
to explore content and concepts at their own pace by listening to the pre-recorded,
podcast-like lectures and completing the LearnLine activities, it then provided
students with an opportunity to reflect on that content exploration through completion
of the Kathoots! Quiz, and to demonstrate and apply their understanding by
completing the practical in Padlet. In essence, flipping the classroom repurposed the
classtime such that it allowed for both the teacher-guided aspects that are central to
the Socratic approach and learner-guided aspects that are central to the Social
Constructivist approach to successfully occur across multiple online mediums,
thereby providing students with an opportunity to revisit concepts, clear up
misconceptions, assist in accessibility concerns, assist in peer learning through
collaborative projects, and shift priorities from covering materials to mastering
materials (Berhmann & Sams, 2012). Indeed students’ feedback indicates they see
the value in this structure of learning, at least given their current learning context.
There is, however, always room for further improvement: (1) making the pre-
recorded lecture more engaging in presentation; and (2) asking more directed
questions during the content review and providing more opportunity for content
digestion and questioning. The former can be resolved by pre-recording the lecture
in a lecture space as opposed to my office, which would allow for me to be more
performative, and the latter can be resolved by jotting down prior to class pointed
questions to ask students not to gauge their understanding (as that is the purpose of
the Kahoots! Quiz), but, rather, to continuously draw them into the material. In
listening to Hamid’s lecture, I found that he continuously engaged students in this
way by asking them questions that required reflection rather than knowledge testing,
and it was evident throughout the lecture that student engagement with the material
increased as they were more able to relate it back to their lived experience.
Improving in those areas can take my instruction to the proverbial next level.

Conclusion
The reflection process, as detailed above, has been instrumental in allowing me to
become more aware of the importance of high-quality teacher-student and student-
student interactions to maximise students’ learning, and it has highlighted the value
of using action research approaches (drawing on alternative teaching strategies) to
help students learn when familiar methods do not work. The primary component of
this reflection process has been receipt of iterative feedback at all levels: peer
reviewer and student, as it has allowed me to continually adapt the strategy I use to
better approximate the students’ needs within this new, external context of learning.
UTL510 Assessment 2 S328527

References
Anderson, L. W., and Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning,
teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational
objectives. New York: Longman.
Bates, A.W. (2015). Teaching in a digital age. BC Open Textbook. Retrieved from:
https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/
Bergmann, J. & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: reach every student in every
class every day, ISTE and ASCD.
Farrell, K. (2011). Collegial Feedback on Teaching: A guide to peer review.
Retrieved from: https://melbourne-
cshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/2297293/Peer_review_guid
e_web_optimized.pdf
Hamden, N., et al. (2013). A Review of Flipped Learning. Retrieved
from: www.flippedlearning.org
Hickey, G. (2014) The Importance of Learning Philosophies on Technology Selection
in Education. Journal of Learning Design, 7 (3). Retrieved
from: https://www.jld.edu.au/article/view/184