Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.295-312 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.28.1.201803.295,, Analysis on the Experience and Intention of Acceptance, Attitude of Use, Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use about Flipped Learning of University professor Purpose: This study explored the relationship between the intention of using flipped learning, the attitude of use, and perception and ease of perception as a result of the professor's flipped learning experience in college education. Method: The multivariate ANOVA was performed to analyze the statistical significance of the two groups according to the teachers' experience of flipped learning, experience of teaching method, experience requirement, and type of subject. Results: First, According to the professor's experiences of flipped learning, there were differences in intention to use, attitude to use, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use. second, Flipped Learning related teaching method the presence or absence of participation was not statistically significant for the professor's Flipped Learning usage degree, usage attitude, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use. Conclusion: It is necessary to provide the opportunity for the instructor to strengthen the practical ability to understand the procedures and steps of flip learning and to be able to progress the lesson proficiently. In addition, it is necessary to prepare a plan to share the instructional design support of the instructor and the successful case example for the successful flip learning lesson. Key words: Flipped Learning, Intention of Acceptance, Attitude of Use, Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use Corresponding Author: Park, Hye-Jin. Konkuk University, Institute for Innovation in Higher Education, 268 Chungwon-daero Chungju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do, KOREA, e-mail: phj4858@kku.ac.kr
. (Action Learning), (Problem-Based Learning), (Project-Based Learning), (Team-Based Learning) -. -, (,,, 2014;,,, 2017;,,, 2017;,,,, 2014;, 2015). ICT(Information and Communications Technology) -,. - -,,, (,,, 2016;, 2017;,, 2014;,,,, 2014;,, 2016;,,,, 2015; Bergmann, Overmyer, & While, 2013)..,. (,,, 2016;,,, 2014;, 2015).., (, 2015; Goodwin & Miller, 2013; Wilson, 2013).,.. -,.
,,,, -, (, 2017;,, 2014;,,,, 2014;,,,, 2015; Butt, 2014; Davies, Dean, & Ball, 2013; Frydenberg, 2013; Kim, Park, & Joo, 2014).,.,..,...,,, (,,, 2017; Rogers, 2003)., (,,, 2016;,,, 2014;, 2015;,, 2015).,..,,.., (, ),,?, (, ),,?, (, ),,?
.,,, (, 2014;,,,, 2015). (2015) PARTNER (Preparation) (Assessment) (Relevance) (Team Activity) (Nub Lecture) (Evaluation) (Reflection) 7., (, ) (, ) (,,, 2016;, 2015;,,,, 2015). < -1>. - ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) () () ( /) -, (,, / ) - (LMS) -, - (, ( )) - (,, PBL, TBL,,, ) - -,,.,,. (,, 2015;,,,, 2015; Bergmann, Overmyer, & While, 2013).,,
.,,.,,.,,,, (, 2017;,, 2015;,, 2012; Herreid & Schiller, 2013)., -..,,.., (, 2015). (,,,, 2014),,,.,,. (Technology Acceptance Model, TAM)., (, 2013;,,, 2015;,,, 2016; Davis, 1989).,,.,,. (,, 2012;,, 2017; Davis, 1989).
1) 플립러닝활용에대한태도 (, 2014).., (,,, 2015; Park, 2009)., (, 2013;,, 2012;, 2011; Davis, 1989)., (, 2014). 2) 지각된유용성과용이성.,.., (, 2013;,, 2011;,, 2017; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989; Bagozzi, Davis, & Warshaw, 1992).,.,, (, 2013;,, 2012;,, 2017)..
.,.,,. A 120 ( 89.16%). 102. < -1>. ( ) 71 31 33 69 58 44 31 71 (%) 69.61 30.39 32.35 67.65 56.86 43.14 30.39 69.61 (%) 102(100) 102(100) 102(100) 102(100), MOOC ICT -. (, 2015;, 2013;,, 2012). (, 2017;,, 2017), (, 2013;, 2017;,, 2017) (, 2013;,, 2012;, 2011), 5 20. < -2>.
M SD Cronbach s α. 3.69.90. 3.67.97. 3.41.91. 3.59.84.92. 3.64.90. 3.74.82. 3.64.79. 3.75.88. 3.86.87 (, ). 3.65.91. 3.71.79. 3.71.86. 3.70.82. 3.61.86. 3.58.84. 3.31.89. 3.37.78. 2.93 1.03. 3.05.97. 3.27.96.91.91.87, MS-Excel, SAS ver 9.3.,, Crobach s α.,,,,, (One-Way MANOVA). Box M, Wilks Lambda. Box M Pillai s trace (,,,, 2017)..,,
., (,, 2008;,,,, 2017). < -1>.50.86. 1.00.86 *** 1.00.73 ***.74 *** 1.00.57 ***.56 ***.61 *** 1.00 *** p<.001 1. (, ),.,, 4. < -2>. *** p<.001 M SD (n) (33) 4.12.61 (69) 3.35.75 (33) 4.09.55 (69) 3.55.75 (33) 3.95.72 (69) 3.52.67 (33) 3.53.84 (69) 3.02.66 (One-Way MANOVA) Type MS DF F SS 13.35 13.35 1 26.89 *** 6.30 6.30 1 13.03 *** 4.01 4.01 1 8.47 *** 5.67 5.67 1 10.85 *** Wilk's Lambda.7622 *** (,, ),
(Box M=30.056, p=.002). Pillai s Trace (,,,, 2017). p=.000. Wilks Lambda.7622, p.001..,,.05. < -2> 1 (F=26.89, p=.000), (F=13.03, p=.000), (F=8.47, p=.004), (F=10.85, p=.001) p.001 Ho: =.05. (M=4.12) (M=4.09), (M=3.95), (M=3.53). 2. (, ),. 2,, 4. < -3>. M SD (n) (58) 3.61.82 (44) 3.58.76 (58) 3.73.75 (44) 3.72.73 (58) 3.65.77 (44) 3.67.65 (58) 3.15.74 (44) 3.24.79 (One-Way MANOVA) Type MS DF F SS.02.02 1.03.00.00 1.01.01.01 1.03.19.19 1.34 Wilk's Lambda.9925
(,, ), (Box M=16.952, p=.094). Wilks Lambda.9925, p.05.,,. < -3> 2 (F=.03, p=.858), (F=.01, p=.930), (F=.03, p=.864), (F=.34, p=.56) p.05. Ho: =.05,,,. 3. (, ),.,, 4. M SD (n) (31) 3.30 1.00 (71) 3.73.64 (31) 3.48.90 (71) 3.83.63 (31) 3.58.65 (71) 3.69.74 (31) 3.24.80 (71) 3.16.74 * p<.05, ** p<.01 (One-Way MANOVA) Type MS DF F SS 3.87 3.87 1 6.55 * 2.60 2.60 1 5.00 *.27.27 1.53.15.15 1.27 Wilk's Lambda.8724 **
(,, ), (Box M=46.430, p=.000). Pillai s Trace (,,,, 2017). p=.010. Wilks Lambda.8724, p.01.,,,,.01. < -4>. < -4> (F=6.55, p=.012), (F=5.00, p=.028) p.001 Ho: α=.05. (F=.53, p=.467), (F=.27, p=.606) p.001 Ho: α=.05.. (M=3.73) (M=3.83)...,,,,,.., (F=26.89, p=.000), (F=13.03, p=.000), (F=8.47, p=.004), (F=10.85, p=.001).,,.,,, (2017). (2015)
(2017),. Strayer(2016),., (F=.03, p=.858), (F=.01, p=.930), (F=.03, p=.864), (F=.34, p=.56).,,,. (2015),,.., (F=6.55, p=.012), (F=5.00, p=.028).05, (F=.53, p=.467) (F=.27, p=.606).,. (, ),.. (2016),,,, -.,., (M=2.93, SD=1.03), (M=3.05, SD=.97).,,.,.
,,, (2017), (2014).,,,..,,,,,..,.,,,.,,. (, ).,,, (2014). MOOC. (2), 149-151. (2015).,,,..,, (2016). (Flipped Learning). (2), 181-207.,, (2014). (Flipped Learning) :. (3), 467-492. (2015).,,
,.. (2013)..., (2016). Flipped Classroom -. (4), 733-753.,, (2017). ICT. (2), 23-48. (2017)... (2014). (Flipped Learning). (3), 107-120., (2012).. (1), 51-75.,, (2015).. (1), 1-25., (2015). (Flipped Learning). (1), 81-97., (2014). (Flipped classroom). (4), 299-319. (2015).. 179-202.,, (2017).. (3), 549-578. (2014). :., (2011). UI : TAM. (20), 1-20. (2017). (MOOCs).. (2014). (Flipped classroom). (1), 87-116. (2015)...,,, (2014). Flipped Learning. (9), 313-323.,, (2014). (Flipped Learning).
(2), 163-191., (2008). :. (2015)..., (2014).. (1), 75-87., (2012).. (2), 285-310. (2015). (Flipped Learning). (2), 199-217. (2014). Flipped classroom.. (2017). MOOC :,,. (2), 316-343.,, (2016).,,,. (2), 53-72. (2011). Social Network Service.., (2017). MOOC,,. (3), 1-21., (2016). Flipped learning. (2), 76-82., (2015). Flipped learning. (2), 77-88.,,, (2017).. 17-R05,.,,, (2015).. (1), 1-38. Bagozzi, R. P., Davis, F. D., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Development and Test of a Theory of Technological learning and Usage. Human Relations, 45(7), 659-686. Bergmann, J., Overmyer, J., & While, B. (2013). The flipped class: Myths vs. reality. Retrieved from http:// www.thedailyriff.com/articles/the-flipped-class-conversation-689.php.
Butt, A. (2014). Student views on the use of a flipped classroom approach: Evidence from Australia. Business Education & Accreditation, 6(1), 33-43. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, And User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshow, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563-580. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6. Frydenberg, M. (2013). Flipped excel. Information Systems Educational Journal, 11(1), 63-73. Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Research says: Evidence on flipped classrooms is still coming in. Educational leadership, 70(6), 78-80. Herreid, C., & Schiller, N. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42, 62-66. Kim, S. H., Pack, N. H., & Joo, K. H. (2014). Effects of flipped classrooms based on smart learning on self-directed and collaborative learning. International Journal of Control and Automation, 7(12), 69-80. doi:10.14257/ijca.2017.7.12.07. Park, S. Y. (2009). An Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students Behavioral Intention to Use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150-162. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovation(5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Strayer, J. F. (2016). Designing instruction for flipped classrooms. In C. M. Reigeluth, B. J., Beatty, & Myers, R. D. (Eds.). Instructional-design theories and models, Volume : The Learner-centered paradigm of education (pp. 321-349). New York: Routledge. Wilson, S. G. (2013). The flipped class: A method to address the challenges of an undergraduate statistics course. Teaching of Psychology, 40, 193-199. : 2018.01.31. / : 2018.02.12. / : 2018.03.20.
,, :,,. :, A. :,,,,,.,,,,.,,.,,.. :..