bk-2016-1235.ch004

Chapter 4

Downloaded by PURDUE UNIV on November 29, 2016 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 22, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1235.ch004

Combining Educational Technologies for Student Engagement in the Chemistry Classroom Ginger P. Redd,*,1 Thomas C. Redd,2 Tracie O. Lewis,3 and Etta C. Gravely1 1Department

of Chemistry, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, 1601 East Market Street, Greensboro, North Carolina 27411, United States 2Department of Mathematics, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, 1601 East Market Street, Greensboro, North Carolina 27411, United States 3Instructional Technology Services & Distance Education, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, 1601 East Market Street, Greensboro, North Carolina 27411, United States *E-mail: [email protected]

There is a surge in the implementation of educational technologies for improving student learning in STEM. The use of classroom response systems and content authoring software are examples of the latest technologies for student engagement. Combined, these tools can transform lessons into engaging student-centered, active learning experiences. We present an implementation strategy, in the pedagogical context of improving learning in the chemistry classroom.

Introduction A distinction has been made between using a technology-based tool and truly incorporating technology into the learning cycle in a pedagogical sense (1–4). While technology can be an effective tool to aid in course content delivery (lectures, assignments, etc.), general information exchange (grades, due dates, progress), and organization (assignment submissions, returns, group communications), to influence student learning requires a deeper level of © 2016 American Chemical Society Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


technology incorporation. In addition, for some of the more recent pedagogical trends towards the use of flipped classrooms and active learning environments, identifying effective technological tools and ways to meaningfully incorporate them into the classroom is essential (5–9). To exploit the benefits of technology in the classroom, a shift towards student centered learning must be made, and its implementation should result in two-way communications, often with real-time feedback for both the student and the instructor. If the thought is followed to conclusion, it suggests a move away from passive learning and towards a cooperative (between teacher and student), collaborative (between students), and active learning based experience (6, 10). During the course of a study on undergraduate STEM reform, it was found that by involving the students more in the learning process, perceived student responsibility was increased, perceived faculty authority was decreased, and the learning process was made more interactive (11, 12). While the general feelings of both faculty and students were positive towards a more interactive, technology based educational experience; several factors can inhibit an instructor’s ability to incorporate technology into their courses. Issues such as a lack of appropriate supporting materials (textbooks, workbooks, etc.), time loss for covering material due to the increased time necessary to facilitate group discussions, and campus paradigms for faculty evaluation and the lack of appropriate tools for the evaluation of faculty using an active learning based delivery system all served as stagnation points in the reform efforts. Globally, there have been many efforts made to identify some of the major obstacles to incorporating more technology into the learning environment, at both the secondary and postsecondary levels. There are significant issues that can affect an institution’s ability to incorporate technology into the learning environment. Based on previous studies, issues of 1) how well a school shifts its focus and expectations to reflect a move towards autonomous learning, 2) availability of infrastructure, 3) availability of training and support personnel for implementation and 4) how well leadership within a school supports the efforts all serve as obstacles which must be addressed to move successfully towards a more technology infused learning paradigm (13–17). As an example, the factors influencing teacher adoption rates were investigated in a Korean study. Not surprisingly, the study found that, while most teachers planned to use technology to support teaching and learning, teachers with little experience were much more likely to incorporate technology into their classrooms voluntarily, while more experienced teachers often had to be compelled to do so. In fact, responding to external requests (such as from administrators or subject area coordinators for the school system) was cited as the primary motivating factor for many of the teachers who infused technology into their classrooms (18, 19). The authors found that it is not enough to incorporate mechanically the use of technology in the classroom (e.g. using it as a mechanism for content delivery), but that the use of technology should be organically infused into the lesson in a way that enhances student learning. A similar study was performed in the Netherlands (13). The study examined the factors impacting educators’ use of information and communication technology (ICT) and their ability to develop innovative applications of it in the 68 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


classroom. While national and local support and mandates were cited as factors that contribute to the success or failure of the initiatives, they were not found to be singularly responsible for any particular outcome on student learning. In addition, factors such as ICT competence and teacher attitudes were found to be necessary but not sufficient for innovative use of ICT. While several conclusions were drawn, of note was the profile of the teacher who was most likely to use ICT successfully in the classroom. The teacher would likely be willing to maintain contact with colleagues and experts in the area, value the advantages of incorporating ICT in the classroom, have a student-oriented approach to education, and have a sufficient ICT competence that is in alignment with the individual’s preferred pedagogical approach. Technological tools that can aid in learning include Classroom Response Systems (such as “clickers”), Content Delivery Systems (such as “SoftChalk”), and Learning Management Systems (such as Blackboard). The tools are not inherently mutually exclusive; there is often overlap in the capabilities of each of the technologies. The Learning Management Systems will often contain both content delivery and assessment capabilities but may not be optimized for immediate student feedback. Similarly, Classroom Response Systems excel at immediate feedback but may only have rudimentary capabilities for assessment and may not provide a deep well of tools for classroom management. More important than the capabilities of the tools is how they can be incorporated in a meaningful, pedagogical sense to aid in student learning in the classroom (4).

Motivations for Incorporating Technological Tools The abundance of technology based tools available and their wide range of capabilities, as compared to the limited resources often available to a department or possibly even an institution as a whole, makes it important to be able to identify what technological tools are most appropriate for a given classroom or classroom objective. Static instruction usually involves little to no interactivity and non-dynamic elements that are typically teacher-centered. The static nature of the lecture delivery involves low-level learning, interaction, or engagement for students (20, 21). Tuovinen (22) identified learner-content interaction, when the student interacts with materials being studied, as the most critical form of interaction. Interactive lessons often contain several elements that encourage student activity and interaction in real time and keep students engaged with the content and instructional materials. Including images and videos in a lesson breaks the monotony of plain, text-based lessons that tend to lose the interest of some learners. Animated images can be used, but with caution in order to avoid distraction from the content (19). Adaptive learning technologies give students follow-up materials based on their performance or response to a designated activity or set of questions (23). They provide real-time updates according to each submission by the student. Thus, allowing the learners to facilitate their mastery of the content. 69 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Based on a review of several implementations, it is clear that technology use in the classroom should do more than provide a convenient and attractive medium for one-way information transfer. Administrative policy dictates and the development of “best practices” by one faculty member to be used as a blanket approach by all other faculty members or institutions in a system should be avoided as well (18, 24–27). Change for the sake of change relative to instructional practices is not effective and is borderline dangerous. Factors such as teacher training, student demographics, preparation, and cultural differences can all serve as obstacles to a one size fits all approach to teaching and learning (28, 29). Successful incorporation of technology should 1) address directly the beliefs of the individuals involved, 2) involve long-term interventions (longer than a semester) and 3) adapt to the specific institution at which it is being implemented (13, 26).

Location of Study North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University is an 1890 land-grant university, located in Greensboro, North Carolina, USA. It is a public, doctoral university and is a member of the 17 campus University of North Carolina (UNC) system. At the time of the study, the Department of Chemistry resided in the College of Arts & Sciences (30). Context As of the Fall 2015 semester, the university enrolled 10,852 undergraduate and graduate students making it the largest member of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) with 87.1% of the student population identifying as being a racial minority (31). Approximately, 90.4% of the undergraduate student body are full-time degree seekers and 79.1% of the student body are in-state students. The university offers 55 undergraduate degrees, 31 master’s level degree programs and 9 doctoral programs, including degrees in Chemistry, Chemistry Education, and Chemical Engineering. The Fall 2015 cohort of students included 1,780 first time, full and part-time freshmen. The university employs 411 full time instructional staff with 15 full time instructional staff in the Department of Chemistry (32, 33). The university is ninth on the list of the top 100 baccalaureate producers for African-Americans in Physical Sciences for the 2013-2014 academic year and third on the list for master’s degrees over the same period (34). Three sections of CHEM 104 and three sections of CHEM 106 implemented the engagement activities. CHEM 104 is a general chemistry course designated primarily for students who major in Nursing or Psychology. CHEM 106 is a general chemistry course for students who are majoring in a science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) discipline. The typical student has an SAT math score of 490, or an SAT II math level II score of 470 or and ACT math score of 19 or successful completion of the introductory chemistry course, CHEM 103, with a grade of C or better. 70 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Both, the CHEM 104 and CHEM 106 courses, have a class size ranging between 50-60 students. Full-time faculty members teach them each in a 3-hour lecture format in an auditorium. The students are typically first or second semester freshmen. The CHEM 106 course is the first course in a two-course sequence. The CHEM 104 course is a terminal course; however, a sophomore may enroll based on the curriculum guide for their major. Due to the course size and the variations in educational preparation, it can be difficult to identify individual student needs and deficiencies. Introducing appropriate technological tools can help to provide instructors with a better sense of each student’s performance, as well as the performance of the class as a whole. The PLRS system developed by Frank Christ (35) offers four steps to the learning cycle: preview, lecture, review and study. In the interest of incorporating technology tools into the learning cycle, the instructors and students follow a model of The Study Cycle adapted from the PLRS system (36). Instructors enhanced The Study Cycle, Figure 1, to increase student engagement within each stage by incorporating educational technology.

Figure 1. Expanded version of The Study Cycle as applied to CHEM 104 and 106, infusing technology tools. Currently, the use of educational technologies is optional at NCAT. In 2013, the course coordinators for CHEM 104 and CHEM 106 adopted textbooks that provided an associated online learning component, MyLabsPlus, and its associated tools. Additionally, in 2014, the University set a mandate that faculty use Blackboard to host course grades, at a minimum. Given established access, it is the learning management system used for the study. We present a discussion of two additional technology based tools and implementation strategies, in the pedagogical context of improving learning in the chemistry classroom 1) via real-time assessment and feedback and 2) via both synchronous and asynchronous content delivery. The tools are components of a student-centered, active learning environment to enhance student comprehension, interaction and retention. 71 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


SoftChalk at North Carolina A&T State University In 2011, North Carolina A&T State University (NCAT) began using SoftChalk as a tool to create interactive and engaging lectures and instructional materials for online courses. Lectures in both face-to-face courses and online courses used heavily PowerPoint presentations. Presentations from face-to-face courses were uploaded to courses, both online and hybrid, in the Blackboard Learning Management System (LMS) without modification. Instructors reported to instructional technology support staff at NCAT that students were not accessing the lectures in Blackboard. In some cases, the students accessed lectures only moments or days prior to a test. During meetings, faculty expressed interest in products or tools that would encourage the students to access the lectures and review the materials in a timely fashion. Instructors wanted students to be active participants in the learning process and arrive prepared for face-to-face class sessions. SoftChalk was attractive to the instructional technology support staff because it allowed faculty to easily copy content and text from basic word processing documents, a tool that most faculty, staff, and students were comfortable using. SoftChalk allows faculty to add interactive media elements and activities to lessons quickly. These factors made it possible for instructors to enhance otherwise static lessons with images, videos, iFrames, questions, interactive activities, and text poppers, all examples of content enhancements available via SoftChalk. The SoftChalk license for NCAT provides access for all employees, including faculty and staff. A more attractive feature is the integration of SoftChalk with the Blackboard environment at NCAT. Integration addresses the issues associated with students failing to access content in a timely fashion as points or grades earned from activities and questions post automatically to the Blackboard Grade Center. Since the initial implementation, NCAT has invested in a SoftChalk Cloud account that allows faculty to modify and share lessons via the cloud rather than following the traditional process of resending or uploading edited versions of lessons. North Carolina A&T State University currently has over 200 SoftChalk accounts. Both academic and on-academic units create and share lessons, including: course lectures, Banner training, and graduate student orientations and training.

Clickers at North Carolina A&T State University North Carolina A&T State University has used a rapid response system for more than 10 years. However, there was not a standard clicker device for the campus until 2013. Initially, a few units on campus used the Turning Technologies clicker product, but interest and usage declined over time. In 2012, several instructors expressed an interest in using clicker products to increase effective management of their courses. Instructors wanted a method to track student attendance and to assess students’ comprehension of concepts and course content during class sessions. In addition, instructors wanted to encourage more student participation during face-to-face class sessions 72 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


The lack of a standard product for the campus led to visits and communications by numerous vendors regarding different clicker products. In some cases, students purchased different devices for different courses, which became costly for students and made it difficult for staff to support multiple products. Several academic and non-academic offices requested that the University identify a standard clicker product for the campus that prompted a pilot to test and evaluate different options. The Instructional Technology Services and Distance Education Department (ITSDE) selected Turning Technologies and iClicker as the vendors included in the pilot because these vendors provided hardware devices. Support staff determined that using hardware devices would be more reliable because the campus networking infrastructure, which has since been enhanced, could not support the use of multiple mobile devices in certain settings throughout the campus. Therefore, the pilot included vendors with hardware devices available for purchase from the bookstore. Vendors with no hardware devices were excluded from consideration. After instructor training provided by Turning Technologies and iClicker, the faculty conducted a pilot study during the spring 2013 semester. Both vendors provided devices for instructors and students to use in classes and for staff participants to use during meetings and other activities. Pilot participants were divided into two groups. One group used the Turning Technologies clicker and second group used the iClicker device. At the conclusion of the evaluation and testing period, the instructional technology support staff held focus groups to discuss the experiences of pilot participants. Surveys responses recommended the iClicker device as the clicker device for the campus. The University officially implemented use of the iClicker devices during the fall 2013 semester. The ITSDE office provided Instructor kits to faculty, upon request. Students purchased or rented clicker remotes through the University Bookstore. Also, the Blackboard building block for iClicker was installed, which allows students to register the clicker remote to our learning management system. This feature allows instructors to synchronize data and scores from class clicker sessions to the Grade Center of Blackboard. Instructors continue to successfully use iClicker devices and the iClicker mobile application, REEF Polling, in their classes.

Combining Educational Technologies in General Chemistry at North Carolina A&T State University Combining the use of Blackboard, a rapid response system and SoftChalk lessons can lead to a robust arsenal for student engagement in chemistry education. Using the three allows for frequent formative assessments that inform our learners of their knowledge and that aid in adapting instruction for improving upon learning gains. During the Fall 2015 semester, two full-time chemistry faculty members, each teaching three sections of general chemistry opted to work collaboratively in the instruction of CHEM 104 and CHEM 106 by incorporating the use of clickers during in-class sessions and implementing instructor-developed SoftChalk 73 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


lessons while continuing the use of online homework and quiz assignments via MyLabsPlus. Each instructor used the pre-developed clicker questions that accompanied the corresponding textbook adopted for the course. The students enrolled in CHEM 104 did not receive the same clicker questions as those students enrolled in CHEM 106. To increase student engagement, students were encouraged to collaborate on their thoughts through small group discussions prior to submitting their responses through clicker. On average, students responded to five clicker questions per in-class session. Students earned credit for participation whether or not they responded correctly. Specifically, instructors awarded one point per correct response and one additional point for participation if the student responded to at least 75% of the questions within a given session. At the end of each class session, the instructors synchronized and posted students’ scores were to the Grade Center within Blackboard. Additionally, the instructors developed brief SoftChalk lessons that addressed basic information such as key terms, concepts and key equations and relationships specifically focused on dimensional analysis and chemical quantities. Students in both courses, CHEM 104 and 106, were administered the same SoftChalk lessons without any modifications to the content coverage. Instructors used Blackboard to deliver these assignments as preview activities for completion prior to class attendance. In order to increase student participation and interaction with the course content, the instructors granted students unlimited attempts and the ability to rework activities. Subsequently, the student responses within the lessons informed instructors of content requiring reinforcement and elaboration during in-class clicker sessions. While access to MyLabsPlus, clickers and SoftChalk were stated course requirements, there was no way to force students to purchase or access the material. At the end of the fall 2015 semester, students were asked to respond to questions based on their experiences in using clickers, SoftChalk, and MyLabsPlus as well as relative to their use of the Study Cycle. Faculty created, administered and analyzed the survey for this study using Qualtrics software, Versions December 2015 and July 2016 of Qualtrics (Copyright © 2016 Qualtrics) (37). (Qualtrics and all other Qualtrics product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA.)

Observations The survey data has been compiled for all students enrolled in CHEM 104 and CHEM 106. All students actively enrolled received a link to the survey through Blackboard, including students who may have discontinued attendance. A total of 162 students responded to the survey. Approximately 83% of students who responded to the question felt that the use of clickers in the course was either somewhat helpful or very helpful in their understanding of the material, Figure 2.

74 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Figure 2. Student opinions on the helpfulness of clickers in mastering the materials. Similarly, approximately 82% of students who responded to the question on SoftChalk felt that it was helpful or very helpful to their understanding of the material, Figure 3.

Figure 3. Student opinions on the helpfulness of SoftChalk in mastering the material. While there was some variation between the two categories of “helpful” and “very helpful,” for both the clicker and SoftChalk tools, the number of students who felt that the tools were not helpful was consistent (17% - 18%). The questions did not take in to consideration whether respondents actually purchased access to the clicker tool. 75 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


When asked about the impact of the use of both SoftChalk and clickers on their interest in the course, there was an overwhelmingly positive response, Figure 4.

Figure 4. Students’ opinions on the use of SoftChalk and Clickers increasing their interest during class. While acknowledging that the individual tools are often optimized for one application or method of delivery over another, the students were asked which tool they felt was most helpful in their study process, Figure 5.

Figure 5. A view of the student opinions on the helpfulness of Clickers, SoftChalk and MyLabsPlus in studying. The students cited MyLabsPlus at 62% as being the most helpful tool. The responses seem consistent with expectations of out-of-class studying. When considering the students’ responses, it is important to bear in mind that instructors emphasized pre-class preparation as a necessity for initiating the learning process 76 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


as well as the Preview, Review and Reflect stages of The Study Cycle. While many students indicated that the clickers were a helpful tool for understanding the material, its use was confined to in-class sessions. The interaction of students with the material out-of-class, such as reading the textbook and completing the online assignments, was typically accomplished via MyLabsPlus. In addition to the questions related to their use of the technology, students responded to open-ended questions about their methods of preparing for the course and for assessments within the course. The instructors compiled, normalized, and examined students’ responses, taken in their own words, in determining common themes. In compiling the comments, instructors attempted to normalize verbs tenses, capitalization, and variations of similar words through lemmatization using Qualtrics. Student responses of “my labs plus” or “mylab plus” were edited to be a uniform “MyLabsPlus” and “studying” and “studied” were normalized to “study”. While the tenses were modified when appropriate, different uses of the same word were not altered. As shown in Figure 6, relative to SoftChalk, overall student opinions on its use in the course were a bit mixed, with some students finding that “the explanations of concepts were very helpful” or citing “the video explanation” or “lecture before solving the problems” as being helpful.

Figure 6. Student responses to which areas of the SoftChalk module were most helpful. There were others, however, who felt that “None” of the SoftChalk activities were helpful and one individual felt that it was “cumbersome”, stating that “sometimes I couldn’t tell if I had even finished the assignment”. In responding to the question, students could select all answers that they felt applied. When asked how they prepared for the exams, most students cited the textbook and MyLabsPlus, followed by their notes as the main methods by which they reviewed, Figure 7.



Figure 7. Student responses when asked how they prepared for exams. The survey allowed students to select all methods that applied. The survey did not ask the students to provide a distinction between an online or electronic book versus a physical textbook. In addition, the students did not specify the method of accessing the electronic book. The MyLabsPlus platform offers an electronic version of the textbook as a web link, though students may have had access through other means. Regardless of method of access, the data suggests a preference for the textbook when it comes to reviewing for the exam. Relative to the preference of videos, the respondents did not specify their origin. In this case, the videos could have originated within MyLabsPlus, and thus be a subset of that category, or they could have originated in other online locations, such as YouTube or Khan Academy. While class notes were also a favored method of reviewing, they came in second to the use of MyLabsPlus for preparing for the exams. A number of students also cited reviewing PowerPoint slides that were accessible through MyLabsPlus. The students mentioned using SoftChalk by name to prepare for their tests but, it was usually in conjunction with another activity (reviewing notes, homework, etc.).

Conclusion There are multiple options in terms of educational technologies that may be used in the chemistry classroom. Technologies were dedicated to offering lessons that are static, interactive or adaptive in an effort to improve upon student learning outcomes. It is important that these tools be leveraged to offer chemistry students a robust and engaging learning experience. We recommend combining the use of a traditional learning management system with interactive content developing software and a classroom response system to help fully engage students in the learning process both inside of class and at home. Educational technology are tools that are typically used to improve student-learning outcomes. However, emphasis must be made on truly 78 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


incorporating these tools within the learning process and throughout each stage of the study cycle. While the suggested study cycle embedded with educational technology does not encompass all plausible options for the vast educational tools currently available, it does offer a sound, feasible strategy for educators to consider when adopting a more technology-based learning environment centered on the learner and facilitated by the instructor. While the study was not exhaustive, preliminary evidence suggests that in-class engagement and student interest heightens when technology drives delivering the course material in an interactive rather than passive manner. Student perceptions of the use of the various technological tools varies, but there is a definite skew towards being more helpful rather than less helpful. Part of the acceptance by the students of the different delivery techniques (such as infusing more technological tools and less traditional lecture) is helping to ensure that students understand their role in the learning process. This includes familiarizing students with the study cycle in conjunction with accessing the various technological tools both in and out of class; it seems that students may have a higher disposition towards continuing to use the tools outside of the classroom.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

Abdullah, K.; Clark, T.; Nasereddin, M. Using Kolb’s experiential learning cycle to improve student learning in virtual computer laboratories. Comp. Educ. 2014, 72, 11–22, DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.013. Pinheiro, M.; Simões, D. Constructing knowledge: An experience of active and collaborative learning in ICT classrooms. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 64, 392–401, DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.046. Piyayodilokchai, H.; Panjaburee, P.; Laosinchai, P.; Ketpichainarong, P. A 5E learning cycle approach-based, multimedia-supplemented instructional unit for Structured Query Language. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2013, 16, 146–159. Beatty, I.; Gerace, W. Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2009, 18, 146–162, DOI: 10.1007/s10956-008-9140-4. Kolb, A. Y.; Kolb, D. A. Experiential learning theory. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning; Springer: New York, 2012; pp 1215−1219, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_227 Kolb, D. A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, 2nd ed.; Pearson Ed., Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2015. Bergmann, J.; Sams, A. Flip your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day; Intern. Soc. Technol. Educ.: Alexandria, VA, 2012, DOI: 10.1111/teth.12165 Beichner, R. J.; Saul, J. M.; Abbot, D. S.; Morse, J. J.; Deardorff, D. L.; Allain, R. J.; Risley, J. S. Student centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. In Research-Based Reform 79

Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

9.

10.


11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17. 18.

19.

20.

21.

of University Physics; Reddish, E., Clooney, P., Eds.; American Association of Physics Teachers: College Park, MD, 2007; pp 1−42. Davies, R. S.; Dean, D. L.; Ball, N. Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2013, 61, 563–580, DOI: 10.1007/s11423013-9305-6. Baepler, P.; Walker, J. D. Active learning classrooms and educational alliances: changing relationships to improve learning. New Direc. Teach. Learn. 2014, 2014, 27–40, DOI: 10.1002/tl.20083. Stage, F.; Kinzie, J. Reform in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: The classroom context. J. Gen. Educ. 2009, 58, 85–105, DOI: 10.1353/jge.0.0038. Ertmer, P. A.; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T.; Sadik, O.; Sendurur, E.; Sendurur, P. Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: a critical relationship. Comp. Educ. 2012, 59, 423–435, DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001. Drent, M.; Meelissen, M. Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Comp. Educ. 2008, 51, 187–199, DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.001. Pelgrum, W. J. Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: results from a worldwide educational assessment. Comp. Educ. 2001, 37, 163–178, DOI: 10.1016/s0360-1315(01)00045-8. Shieh, R. S. The impact of technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) implementation on student learning and teachers’ teaching in a high school context. Comp. Educ. 2012, 59, 206–214, DOI: 10.1016/ j.compedu.2012.03.024. Committee on Risk-Based Approaches for Securing the DOE Nuclear Weapons Complex, a. N. R. C. N. N. Systemic Change: Barriers and Opportunities. In Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics Education Summary of Two Workshops; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2011; pp 60−68, DOI: 10.17226/13099 Merç, A. Using technology in the classroom: A study with Turkish preservice EFL teachers. Turk. Onl. J. Educ. Technol. 2015, 14, 229–240. Baek, Y.; Jung, J. K. B. What makes teachers use technology in the classroom? Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample. Comp. Technol. 2008, 50, 224–234, DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.05.002. Kim, C.; Kim, M. K.; Lee, C.; Spector, J. M.; DeMeester, K. Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teach. Teach Educ. 2012, 29, 76–85, DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005. Harewood, E. Static Instruction Is Just That – Static, 2012. http:// evolllution.com/opinions/static-instruction-is-just-that-static/ (accessed March 28, 2016). Adams, C. PowerPoint, habits of mind, and classroom culture. J. Curric. Stud. 2006, 38, 398–411, DOI: 10.1080/00220270600579141. 80

Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


22. Tuovinen, J. E. Multimedia distance education interactions. Educ. Media Intern. 2000, 37, 16–24, DOI: 10.1080/095239800361473. 23. Zimmer, T. Rethinking Higher Ed: A Case for Adaptive Learning, 2014. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2014/10/22/rethinking-higher-eda-case-for-adaptive-learning/" \l "2418d5386293 (accessed July 14, 2016). 24. Levin, B. Putting students at the centre in education reform. J. Educ. Change 2000, 1, 155–172, DOI: 10.1023/A:1010024225888. 25. Kramer, S.; Kai, J.; Merline, F. J. A lesson for the common core standards era from the NCTM standards era: The importance of considering schoollevel buy in when implementing and evaluating standards based instructional materials. Large Scale Studies Math. Educ. 2015, 17–44, DOI: 10.1007/9783-319-07716-1_2. 26. Henderson, C.; Beach, A.; Finkelstein, N. Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2011, 48, 952–984, DOI: 10.1002/tea.20439. 27. Haydn, T.; Barton, R. ‘First do no harm’: Factors influencing teachers’ ability and willingness to use ICT in their subject teaching. Comp. Educ. 2008, 51, 439–447, DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.00. 28. Heffernan, T.; Morrison, M.; Basu, P.; Sweeney, A. Cultural differences, learning styles and transnational education. J. Higher Educ. Pol. Manag. 2010, 32, 27–39, DOI: 10.1080/13600800903440535. 29. Smith, M.; Darfler, A. An exploration of teachers’ efforts to understand identity work and its relevance to science instruction. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2012March, 23, 347–365, DOI: 10.1007/s10972-012-9281-4. 30. North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. http:// www.ncat.edu/about/index.html (accessed July 11, 2016). 31. U.S. News and World Reports Best Colleges. http:// colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges (accessed July 2016). 32. North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, Department of Chemistry Homepage. http://www.ncat.edu/cost/departments/chem/ (accessed July 2016). 33. North Carolina A&T State University Fact Book. ir.ncat.edu (accessed July 5, 2016). 34. Diverse Issues in Higher Education. http://diverseeducation.com/article/ 32493/ (accessed July 11, 2016). 35. Christ, F. L. Seven Steps to Better Management of Your Study Time; H & H Publishing: Clearwater, FL, 1997; pp 1−8. 36. McGuire, S. Teach Students How to Learn: Metacognition Is the Key, 2012. Louisiana State University, Center for Academic Excellence. https:// www.alabamacca.org/pdfs/2-ACCA-Birmingham-2012-Metacognition.pdf (accessed July 20, 2016). 37. Qualtrics. http://www.qualtrics.com (accessed December 15, 2015).


bk-2016-1235.ch004

Recommend Documents