Communication pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Flipping at an OpenEnrollment College Kelly B. Butzler* Natural Sciences, Pennsylvania College of Technology, Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17701, United States
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on August 27, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): July 21, 2015 | doi: 10.1021/ed500875n
S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: The flipped classroom is a blended, constructivist learning environment that reverses where students gain and apply knowledge. Instructors from K−12 to the college level are interested in the prospect of flipping their classes, but are unsure how and with which students to implement this learning environment. There has been little discussion regarding flipping the classroom with students who are less academically prepared, specifically those students at open-enrollment colleges. Students at an open-enrollment college differed in their perceptions of the flipped classroom from those perceptions reported by instructors in advanced placement high school chemistry classes or chemistry at competitive colleges and universities. The focus of this paper is to provide readers with insights about flipping a general chemistry class at an open-enrollment college. This study compared high school class rank and mathematics placement level to overall course grades in two different iterations of the flipped classroom and lecture learning environments. The results of the ANOVA indicated that mathematics level explained 17.6% of the variance in course grade (R2 = 0.176, F(1,84) = 17.131, p < 0.001) and class rank explained 20.965% of the variance in course grade (R2 = 0.208, F(1,84) = 20.965, p < 0.001). Students who are less academically and mathematically prepared should have a very structured learning environment with continual instructor feedback and prescribed preclass activities. This communication summarizes one of the invited papers to the ConfChem online conference Flipped Classroom, held from May 9 to June 12, 2014 and hosted by the ACS DivCHED Committee on Computers in Chemical Education (CCCE). KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Multimedia-Based Learning, Constructivism, Student-Centered Learning
■
■
INTRODUCTION This paper was discussed from May 23 to May 29 during the spring 2014 ConfChem online conference, Flipped Classroom, hosted by the ACS DivCHED Committee on Computers in Chemical Education (CCCE).1 The basic definition of the flipped classroom is a learning environment where content knowledge acquisition is moved outside the classroom and knowledge construction and problem solving are moved into the classroom. The flipped classroom can be considered a blended learning environment2 and a practical application of constructivism.3 A blended learning environment infuses technology into the learning space and allows knowledge acquisition to occur in a differentiated manner.4 The learner is provided choices of how and when to learn and given the opportunity to construct knowledge in a social constructivist learning environment with the teacher as a facilitator.5 The flipped classroom capitalizes on technology that delivers content that can be assimilated by a student using surface approaches to learning, such as recall and memorization. In class, the students are given instructor guidance and peer-support to solve problems and organize content in a meaningful way. While there is no prescribed method of flipping a class, students are generally required to come to class prepared to actively participate.6−8 These questions arise most when teachers consider implementing a flipped classroom: (i) are students more successful (course grades) in the flipped classroom? (ii) do all students prefer the flipped classroom?; and (iii) what are considered the best practices for flipping a class taking into account the characteristics of the student population? © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS Data were collected in a general chemistry course at an openenrollment college from the Fall 2012, 2013, and Spring 2014 semesters; for this study, they will be referred to as Lecture class (n = 45), Flipped class (n = 45), and Stealth Flipped (n = 32). The purpose of this study (see the Supporting Information) was to determine the level at which students enrolled in general chemistry achieved content mastery with respect to different learning environments. The content and final examinations were identical in all three learning environments. The Lecture class acquired content through a traditional lecture approach. These lectures were recorded using MediaSite software and made available to the Lecture class. Homework was completed outside of class. The Flipped Class acquired content through the MediaSite recordings of the Lecture class prior to class and completed homework in class. The Stealth Flip class acquired knowledge through a prescribed preclass “lesson” that consisted of a short 10−15 min vodcast by the instructor, associated readings, a demonstrated problem, and 2−4 independent problems and a formative assessment using Google Forms. This is considered a “tell, show, try, and assess” format. The differences in mean course grades are not significant when comparing the overall course grades in the Lecture, Flipped, and Stealth Flip classes (R2 = 0.005, F(1,84) = 0.220, p = 0.803). However, when overall course grades were compared to the mathematics level upon entering Penn College, mathematics preparedness upon entering Penn College did
A
DOI: 10.1021/ed500875n J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Communication
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on August 27, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): July 21, 2015 | doi: 10.1021/ed500875n
Figure 1. Level of mathematics entering Penn College and overall course grade.
Figure 2. Top-third, middle-third, and bottom-third of high school graduating class versus overall course grade in each class.
affect students’ overall grades especially if a student entered at a Level 4 and above. These data are illustrated in Figure 1. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine whether course grade could be predicted from mathematics level entering Penn College. Data from the “other” category as well as those students who withdrew from the course were removed in the analysis. The results of the ANOVA indicated that mathematics level explained 17.6% of the variance in course grade (R2 = 0.176, F(1,84) = 17.131, p < 0.001). In addition to mathematics preparedness, success in general chemistry might also be influenced by academic preparedness. Even though SAT tests are not required for admission at Penn College, a GED or high school diploma is required. Most students’ class ranks are listed as part of their demographical information where the College lists them as top-third, middlethird, or bottom-third of their graduating class. If a student went to a private or preparatory school or is a nontraditional student, this information is frequently not provided. However, if a student received a GED, this information is available. Class rank data were aggregated for the Lecture, Flipped, and Stealth Flipped class. The overall course grade in the Lecture, Flipped, and Stealth Flip classes did not take into account the differences in high school class rank. To explore the hypothesis that academic preparedness influenced success in general chemistry, overall course grades were compared to class rank in the Lecture, Flipped, and Stealth Flipped classes. These data are presented in Figure 2. An ANOVA was conducted to determine whether course grade could be predicted from class rank. Data from the “other”
category was removed in the analysis. The results indicated that class rank explained 20.965% of the variance in course grade (R2 = 0.208, F(1,84) = 20.965, p < 0.001). In other words, the higher a student’s high school class rank, the higher the overall course grade. In summary, students graduating in the upper-third of their graduating high school class were 4.3% and 2.6% more successful in terms of overall course grades in the Flipped and Stealth flip class, respectively, than the Lecture class. Students graduating in the middle-third were more successful by 3.6% in the Lecture class than the Flipped Class. The middle-third students in the Stealth Flip class were 3.4% and 6.8% more successful than the Lecture and Flipped Class, respectively. However, students graduating at the bottom-third were more successful by 2.6% in the Flipped class than the Lecture class, but were 5.0% and 8.0% less successful in the Stealth flip class than the Lecture and Flipped Class, respectively. Finally, most students with all academic backgrounds are more satisfied in a flipped classroom when the preclass activities are structured using a “tell, show, try, and assess” format.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information *
The paper and discussion that was used in the ConfChem Conference, providing an overview of the flipped classroom, literature review, methodology, and discussion of the results. The ensuing discussion prompted much conversation about specific self-regulated learning tools that could be implemented to help students transition to the flipped classroom. Student motivation and motivating students were also topics of B
DOI: 10.1021/ed500875n J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Communication
discussion. Since group work is foundational in the in-class segment of the flipped classroom, the discussion led to ideas about how different group dynamics could help motivate students to learn and become more self-regulated learners. Finally, the discussion focused on outcomes assessment practices as applied to a flipped classroom. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on August 27, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): July 21, 2015 | doi: 10.1021/ed500875n
■
REFERENCES
(1) American Chemical Society Division of Chemical Education Committee on Computers in Chemical Education. 2014 Spring ConfChem: Flipped Classroom. http://confchem.ccce.divched.org/ 2014SpringConfChem (accessed Mar 2015). (2) Strayer, J. F. How Learning in an Inverted Classroom Influences Cooperation, Innovation, and Task Orientation. Learn. Environ. Res. 2012, 15, 171−193, DOI: 10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4. (3) Felder, R. M. Engineering Education: A Tale of Two Paradigms. In Shaking the Foundations of Geo-Engineering Education; McCabe, B., Pantazidou, M., Phillips, D., Eds.; CRC Press/Balkema (Taylor and Francis Group): Leiden, The Netherlands, 2012. (4) De George-Walker, L.; Keeffe, M. Self-Determined Blended Learning: A Case Study of Blended Learning Design. Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 2010, 29 (1), 1−13, DOI: 10.1080/07294360903277380. (5) Bergmann, J.; Sams, A. Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day; ISTE: Eugene, OR, 2012. (6) Baeten, M.; Struyven, K.; Dochy, F. Student-Centred Teaching Methods: Can They Optimize Students’ Approaches to Learning in Professional Higher Education? Stud. Educ. Eval. 2013, 39 (1), 14−22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.11.001 (accessed Mar 2015). (7) Lancaster, S. J. The Flipped Lecture. New Dir. 2013, 9 (1), 28− 32, DOI: 10.11120/ndir.2013.00010. (8) Smith, J. D. Student Attitudes toward Flipping the General Chemistry Classroom. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14, 607−614, DOI: 10.1039/C3RP00083D.
C
DOI: 10.1021/ed500875n J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
