Problem Solving Videos for General Chemistry Review: Students

Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Problem Solving Videos for General Chemistry Review: Students’ Perceptions and Use Patterns Michelle Richards-Babb,*,† Reagan Curtis,‡ Valerie J. Smith,† and Mingming Xu† †

C. Eugene Bennett Department of Chemistry and ‡Department of Learning Sciences and Human Development, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506, United States S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: We examined the use of problem solving videos (PSVs) as a substitute for general chemistry exam review sessions. We investigated student perceptions of course aspects regarding usefulness for supporting their learning of chemistry content. We also examined how students used the PSVs to further their learning. Students ranked the PSVs as more useful than other course components such as the textbook and exam review sessions. Weekly lectures, back tests, and online homework assignments were also ranked highly. A majority of our students viewed the PSVs, multiple views were common, and PSVs were mainly viewed for exam preparation. YouTube statistics corroborated this finding in that numbers of PSV views were maximal 4 days prior to and through each exam day. Students found step-by-step explanations and ability to control their own learning to be more helpful features of the PSVs. Shifting content to out-of-class video viewing frees up in-class time for tasks that promote learning at the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (e.g., active learning, group work). KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Chemical Education Research, Multimedia-Based Learning, Enrichment/Review Materials FEATURE: Chemical Education Research

■

INTRODUCTION

The most obvious advantage of using Internet-based videos is that students can tailor the learning experience to their own schedules. They can view the videos at any time, any place, and view them multiple times.1−7 Students enrolled in online courses4and students with difficulty understanding the primary language of instruction also may benefit from being able to replay portions of video lectures.5 A second advantage is that shifting content to out-of-class video viewing frees up in-class time for tasks that promote learning at higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (e.g., active learning, group work).3,6,7 Our research examined the use of YouTube problem solving videos (PSVs) as a substitute for out-of-lecture exam review sessions for general chemistry courses. We focused our efforts on course aspects (e.g., PSVs, textbook) and students’ ratings of each aspect regarding perceived usefulness in supporting their learning. In addition, we examined how our students used the PSVs (e.g., timing and frequency of views) to further their learning of general chemistry content. Use of PSVs to promote learning is supported by Mayer’s theory of multimedia learning that includes three assumptions as to how the human mind processes information and “learns” from it.8 These assumptions are that (i) the mind uses two channels (i.e., auditory/verbal and visual/pictorial), (ii) each channel has limited capacity (i.e., overloading occurs when input primarily arrives via a single channel), and (iii) active

Increasingly, postsecondary instructors are using Internet-based video technologies (e.g., screencasts, podcasts) to supplement their students’ in-class learning.1−7 But, does the educational research support the continued use of Internet-based video technologies? He, Swenson, and Lents created video tutorials on difficult analytical chemistry concepts, as recognized from their students’ performance on homework and exams.1 Posttesting indicated that video tutorial intervention improved student performance on concepts covered by the tutorials.1 Sturm-Beiss prepared exam reviews as screencast videos and made them available to students in a precalculus class.2 Students who viewed all available videos earned higher standardized exam grades than students who did not view all of the videos. These videos were viewed equally by high- and low-performing precalculus students so that self-selection of video use by high-performing students could be ruled out as the source of these higher grades. In a large introductory biology course, group problem solving exercises in-class were paired with out-of-class online lectures that students viewed prior to attending class.3 Findings indicated that the majority of students viewed the online lectures prior to attending class and that student performance on in-class clicker questions significantly improved. Thus, prior research suggests that Internet-based videos can be effective to supplement in-class learning.1−7 © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

A

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed500280b | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

not receive extra credit for viewing PSVs. For general chemistry I, 69 PSVs covered topics such as significant figures, atomic theory, thermochemistry, and intermolecular forces. For general chemistry II, 69 PSVs covered topics such as colligative properties, kinetics, equilibrium, thermodynamics, and electrochemistry. The PSVs were not created to “teach to the exam” so the question wording, chemical equations involved, and the numbers differed between the questions on the videos and the exams (see the Supporting Information for sample comparisons).

processing must occur within each channel (e.g., input must be organized and integrated with prior knowledge).9,10

■

PROBLEM SOLVING VIDEOS

Conception

The PSVs were initially conceived as a substitute for out-oflecture instructor run exam review sessions for general chemistry courses. A series of content specific PSVs would be posted as a review for an upcoming exam, and these videos would be available as a resource to both instructors and students. For instructors, the goal was to minimize out-oflecture time devoted to reviewing similar material each semester and before each exam. For students, the goal was to allow every student the opportunity to attend “virtual” review sessions in that the videos could be viewed anytime, anywhere, and repeated as needed. As the video project progressed, we realized that instructors were modeling appropriate problem-solving strategies in the videos (e.g., reading the problem aloud, tabulating variables, planning out a solution, making an initial estimate, drawing sketches for visualization) established as beneficial in science education literature.11,12 DiLisi et al.12 (p 47) found that “successful students solved problems using their own methods and did not require a highly regimented system” and Bodner13 (p 513) argued that algorithms may be useful for “individual steps in a problem”, such as converting between units or balancing a redox reaction, but are not a substitute for problem solving itself. Therefore, we did not promote systematic problem solving methods or specific algorithms.

■

EVALUATION OF THE VIDEOS The general chemistry II videos were made available to students enrolled in both fall 2012 sections of general chemistry II (taught by instructors A and B). The general chemistry I videos were made available to students enrolled in two sections of instructor C’s fall 2013 general chemistry I course. A short survey (included as Supporting Information) was developed and administered to students attending each class during the last week of the relevant semester. The survey was modified slightly for the fall 2013 semester: (i) the number of course aspects was reduced to nine because instructor C offered fewer study resources (e.g., exam review sessions were not offered) and (ii) one question on how likely the student would be to use the general chemistry II videos was added. The survey focused on course aspects (e.g., online homework, textbook, PSVs) and students’ ratings of each aspect in terms of its perceived usefulness for supporting their learning in the lecture portion of the course. Students ranked each course aspect, from most useful (ranking = 1) to least useful (ranking = 12) using each ranking number only once, in terms of their learning in the lecture portion of the general chemistry II course. For students who felt the PSVs contributed significantly toward their understanding of chemistry content, approach to problem solving, and/or study for chemistry exams, an openended question asked them to further explain (e.g., percentage of videos viewed, frequency of views, when viewed, how used, most helpful aspects, and effect on study habits). A second open-ended question asked students for suggestions to improve the PSVs. The survey has face validity as a measure of student perceptions in that it asks students to rank order those aspects of the course they identify as most useful in supporting their learning. Criterion related validity was addressed by investigating triangulation across quantitative rankings and open-ended responses where we found that student ranking corresponded with course aspects they qualitatively described as most helpful. Triangulation of student rankings with descriptions of how the PSVs were used also support the validity of this measure as described below (e.g., students’ description of PSV usage timing correlates directly with YouTube usage statistics). Survey responses were analyzed using standard quantitative and qualitative techniques. Course aspects were examined as to the frequency with which each aspect was ranked as one of the top three most useful course learning components. Averages were not calculated because course aspects unused by a particular student were not ranked. Of the 146 students remaining in instructor A’s fall 2012 general chemistry II course, 70 (47.9%) completed the survey. Similarly, of the 79 students remaining in instructor B’s general chemistry II course, 52 (65.8%) completed the survey. Of the 292 students remaining in instructor C’s general chemistry I course, 229 (78.4%) completed the survey. After excluding invalid responses, we analyzed valid rating data from 316 of 517

■

CREATION, DELIVERY, AND IMPLEMENTATION The PSVs were created using a tablet personal computer that included a microphone and touch screen. Each video problem was entered into and saved within a text-based word processing program. We used the Tegrity lecture capture software, available within our online homework system, to capture voice and record stylus pen strokes as an expert learner (i.e., an instructor) modeled the thinking processes and problem solving steps involved in formulating an answer to each video problem. Instructors interested in creating instructional videos should see the references provided in the Supporting Information for guidance. We created a total of 138 PSVs for both the general chemistry I and general chemistry II courses, or 69 PSVs per course. Instructor C created all of the general chemistry I and four of the general chemistry II videos.14 Instructor B created 65 of the general chemistry II videos. Videos varied in length from 2 min to a maximum of 28 min with an average length of less than 10 min. Prior years’ multiple choice exams were analyzed to identify questions that were incorrectly answered by a majority of students. Similarly to Internet-based videos prepared by other educators,1,4 these questions fueled our choice of problems to generate as videos. Each PSV was uploaded to a YouTube channel to facilitate viewing by students. Students were provided with the problem statement and the corresponding YouTube PSV uniform resource locator (url) link within files posted to our course Web site. Students were given access to the problem statements and exam specific PSVs several weeks prior to an upcoming exam. The videos were discussed in lecture, and it was suggested that students use them as a resource when studying. However, students were not required to watch the videos, and they did B



Article

Table 1. Top Three Ranked Most Useful Course Aspects in Terms of Perceived Student Learning in the Lecture Portion of the General Chemistry I and II Courses Number of Students Who Ranked Course Aspect as 1, 2, or 3 in Usefulnessd

Course Aspect

Fall 2013 General Chemistry I Sec. 009 and 013, Instructor C; N = 204 (Response, %)

Fall 2012 General Chemistry II Sec. 001, Instructor A; N = 66 (Response, %)

Fall 2012 General Chemistry II Sec. 003, Instructor B; N = 46 (Response, %)

Totals, N = 316 (Response, %)

Not offered

15 (22.7)

10 (21.7)

25e (22.3)

82 (40.2)

36 (54.6)

16 (34.8)

134 (42.4)

12 (5.9)

15 (22.7)

8 (17.4)

35 (11.1)

1 (0.5)

4 (6.1)

2 (4.4)

7 (2.2)

3 (1.5)

1 (1.5)

1 (2.2)

5 (1.6)

12 (5.9)

4 (6.1)

2 (4.4)

18 (5.7)

171 (83.8) 142 (69.6) 179 (87.8)

27 (40.9) 36 (54.6) 47 (71.2)

33 (71.7) 22 (47.8) 34 (73.9)

231 (73.1) 200 (63.3) 260 (82.3)

Not offered

7 (10.6)

6 (13.0)

13e (11.6)

Not offered

5 (7.6)

4 (8.7)

9e (8.0)

10 (4.9)

2 (3.0)

0 (0)

12 (3.8)

CONNECT extra credit LearnSmart modules ALEKS or CONNECT online homework assignmentsa “Chemistry” by Silberberg text Student solutions manual (if used) Peer led team learning (if attended) Chemistry Learning Center tutoring (if attended)b Problem solving videos Back tests Weekly instructor run lectures Exam review sessions (if attended)c Assigned uncollected text homework Other a

ALEKS and CONNECT online homework systems were used by students in the general chemistry I and II courses, respectively. bThe Chemistry Learning Center is run by advanced undergraduate students and is open weekly from 7 to 10 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. cAn advanced graduate student voluntarily prepared and offered exam review sessions to the general chemistry II students on the evening prior to each of four exams. dRatings based on an end of course survey with a ranking scale: 1 = most useful; 2 = next most useful; to 12 = least useful. ePercentages calculated from N = 112 because these course aspects were not offered for general chemistry I.

Table 2. Rank Ordering of Top Four Most Useful Course Aspects in Terms of Perceived Student Learning in the Lecture Portion of the General Chemistry I and II Courses Rank Ordering of Top Four Most Useful Course Aspects Course Aspect Weekly instructor run lectures Problem solving videos Back Tests Online homework assignments: ALEKS or CONNECT Course instructor Creator of problem solving videos

Fall 2013 General Chemistry I Sec. 009 and 013 (Rank, %) 1 2 3 4

Fall 2012 General Chemistry II Sec. 001 (Rank, %)

(87.8) (83.8) (69.6) (40.2)

1 4 3 2

C C

(71.2) (40.9) (54.6)a (54.6)a

A B and Cb

Fall 2012 General Chemistry II Sec. 003 (Rank, %) 1 2 3 4

(73.9) (71.7) (47.8) (34.8)

Totals, N = 316 (Rank, %) 1 2 3 4

(82.3) (73.1) (63.3) (42.4)

B B and Cb

a

Although both the online homework and back tests have the same percentage (54.6%), there were more ratings of 1 and 2 for the online homework, so it was rank ordered higher than the back tests for general chemistry II sec. 001. bInstructors B and C created 65 and 4 of the 69 general chemistry II PSVs, respectively.

This research study (e.g., survey and its administration and analysis) was examined by our institutional review board (IRB) as to whether it appropriately followed all guidelines related to human subjects’ research. IRB approval and exemption (Protocol Tracking 1403244534) was obtained for the research described herein. We caution readers that this research study has limitations. One limitation is that the results have limited generalizability because the video intervention and administered surveys were confined to students at our institution. A second limitation is that no data was collected to look for a correlation between level of video use and learning of chemistry content. Use of YouTube as a repository for the PSVs precluded us from obtaining student specific viewing information (i.e., YouTube provides aggregated viewing

total students (a minimum response rate of 61.1%) or 316 of 351 (90.0%) students who completed surveys. While response rates in excess of 80% are considered optimal, many prominent survey researchers have argued that response rates as low as 25% do not bias results when nonrespondents are similar to respondents on key criteria.15−17 Written responses to open-ended questions were examined for emergent themes.18 Categories and in some cases subcategories were identified and then verified and refined by preliminary coding of one section’s qualitative data. All written responses were then coded by category and subcategory. PSV usage data (number of views per day) was analyzed using the statistical features available within YouTube. C



Article

for introductory physics it was found that less than 40% of students regularly read the textbook.23 For the students populating the fall 2012 general chemistry II course, we offered two modes of exam review: PSVs and graduate student run exam review sessions. The PSVs were more frequently ranked as useful (53.6% when considering just the general chemistry II students) than the exam review sessions (11.6%). In addition, attendance at the exam review sessions was low (11−24% of general chemistry II students attended) with attendance decreasing throughout the semester. In contrast, the number of quality views24 of the PSVs by general chemistry II students steadily increased throughout the semester (see Figure 2 as an example of this trend). Moreover, previous literature has shown that traditional exam review/help sessions are primarily attended by high performing students25 whereas both high- and low-performing students equally view Internet-based videos.2 This data supports our use of PSVs as a substitute for out-of-lecture exam review sessions because the PSVs were more highly valued by our students. Overall, we found the following: (i) students ranked the weekly lectures (82.3%), problem solving videos (73.1%), back tests (63.3%), and online homework (42.4%) as useful to their learning in the lecture portion of the general chemistry course, (ii) the weekly lectures were most useful (82.3%), and (iii) the textbook (11.1%) and out-of-class review sessions (11.6%) were less useful.

statistics). However, studying that correlation was not the intent of the research described herein. Our evaluation was designed to address the following specific questions: 1. Do students perceive the PSVs as useful to their learning in the lecture portion of the general chemistry course? In particular, which course aspects do students most frequently rank highest in terms of perceived usefulness and where do the PSVs rank relative to other course aspects? 2. How are students using the PSVs? Are they viewing the videos? If so, how many times are they viewing any video or the same video until they understand? When are they viewing the videos: just before exams as review or concurrent with and as a supplement to lecture? 3. What recommendations do students have for improving the PSVs?

■

COURSE ASPECT RATINGS To address the first research question, we examined frequencies with which students ranked the various course aspects as one of the top 3 most useful for supporting their learning (see Table 1). Course aspects including weekly instructor run lectures, PSVs, back tests (i.e., previously administered tests/exams on similar content), and online homework assignments were ranked in the top 3 for usefulness more often than other course aspects (Table 1). In fact, as highlighted in Table 2, the weekly lectures were most frequently assigned high usefulness ratings by students in the general chemistry I course (87.8%) and by students in both sections of the general chemistry II course (71.2% and 73.9%). This indicates that our students, at the freshmen and sophomore stages of their postsecondary academic development, are fairly reliant on the instructor to provide guidance and strategies for learning chemistry. Similarly, the frequency with which the PSVs were assigned high usefulness was second behind the weekly lectures for the courses in which the instructors themselves (B and C) were the main creators (and voice heard) in the problem solving videos. However, the PSVs were given high usefulness ratings fourth most frequently when the instructor (A) was not the creator of the problem solving videos (see Table 2). Online homework assignments were also given high usefulness ratings more often (fourth most frequently overall, see Table 2) than other course aspects. Previous research on online homework use in chemistry coursework documents learning gains, improved success rates, and increased final exam performances with its use.19−21 Thus, it is not surprising that our students recognized the utility of online homework and regarded it as useful to their learning. Some course aspects, such as the textbook and exam review sessions, were less frequently ranked as useful. Few students (11.1% overall) ranked the textbook associated with the course as one of the top three most useful course aspects. This low ranking occurred despite the fact that instructors promoted use of the textbook through in-class announcements and within syllabi that outlined page numbers to be read for associated general chemistry topics and, in the case of general chemistry II, an online homework system that included an electronic version of the text. This finding aligns with previous research on textbook use in introductory science.22,23 Smith and Jacobs (2003) found that the average general chemistry student spends less than 3 h per week using the textbook.22 Likewise,

Student Feedback on PSV Use

To address our second research question, we examined student responses to the open-ended survey question pertaining to how students used the PSVs (e.g., percentage of videos viewed, frequency of views, when viewed, most helpful aspects). Coded response frequencies are given in Table 3. Of the 351 general chemistry I and II students who completed the video surveys, 308 (87.7%) provided written responses to this question, although all 308 did not respond to all aspects of this question. Of the 224 students who provided information on percentage of PSVs viewed, 51.3% and 25.9% (77.2% total) viewed either all or a majority of the PSVs, respectively. This correlates well with students’ frequency ratings of the PSVs and their ranking as the second most useful course aspect (see Table 2). As to how frequently students’ viewed each video, a majority (75.7%) of the responses in this category indicated multiple viewing of all or some of the PSVs. This correlates well with Rose’s finding that 77.8% of students viewed instructormade videos more than once.26 Our students gave various reasons for multiple views, the most frequent of which were exam preparation, lack of comprehension of methodology for select concepts, and inattentiveness during the first viewing. As to the timing of video viewing, a majority of the 197 coded responses in this category indicated viewing of the videos just before the exam (53.8%) and for exam review or review whenever needed (20.3%). This correlates well with the YouTube tracking data for general chemistry I and general chemistry II (Figures 1 and 2, respectively) indicating that the highest numbers of views occurred within a window of time beginning 4 days prior to and through the day of a scheduled exam. In general, the number of video views peaked the day before or the day of each exam. As to how students used the videos for this exam review, our preliminary goal was for students to work out the video questions on their own prior to viewing the corresponding videos. The students could then tailor their experience by (i) D



Article

Many students gave information on what aspect of the videos they found most helpful with some students listing several aspects. Those most frequently mentioned included step-bystep explanations (20.2%), as an aid to my own learning (16.5%), being able to control my learning in terms of pace and where/when viewed (15.3%), deeper understanding of concepts/materials/topics (13.6%), and as exam prep/review (13.6%). To a lesser extent, students also mentioned how the videos helped to target their learning style (5.0%) and how the videos helped them attain a better understanding of problem solving mechanics (8.7%). These results correlate well with the findings of Pan et al. where students mentioned scaffolded learning, selfpaced learning, and video control as a few of the more helpful aspects of video learning.4 Since the PSVs were generated as study/review aids and were not created to “teach to the exam”, we were pleased to note that only 8.7% of responses referred to the questions as a model for or as similar to the exam questions. Overall, we found the following: (i) a majority of our students viewed the PSVs, (ii) multiple viewing of PSVs was common, (iii) PSVs were most often viewed for exam preparation and review, (iv) PSV viewing occurred within a window of time beginning 4 days prior to and through exam day with the number of views peaking the day before or the day of each exam, and (v) students found the step-by-step explanations and the ability to control their own learning to be two of the more helpful aspects of the PSVs.

Table 3. Frequency of Each Categorized Response to the Free-Response Question Pertaining to How Students Used the Problem Solving Videos and Aspects Students Found Most Helpful Coded Responses to the Question on Percentage of Videos Viewed, How Often Viewed, When Viewed, and How Used Category 1: Percentage of videos viewed All (100%) Majority (>50%) Minority (≤50%) None/few/inconsistently Category 2: Frequency each video viewed Once each All videos more than once Some videos more than once Category 3: Timing of when videos viewed Just before exam (day of/night before/weekend before) Well ahead of exam (week or more leading up to exam) When having difficulty with topic or for homework help For exam review or review whenever needed Category 4: How videos viewed View video first and then work through problem Work through problem concurrent with viewing video Work through problem first and then view video as needed/when stuck Only view video Work similar problem after viewing Category 5: Most helpful video aspects Step-by-step explanation Deeper understanding of concepts/material/topics Deeper understanding of mechanics of problem solving (setup, steps, begin math, solving equations) Being able to control own learning (own pace, own time, anywhere, pause, repeat, skip) Aid to own learning (help with my errors/confusing topics, clarification, teach myself, refresh memory, reinforce lecture) Targets my learning style (visual, auditory or written learner, learning by example) As model for exam questions As extra practice/exam prep/review using different problems

Students, Na (Response, %) 224 115 58 26 25 99 24 22 53 197 106

(100) (51.3) (25.9) (11.6) (11.2) (100) (24.2) (22.2) (53.5) (100) (53.8)

27 (13.7) 24 (12.2) 40 132 29 16 79

(20.3) (100) (22.0) (12.1) (59.8)

4 4 242 49 33 17

(3.0) (3.0) (100) (20.2) (13.6) (7.0)

■

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Student responses to the open-ended question that asked for suggestions on how to improve the PSVs allowed us to address the third research question. Student recommendations are given in Table 4. Roughly a third of the students (32.0%) who responded to this question indicated that the videos were fine as currently available. Another third of the students (32.5%) recommended that we produce more videos (i) with similar problems, (ii) with different numbers, (iii) with more scenarios, (iv) with all equations used, (v) with more difficult problems, (vi) with theoretical concepts, (vii) in multiple choice format, and (viii) with each lesson or chapter in the text. Some students (26.3%) recommended improving the video mechanics. Louder speaking/better sound quality (6.1%), neater or less crowded handwriting (5.3%), more clarifying explanations (4.4%), and reduction in video length (3.9%) were the most frequent suggested improvements. A minority of students (3.5%) suggested improvements to video content/substance/level. For example, 2.2% recommended that the videos be more consistent with the problem solving methods presented in lecture or by their instructor, and 1.3% recommended that the more challenging and intense questions should be made into videos. Lastly, a few students (2.6%) had recommendations for improved video titles (to promote video content searching) and organization of the videos into folders, playlists, or pages.

37 (15.3) 40 (16.5) 12 (5.0) 21 (8.7) 33 (13.6)

a

A total of 308 of 351 (87.7%) general chemistry I and II survey respondents provided written responses to this question.

watching the video when stumped, (ii) watching the video for expanded explanations, (iii) fast-forwarding to the video’s end to obtain the correct answer and, as needed, (iv) watching the video to find where their procedure or conceptual understanding was flawed. Of the 132 coded responses as to how students used the videos, 59.8% indicated that they worked through the questions first and then viewed the video as needed or when stuck. YouTube viewing statistics lend some support to this finding. We were able to calculate the average percent of time each PSV was viewed relative to its length. For the 69 general chemistry II PSVs, this ranged from 27.9% to 67.7% with a mean of 49.8% (std dev = 9.4%). Thus, an average of half of each PSV was viewed by students who viewed it. This would seem to support the self-report data on how the majority of students used and viewed the PSVs.

■

CONCLUSIONS We sought to answer questions related to our students’ (i) perceptions of PSVs as useful to their general chemistry learning and their ranking of PSVs relative to other course aspects in terms of perceived usefulness, (ii) usage patterns of PSV viewing, and (iii) student recommendations for improvements to PSVs. Overall, our students perceived the PSVs as the E



Article

Figure 1. Fall 2013 general chemistry I: Numbers of students’ quality video views24 of the general chemistry I YouTube videos per day with day 1 as the first day of the semester. General chemistry I videos were not available until after the first exam (day 23) during the fall 2013 semester.

Figure 2. Fall 2013 general chemistry II: Number of students’ quality video views24 of the general chemistry II YouTube videos per day with day 1 as the first day of the semester.

highest number of PSV views occurring within a four day time window about each exam. Students mentioned the ability to control their own learning (e.g., pace, where/when viewed) and the step-by-step explanations as two of the more helpful aspects of the PSVs. Student suggested improvements to the PSVs ranged from none (i.e., PSVs are fine as currently available) through to improving the video mechanics and providing more videos. One could speculate that our students’ reliance on the problem solving videos reduced their usage of the textbook.

second most useful course aspect in terms of their general chemistry learning. Similar to previous research,5,6 we found that our students ranked course aspects of weekly instructor run lectures (82.3%), PSVs (73.1%), back tests (63.3%), and online homework assignments (42.4%) useful to their learning more often than other course aspects. Qualitative results and PSV viewing patterns revealed that a majority of our students viewed the PSVs, multiple viewing was common, and viewing was most often focused toward exam preparation and review. YouTube tracking data confirmed this latter result with the F



Article

chemical concepts” and a “decrease in cognitive expectations” for learning chemistry (p 1529).30 Further, as our general chemistry students and instructors become more accustomed to out-of-class video learning, we plan to increase the amount of in-class time devoted to active learning activities that foster student learning at higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy.3,4,6,7

Table 4. Frequency of Each Categorized Response to the Free-Response Question Pertaining to Recommended Improvements to the Problem Solving Videos Coded Responses to the Question: “What suggestions do you have for improving the ‘YouTube Problem Solving Videos and Associated Questions’?” Category 1: No changes recommended or videos are fine as currently available Category 2: Provide/produce more videos Category 3: Improve video mechanics Category 4: Video content/substance/level Category 5: Better organization of videos in folders, playlists, or pages or better video titles

Students, Na (Response, %)

■

73 (32.0) 74 60 8 6

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

(32.5) (26.3) (3.5) (2.6)

The PSV survey as well as a table comparing sample PSV questions with corresponding exam questions on similar content. This material is available via the Internet at http:// pubs.acs.org.

■

a

A total of 228 of 351 (65.0%) general chemistry I and II survey respondents provided written responses to this question.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

Research does indicate that general chemistry students find the in-chapter example problems and end-of-chapter problems to be useful features of the textbook.22 However, Lee et al. found that, for engineering students, text passages were “rarely consulted during problem solving, and students spent minimal time seeking knowledge regarding theories and underlying principles” (p 283). Students mainly used “textbooks for example and practice problems” (p 284).27 The same study concluded that students found the textbook “static” and desired to “access online sources as a supplement or alternative to the textbook” (p 284). We agree with Sturm-Beiss’s suggestion that the “anonymity of the video medium may contribute to the uniform viewing across the performance spectrum” (p 436).2 In fact, our students were overwhelming in their use and appreciation of the PSVs. When the general chemistry I students were asked “How likely would you be to use these videos in general chemistry II if we have them available for general chemistry II topics?”, 178 of 179 (99.4%) responding students indicated that they would be very likely to use the videos with comments such as ■ The videos are a valuable tool to help solidify understanding of topics. ■ I would be 100% likely to watch them. They help reinforce the material. ■ I would use these videos all the time. They really help me to grasp the concept. ■ I feel like these videos are like having a private tutor. This correlates well with the research of He, Swanson, and Lents where 84% of students agreed that video tutorials should be offered in other courses at their institution.1 Perhaps, as put forth by Berry et al. (p 38), our students’ appreciation of the PSVs derives more from their perceptions that we, as instructors, are helping them to prioritize their learning by telling them what we feel is most important and what they should focus study efforts on.28 General chemistry I and II PSVs continue to be available to all students enrolled in this coursework at our institution. Thus, the videos continue to acquire views well past the semester of their initial use. Moving forward, we expect to expand our repertoire of PSVs to include more conceptual problems to counteract our students’ reliance on algorithms and to bolster their conceptual problem solving abilities.29 This is especially important for second-semester general chemistry in which an abundance of topics dealing with solving mathematical equilibrium problems pervade the curriculum. As Grove and Bretz indicated, this can lead to students “[losing] sight of learning the underlying

*E-mail: [email protected]. Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to the undergraduate students enrolled in our general chemistry I and II courses for completing our surveys and providing us with thoughtful feedback on how they used the problem solving videos and how we can improve the videos.

■

REFERENCES

(1) He, Y.; Swenson, S.; Lents, N. Online Video Tutorials Increase Learning of Difficult Concepts in an Undergraduate Analytical Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1128−1132. (2) Sturm-Beiss, R. The Efficacy of Online Exam-Review Sessions: Reaching Both High- and Low-Performing Students. J. Online Learn. Teach. 2013, 9 (3), 431−438. (3) Prunuske, A. J.; Batzli, J.; Howell, E.; Miller, S. Using Online Lectures to Make Time for Active Learning. Genetics 2012, 192, 67− 72. (4) Pan, G.; Sen, S.; Starrett, D. A.; Bonk, C. J.; Rodgers, M. L.; Tikoo, M.; Powell, D. V. Instructor-Made Videos as a Learner Scaffolding Tool. J. Online Learn. Teach. 2012, 8 (4), 298−311. (5) Revell, K. D. A Comparison of the Usage of Tablet PC, Lecture Capture, and Online Homework in an Introductory Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 48−51. (6) Hudson, R.; Luska, K. L. Recording Tutorials to Increase Student Use and Incorporating Demonstrations to Engage Live Participants. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 527−530. (7) Amaral, K. E.; Shank, J. D.; Shibley, I. A., Jr.; Shibley, L. R. WebEnhanced General Chemistry Increases Student Completion Rates, Success, and Satisfaction. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 296−302. (8) Mayer, R. E. Multimedia Learning, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, 2009; pp 61−70. (9) Mayer, R. E.; Moreno, R. Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educ. Psychol. 2003, 38 (1), 43−52. (10) DeVaney, T. A. Impact of Video Tutorials in an Online Educational Statistics Course. J. Online Learn. Teach. 2009, 5 (4), 600−608. (11) Nilson, L. B. Teaching at its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors, 3rd ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Franciso, CA, 2010; pp 193−198. (12) DiLisi, G. A.; Eulberg, J. E.; Lanese, J. F.; Padovan, P. Establishing Problem-Solving Habits in Introductory Science Courses. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2006, 42−47. (13) Bodner, G. M. The Role of Algorithms in Teaching Problem Solving. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64 (6), 513−514. G



Article

(14) General chemistry I problem solving videos can be viewed at the YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/channel/ UCBz4K95ZoJlsQlxbRC15uWw (accessed March 2014). (15) Fosnacht, K.; Sarraf, S.; Howe, E.; Peck, L. How Important are High Response Rates for College Surveys? Paper presented at the annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Long Beach, CA, 2013. (16) Massey, D. S.; Tourangeau, R. Where Do We Go from Here? Nonresponse and Social Measurement. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Social Sci. 2013, 645, 222−236. (17) Peytchev, A. Consequences of Survey Nonresponse. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Social Sci. 2013, 645, 88−111. (18) Corbin, J.; Strauss, A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2008. (19) Richards-Babb, M.; Drelick, J.; Henry, Z.; Robertson-Honecker, J. Online Homework, Help or Hindrance: What Students Think and How They Perform. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2011, 40, 70−82. (20) Eichler, J. F.; Peeples, J. Online Homework Put to the Test: A Report on the Impact of Two Online Learning Systems on Student Performance in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1137− 1143. (21) Parker, L. L.; Loudon, G. M. Case Study Using Online Homework in Undergraduate Organic Chemistry: Results and Student Attitudes. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 37−44. (22) Smith, B. D.; Jacobs, D. C. TextRev: A Window into How General and Organic Chemistry Students Use Textbook Resources. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (1), 99−102. (23) Podolefsky, N.; Finkelstein, N. The Perceived Value of College Physics Textbooks: Students and Instructors May Not See Eye to Eye. Phys. Teach. 2006, 44, 338−342. (24) The YouTube website at http://www.youtube.com/ indicates that the length of the video replay is assessed to exclude “accidental clicks”. Also, assessed are the numbers and timings of clicks from unique IP addresses so as to exclude clicks not attributable to human behavior (i.e., algorithmically generated clicks fashioned to increase the number of video views for advertisement or promotional reasons). Further, the YouTube site indicates that “This process assures that the video views are quality views and discards the low quality playbacks.” https://support.google.com/youtube/troubleshooter/2991876?hl=en (accessed July 2014). (25) Jensen, P. A.; Moore, R. What Do Help Sessions Accomplish in Introductory Science Courses? J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2009, 60−64. (26) Rose, K. K. Student Perceptions of the Use of Instructor-Made Videos in Online and Face-to-Face Classes. J. Online Learn. Teach. 2009, 5 (3), 487−495. (27) Lee, C. S.; McNeill, N. J.; Douglas, E. P.; Koro-Ljungberg, M. E.; Therriault, D. J. Indispensable Resource? A Phenomenological Study of Textbook Use in Engineering Problem Solving. J. Eng. Educ. 2013, 102 (2), 269−288. (28) Berry, T.; Cook, L.; Hill, N.; Stevens, K. An Exploratory Analysis of Textbook usage and Study Habits: Misperceptions and Barriers to Success. Coll. Teach. 2011, 59, 31−39. (29) Nakleh, M. B.; Mitchell, R. C. Concept Learning versus Problem Solving. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70 (3), 190−192. (30) Grove, N.; Lowery Bretz, S. CHEMX: An Instrument to Assess Students’ Cognitive Expectations for Learning Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (9), 1524−1529.

H


Problem Solving Videos for General Chemistry Review: Students

Recommend Documents