Recording Tutorials To Increase Student Use and

Commentary pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Recording Tutorials To Increase Student Use and Incorporating Demonstrations To Engage Live Participants Reuben Hudson*,† and Kylie L. Luska†,‡ †

Department of Chemistry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2K6, Canada The Institute for Technical and Macromolecular Chemistry, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

‡

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: Over the course of three semesters, the tutorials for introductory organic chemistry at McGill University evolved significantly with the input from student surveys. The tutorials changed from “chalk talks” in the first semester to a lecture capture format in the second in which PowerPoint slides, ink annotations, and associated audio were recorded, and uploaded online to be viewable by any student at any time. As expected, the later format reached more students, though fewer came in person to the live tutorial. In an effort to continue to reach as many students as possible, while at the same time providing a more engaging environment for students at the live event, the format changed once more. Demonstrations, discussions, and other personalized interactions not accessible online were incorporated in the third semester to provide a more meaningful experience for students physically present, without compromising the online content. This third tutorial format in the final semester did indeed encourage more students to come in person. Herein, we follow the evolution of these tutorials, discuss the impetus for changing formats, document student use (both online and in person) and conclude that lecture capture technology is an effective means of delivering optional course content and it can be effectively supplemented by demonstrations and other personalized interactions to reach students with different learning styles. KEYWORDS: Organic Chemistry, Learning Theories

S

evolution of introductory organic chemistry tutorials at McGill University over the past several years. We compare three tutorial generations: (i) a nonrecorded “chalk talk” tutorial format; (ii) a recorded tutorial format; and (iii) a recorded tutorial format with incorporated demonstrations, discussions, and opportunities for active learning. Our primary goal was to assess how these changes in the tutorial format affected student use (both online and in person). Our secondary goal was to assess how these changes influenced student performance.

ince the beginning of classroom learning, the format has remained largely unchanged; a lecturer conveys material to students in the class. The past 50 years, however, have witnessed a boom in new delivery methods, including 35 mm film,1 overhead, lap dissolve,2 and computer projectors.1 Even more recently, new methods of lecture retrieval3,4film viewing,5 or automatic computer lecture capture and viewing1have enabled a paradigm shift wherein the student can access lectures,6 and course content,7−11 outside the classroom. Nearly 10 years ago, the McGill Chemistry Department developed a technology, COOL, for recording and synchronizing audio to a presenters’ PowerPoint slides so that students could access the lecture online, browse through and select when to watch, without losing the associated audio.1 Today this type of technology is commercially available from EchoSystems, Opencast Matterhorn, Galicaster, and many more, meaning that students in countless classes at many institutions who miss a lecture can almost seamlessly catch up with material without needing to rely on others’ notes. Additionally, even for students who have not missed a class, archived lectures serve as an excellent review and study tool. The pedagogical value of lecture capture technologies cannot be overstated, and these technologies have for the past decade been touted as an effective tool for classroom learning. Little, however, has been made of the use of lecture capture technology for supplemental material. Herein, we present how the use of lecture capture technology has guided the © 2013 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

■

THE FIRST GENERATION: CHALK TALKS The McGill introductory organic chemistry courses teach both theoretical and laboratory skills to classes ranging from 600 to 750 students. To provide additional support to such large classes, the courses offer optional tutorial sessions supplementing the regular lectures. Though the format regularly changed between semesters and professors, the course teaching assistants demonstrated the standard tutorial by summarizing and clarifying important lecture material and answering a series of problems, mostly using the blackboard (“chalk talks”). This format was accessible only to those who showed up in person. For this particular student cohort, we deemed this the starting point for our tutorial evolution that occurred over the following three semesters. Published: April 5, 2013 527

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300497g | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 527−530

Journal of Chemical Education

Commentary

to at least one tutorial, that number dipped to 45% in the recorded tutorial era (Figure 1), a statistically significant decrease. Not only did the students rate these recorded tutorials as highly effective, but excerpts from survey comments provides anecdotal evidence for improvement of student learning. [Recorded tutorials] definitely enrich learning experience and gives everyone an equal chance at succeeding.

In the fall of 2010, the introductory organic chemistry I tutorial used the traditional “chalk talk” format with no lecture capture or delivery. Despite, or perhaps because of, the technological limitation in this semester, the tutorials were quite well attended: 54% of students came to at least one tutorial; 19% came to more than three; and 5% went to more than five (Figure 1). Though the tutorials reached more than

■

THE THIRD GENERATION: RECORDED TUTORIALS WITH DEMONSTRATIONS The value that our own students and others have placed on recorded lectures should not overshadow the value of engaging students in active learning.12 Considering on one hand the benefits of active learning, and on the other, the lower overall rating of the live tutorial compared to its recorded counterpart, we sought to reach out to students of all learning typesnot just the online learnersin hopes of luring back anyone who could also benefit from personalized help. To do so, in the third semester, we once again adapted the tutorial format to emphasize demonstrations,13−15 discussions, and the opportunity to ask questions, while at the same time not losing sight of the gains achieved with recorded tutorials. Our goal thus became to offer the same excellent online resource while also providing additional tutorial content accessible only at the live event. Questions and discussion have always been an essential aspect of tutorials, but this semester we made an effort to actively encourage them by prompting, initiating our own discussions, and posing our own questions. This is not to say that questions are inaccessible to those viewing online. On the contrary, tutors repeat questions aloud so other students, either present or online, can hear. Instead, the implication is that students only viewing online lose the opportunity to ask their own questions and fruitfully participate in discussions. Beyond prompting, we further encouraged questions and discussions by changing the format of the tutorial. The first third of the tutorial we dedicated to reviewing, distilling, and clarifying lecture material, the middle to answering a previously posted problem set, and the final third for questionswhich of course we also encouraged throughout the rest of the tutorial. Simply solving a previously posted problem set (and answering questions as they arose) constituted the previous format. Incorporating these new segments increased average tutorial times. Wary that students have a limited attention span in lengthy classes,16 and hoping that breaking the monotony could increase productive class time, we incorporated at least one demonstration in each session. These served to segue one tutorial segment into the next, to engage students and to reclaim their attention. Online viewers could skip through this live-only material. For a nomenclature demonstration, students received a piece of paper with the IUPAC name of an organic compound at the top. They were asked to draw the structure, fold the name out of sight, and pass it on. They were then asked to write the name corresponding to the structure, and fold the structure out of sight. After many iterations, simple compounds like methanol remained unchanged, but complicated bicyclic compounds such as 2-methylbicyclo[4.3.1]decane lost their identity after two iterations (Figure 2). Rather than simply memorizing nomenclature rules, after the demonstration, students could better appreciate the necessity for these ruleswithout them,

Figure 1. Physical and online tutorial attendance for each tutorial generation.

half the students, a staggering 88% of those who did not attend any tutorials answered that they would have watched recordings online had they been available. An overwhelming majority of students strongly agreed that lecture recordings were helpful (evaluation of classroom lecture capture was 4.9 out of 5.0), as has much of the literature,1,3−6 so an extension to the weekly tutorials was a simple choice.

■

THE SECOND GENERATION: RECORDED TUTORIALS The following semester (winter 2011), we used the same tutorial format, which involved reviewing important lecture topics and answering a series of applicable questions, but this time recorded the sessions using our COOL lecture capture technology.1 Students could attend in person if they wanted, or simply view the sessions online. This therefore transformed the tutorials into a valuable online resource accessible to all organic chemistry students. Following one student cohort through the two-semester organic chemistry I and II progression (and therefore the “chalk talk” to COOL progression), we surveyed their tutorial attendance and evaluation from one semester (and tutorial generation) to the next. As expected, the recorded tutorials reached more students than the previous semester’s unrecorded tutorials. Indeed, of 160 students responding to the survey, 91% watched at least one, 86% at least three, and 66% more than five tutorials (Figure 1). Students found the implementation of recorded tutorials exceptionally helpful (evaluation of recorded tutorials was 4.5 out of 5.0)ranking them ahead of the course textbook (2.4 out of 5.0) and the live tutorial (4.1 out of 5.0) itself as the second most useful course resource behind only instructor-written previous exams and problem sets (4.7 out of 5.0). The success of reaching so many students through the Internet came at a cost, however; we reached far fewer students in persondepriving them the opportunity for personalized instruction. Where the previous semester 54% of students came 528

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300497g | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 527−530

Journal of Chemical Education

Commentary

Figure 3. Carvone stereochemistry demonstration.

efforts were not lost on the students. Of 105 students responding to the survey, the percent of students who attended at least one tutorial rose from 45% in the recorded tutorial era (second generation) to 52%almost as high as the 54% benchmark for the nonrecorded era. Moreover, more students attended at least five tutorials in this third generation (16%) than in either the first (5%) or second (8%), indicating that the dedicated following responded well to the incorporation of demonstrations (refer to the Supporting Information for further discussion). Perhaps more important than helping the students learn the material itself, the demonstrations and exercises empowered students to consider real-world applications of abstract course conceptsa viewpoint many suggest would stick with them for a long time to come. Our preliminary results suggest a correlation between the tutorial format evolution and a gradual increase in final class average (see the Supporting Information).

Figure 2. Nomenclature “telephone” exercise. The comparison of the right to the left side indicates how simple structures can maintain their identity when switching between names and structures, while complicated molecules quickly lose their identity without a firm grasp of IUPAC nomenclature.

communication between chemists would devolve as rapidly as a playground game of telephone. The nomenclature telephone exercise provided the students with an entertaining, interactive naming and identifying practice, and perhaps more importantly instilled in them the importance and necessity of these skills: The name game was fun and showed us the reason why correct nomenclature is actually important (so chemists can communicate without there [sic] compounds getting mixed up). Doing problems from the book make it seem like meaningless busy work. This exercise empowers students by giving them a first-hand experience of why they are learning this material; improper names and structures detract from effective communication. Another example explored the topic of chirality. The ambiguous structure of carvone was drawn on the board and two paper bags passed around the room. When the students on one side successfully identified the smell as spearmint and the others as caraway, we highlighted the chiral center to indicate that there are indeed two stereoisomers.17 Learning in class about famous chiral molecules such as thalidomide affords a certain impact to the lecture material.18,19 Providing a pair of enantiomers for students to smell offers additional significance for experiential learners (Figure 3). Students came away from the carvone stereochemistry demonstration with an increased appreciation for an otherwise abstract course concept: Smelling the mint/licorice enantiomer pair was a real world, memorable demonstration of course topics. By continuing to offer recorded tutorials, we maintained their high value as an online study tool. In addition, by also providing demonstrations, engaging students in active learning and encouraging questions and discussions, we delivered more content accessible only at the live event. To our delight, our

■

CONCLUSIONS The success of recorded lectures at McGill prompted an extension of lecture capture technologies to the tutorials for introductory organic chemistry. These recorded tutorials provided an additional course resource, reaching a significant portion of the students. However, because essentially all the content was now accessible online, we witnessed a drop in physical tutorial attendance in favor of online viewing meaning that students were losing out on the opportunity for personalized instruction. Our goal thus was to provide the same online resource while also offering additional content accessible only in person. This new format lured more students back to the live event and provided many with meaningful understandings of abstract course concepts.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

Evidence for tutorial effectiveness based on student survey and student performance. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. 529

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300497g | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 527−530

Journal of Chemical Education

Commentary

Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Nic Moitessier, Joe Schwarcz, Dima Perepichka, Youla Tsantrizos, and Ariel Fenster. We would like to extend a special thank you to David Harpp for his guidance and mentoring.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Harpp, D. N.; Fenster, A. E.; Schwarcz, J. A.; Zorychta, E.; Goodyer, N.; Hsiao, W.; Parente, J. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81 (5), 688. (2) Harpp, D. N.; Snyder, J. P. J. Chem. Educ. 1977, 54 (2), 68. (3) McCord, S. A.; Drummond, W. H. Lecture Capture: Technologies and Practices. In Distance Learning Technology, Current Instruction, and the Future of Education: Applications of Today, Practices of Tomorrow; Song, H., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, 2010; p 114. (4) Cook, E.; Cook, R. L. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (8), 1176. (5) Surendar, C. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 2011, 4, 261. (6) Harpp, D. N.; Fenster, A. E.; Schwarcz, J. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (6), 739. (7) Charlesworth, P.; Vician, C. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (11), 1333. (8) Seng, L.; Mohamad, F. S. Internet Higher Educ. 2002, 5, 109. (9) Flynn, A. B. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (4), 456. (10) Dori, Y. J.; Barak, M.; Adir, N. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (9), 1084. (11) Donovan, W. J.; Nakhleh, M. B. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (7), 975. (12) Paulson, D. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (8), 1136. (13) Meyer, L. S.; Panee, D.; Schmidt, S.; Nozawa, F. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (4), 431. (14) Bowen, C. W.; Phelps, A. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74 (6), 715. (15) Fery-Forgues, S.; Lavabre, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (9), 1260. (16) Bunce, D. M.; Flens, E. A.; Neiles, K. Y. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (12), 1438. (17) Demonstration adapted from a conversation (June 2010) with University of Illinois professor Scott E. Denmark. See his Web site: http://www.chemistry.illinois.edu/faculty/Scott_Denmark.html (accessed Mar 2013). (18) Coleman, W. F. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81 (7), 981. (19) Cornely, K.; Bennett, N. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (6), 759.

530

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300497g | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 527−530