Establishing an Instructor YouTube Channel as an Open

Downloaded by UNIV OF FLORIDA on November 11, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 8, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1270.ch007

Chapter 7

Establishing an Instructor YouTube Channel as an Open Educational Resource (OER) Supplementing General and Organic Chemistry Courses Douglas M. Jackson* Department of Chemistry, University of Georgia, 140 Cedar Street, Athens, Georgia 30602, United States *E-mail: [email protected]

The motivations, technical challenges, best practices, and benefits to students are reported here for the implementation of a supplemental YouTube channel for general and organic chemistry courses at the University of Georgia. A course video library has the advantages of reinforcing lecture material and providing expert guidance through "video keys" of practice problem sets. By producing the videos in-house, the content is guaranteed accurate and reliable to both the instructor and students. A concisely targeted 5-15 min video can be published to the web needing only a simple tablet computing device, freely available video editing software, and a 30-minute block of time in a day’s schedule. YouTube offers a dynamic medium for the delivery and reinforcement of video educational content outside of the traditional classroom environment. Content is easily uploaded, organized, and universally accessible in all mobile and pc formats, with statistics of usage logged. Students at the University of Georgia praise the convenience and reliability and are also highly engaged in the medium, tallying over 100,000 views per year.

© 2017 American Chemical Society Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


How To Optimize Limited Student-Instructor Contact As chemistry instructors, often in large lecture environments, we have very limited interaction with our students. Assuming students can be coaxed into attending every lecture, we hope to have their undivided attention for at least 50 minutes, three times per week. Unfortunately, many students do not take full advantage of these contact hours, and the distractions of social media and constant downloaded content to mobile devices prove to sufficiently distract even the most loyal attendees. Office hours provide additional opportunity for interaction with students, but a small percentage of students take advantage on a consistent basis, if at all. In my personal experience, offering virtual office hours via a virtual whiteboard service does not increase engagement appreciably without making the interaction a participation-type grade. Mandatory office hours are manageable for smaller course loads but prove impossible for student totals rising into the many hundreds, as are common for freshman and sophomore chemistry courses at many universities. While teaching assistant (TA) breakout sessions are an option in some departments, many factors limit this approach including scheduling, credit hour limits, TA workload limits, and individual TA abilities. Ultimately, even with this approach the student is still interacting with an amateur resource and not an expert in the field. With such limits on live interaction, learning management systems (LMSs) provide a virtual means of communication and organization that directly link students to faculty communications and course materials. Most LMSs aggregate course links, files, grades, and announcements into a common location, facilitating student engagement through convenience. Commonly, it is also possible to integrate assignments, modules, and course videos, allowing automated grading and engagement statistics to be kept. The upload of course video lectures or modules is of interest in the last decade as the “flipped” chemistry classroom has gained popularity (1–5). In the flipped classroom, students receive “lecture” or content exposure outside of the classroom and before attending the class session where the content is to be first assessed. Students then work problems ranging from introductory to advanced in class where the instructor is available to provide expert feedback. While the number of hours of one-on-one contact remains the same, the quality of that interaction increases markedly. In flipping the chemistry classroom, course videos have played a major role in a few key ways. Flipping lecture has seen an evolution from video cameras “taping” live chalk-talk lectures, to document cameras recording the handwriting and voice of an instructor, to more modern computer enabled technologies, like screen capture of a tablet or 2-in-1 computer (6). A more involved but very personal method called “Lightboard” has been described, which allows the instructor to face students while writing on a digitally inverted clear board (7, 8). In addition to recording lecture content, video keys of exams or other assessments have also been well received by students (9). Rather than posting a static pdf file of a key to the LMS, students can watch and hear their instructor work through the problem at their pace and convenience. Others have also flipped the course laboratory component and more dangerous or complicated demonstrations to 116 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


course videos (10, 11). First person technologies such as “Google Glass” (12) and “Go Pro” (13) have been used to this effect as well. A major limitation to the effectiveness of flipped classroom content and especially course videos has been the student interface with these resources. Traditionally, posting the videos to the LMS is advantageous from an organizational standpoint; however, students are interfacing with the LMS less and less from traditional personal computers and are instead using mobile browsers. In many cases, LMSs do not have mobile optimized web pages, or at least the experience is browser dependent. Additionally, the necessary authentication process is often a hassle on a mobile device. An alternate approach is to design a mobile app or web-optimized course website to facilitate ease of use for the modern student. The current popularity of Android and iOS devices would require development of at least 2 independent apps as well as a webpage to caretake the few students not in possession of these devices. Design services for apps and websites have become much more affordable in recent years, but with yearly maintenance services, technology upgrade cycles, and increased costs of web security, academics and their departments often find custom solutions out of reach. Students also find these custom sites and apps fragmenting to their experience, with the class having the LMS and often a separate system for homework or ebook interface.

YouTube as a Platform for Delivery of Course Content Videos provided to the students through a course YouTube channel, as demonstrated in Figure 1, provide an integrated and streamlined experience for students in this era of mobile technology in chemistry education. Technology is always in flux, and we as instructors best meet the students in a format with which they are already familiar. YouTube currently has over 1 billion users, roughly 1/3 of all people on the internet. Currently, over 95% of all internet users are exposed to the platform (14). Under the ownership umbrella of technology giant Alphabet, Inc, parent company of Google, YouTube is kept current in all major mobile operating systems and web platforms. Students need merely bookmark or subscribe to the course channel to get instant updates and access. Accessibility is also enhanced as YouTube provides an easy-to-use, self-contained closed captioning platform that allows for type-as-you-listen captioning, as seen in Figure 2. It should be noted that while auto captioning is also supported, the current system struggles with discipline-specific jargon. The use of YouTube in chemical education has been documented in the chemical education literature in several applications. Early adopters have delivered targeted lessons in general chemistry for topics such as solubility rules (15) or lattice energy (16). Others promote the wonders of science, such as the now celebrity creators of Periodic Table Online Videos (17). Some more talented and creative chemistry instructors have a channel dedicated to teaching chemical concepts through interpretive dance (18)! In the past few years, several 117 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


publications have documented the use of YouTube (1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 19) and LMS videos in flipping the general and organic chemistry courses, though these were channels closed to public viewing. Other excellent educational synopses on using YouTube in the college classroom in general have been published as well (20–23).

Figure 1. The homepage of the “Dr Jackson UGA Chemistry” YouTube channel. The activity feed shows last posted videos and tabs allow navigation to course playlists or specific videos.

Figure 2. The “type-as-you-listen” closed captioning utility is straightforward and automatically syncs text to voice.

118 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


YouTube as an Open Educational Resource In 2013, the University of Georgia began an initiative to encourage the production and use of open educational resources (OERs) (24–26) to both reduce course related costs to students, and to create a digital footprint for University of Georgia as a resource for OER materials. OERs, as defined by the University of Georgia Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) (27), are “teaching, learning, and research resources that can be freely retained, reused, revised, remixed and redistributed”. According to internal CTL research, through use of OERs in place of traditional resources, students at the University of Georgia have saved an estimated $2.7 million as of summer semester 2017. One of the key steps for the adoption of existing OERs for a course is the vetting of available resources. A quick search on the YouTube homepage will reveal hundreds, if not thousands, of videos from amateur tutors and professional educators around the world. While there is no independent peer review for publication to YouTube, the “likes” and viewership totals give some idea into the efficacy of a lesson. These very same data can be misleading, however, as many videos that I scanned prior to making my own channel were very popular, yet rife with errors, or presented in a style more concerned with getting an answer algorithmically, rather than understanding important concepts and problem solving. The availability of OERs for organic chemistry were particularly limited during my first semester of teaching the course. I made the decision to create my own YouTube channel in response to this void of available content. Since this time, mobile technology and internet proliferation of OER’s continues to advance. Chemical education has entered an era of explosive growth in open virtual content. As chemical educators, we would all do well to create a digital OER footprint in a most versatile and supported platform such as YouTube as early as possible if we are to be influential in this revolution.

How To Build an Instructor YouTube Channel The most daunting task for building a YouTube channel is posting the first video. While there are many considerations, both technical and content related, the process can be simplified into a few easy steps: prepping the technology, recording the lesson, editing and rendering the raw video, and uploading the finished product to a playlist. Pushing through and uploading the first video will allow you to learn by doing, rather than trying to be too perfect the first time. If you are unsatisfied with this upload, you can polish up your approach for future videos. Many successful channels approach these criteria from different perspectives; however, I will discuss the approach used for my classes to lay the groundwork for later discussion and provide a starting point for those interested in getting a quick start.



Prepping the Technology First, decide on a recording solution appropriate for your goals. In flipping the lecture or producing a problem set video key, I find that the video recordings are most easily produced via screen recording software on a pen-enabled touch screen computer. This technology allows you to have a mobile studio on campus or on the go. It also allows for prep-to-post all in one sitting, on one device. When purchasing the proper touch screen computer, to ensure inking accuracy, it has traditionally been very important to ensure an “active digitizer” screen accompanies such a computer rather than merely a capacitive touch screen. However, as technologies progress, many current active pens (sharp tips, not rounded felt tips) suffice in the absence of such a screen. Try before you buy is of the essence. I have for nearly 10 years used Fujitsu T-series tablet computers to support my online courses and flipped classroom videos. As of this writing, however, many options have now become commercially available with the advent of Windows Ink software and hardware. I have used Cyberlink Screen Recorder as part of the Cyberlink PowerDirector editing suite only because the software came with the purchase of my Fujitsu Tablet series computer many years ago. Free options are available, usually disallowing direct production of a streamable file without a purchased upgrade; however, the Power Director package is relatively inexpensive and has everything needed. In preparation to utilize screen recording software, it is advantageous to outline the lesson on a notetaking software such as Microsoft OneNote. Recording the First Lesson Use the option within the recorder software to only record the portion of the screen where the notes are located in the digital page, eliminating toolbars and personal effects from view. Also, be sure the lesson is recorded in sufficient resolution at a 16x9 aspect ratio for streaming (most programs will suggest this automatically and YouTube automatically adjusts files outside of this range to fair results). I upload to YouTube as 640x360 as the final upload resolution to save storage space and processing time, but often record in higher resolution to fit the space in which I am writing on the screen, as seen in Figure 3. New high-resolution tablets may be set to less than native resolution if you are finding file sizes are too large when recording your writing space. Through experience and data from the channel statistics, I have found that shorter targeted modules of about 5-10 min or less are best. For example, if the textbook chapter covers 10 reactions of alkenes, student engagement is better for 10 separate alkene videos in the 5-10 min range, rather than three full 50minute lectures. The goal is to provide the students with the flow of a brisk lesson emphasizing the problem-solving aspects of notes. Note that while figures and headings are previously prepared, space is provided to work problems, and one may certainly annotate the figures with a digital pen. Separating the lessons also allows you to “tag” the videos very specifically so students may search for exactly what they are looking for within the YouTube interface. However, it is possible to subdivide the final video file to accomplish the same effect, if desired. 120 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Figure 3. A screen capture program such as Cyberlink Screen Recorder should allow selection of only the portion of the screen appropriate for student viewing. Note that the resolution recorded may not match the final upload resolution but should be locked to 16:9 and be no less than the final upload resolution. The pictured lesson was prepared in OneNote.

Editing and Rendering the Raw Video Storyboard style video editing software is used to modify the raw recording into a professional and uploadable final product. When preparing course videos, perfection is certainly the enemy of progress. In general, it is best to fix simple mistakes with a live “excuse me, let me fix that” just as if in lecture. Starting over in search of the perfect take will cost precious time and make the experience quite untenable. Sometimes, however, we will make major mistakes that simply cannot be present in the final video production. With editing software, it’s possible to record a short correction and splice it into the original video while also excising the mistake, again without starting over. Additionally, within this type of software it is possible to split the video takes into separate files, or insert digital effects such as a watermarking, titles, foreground text, and background music. An example workspace of storyboard editing software is seen in Figure 4. It may also be necessary to convert a produced file to a streamable form. In general, .mp4 or .m4v file encoding is currently best for streamable formats, including YouTube, but they also ensure student device compatibility within the LMS. These formats are most broadly streamable, meaning you don’t have to worry whether or not some students will have difficulty opening the videos. Most likely, your software can export directly to the formats, but if not (like many of the free options), Handbrake is a widely used and free open-source software that can do the conversion. 121 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Figure 4. Raw video files are imported to the top left of the PowerDirector workspace, then dragged and dropped into the production space along the bottom of the screen. Clips may be merged, edited, or split, then previewed in the top right view window.

Uploading to the Course YouTube Channel Now that the upload file of the course video has been created, the final step in the process is uploading the video to the course YouTube channel. I teach 7 different courses spanning general chemistry and organic chemistry, so I further organize my videos into playlists by course and unit. For example, “CHEM 2211 Exam 1 Material” and the previous semester’s “CHEM 2211 Exam 1 Video Key” are easily identified by my first semester sophomore organic chemistry students, as seen in Figure 5. Students can add the videos to their own playlists or subscribe to everything for that unit all at once. The actual upload process is begun by a simple drag and drop from your file folder. You should then carefully describe each video as succinctly as possible with your students in mind, but also the internet at large if you are choosing to make your channel an OER. Proper keyword tagging is also a must to help students get to exactly what they need. After a minute or two, YouTube will process the file and provide you with a suggested still frame portrait for your video, which can be used or changed. Closed captioning can also be added at this time, either before or after bringing the video live. Over time, interfaces will undoubtedly change as features are modified and added; however, the overall process remains fairly consistent.



Figure 5. Playlist organization allows one channel for all courses taught. Careful naming of the playlists allows for course and unit differentiation.

Student Engagement and Analytics of the Open Channel After being dissatisfied with student engagement in course videos within the University of Georgia course LMS, I settled upon YouTube to host course videos in March of 2015, while teaching in my first semester as a faculty member. To date, videos have accumulated over 200,000 views, averaging over 100,000 views per year. This is a bit misleading, as the growth has been somewhat exponential due to making the channel (28) a public OER. The statistics kept by YouTube in the “Analytics” tab allow for detailed analysis of who’s viewing what, when, and how they are viewing. Even the plots given in the following figures are automatically generated by YouTube. It is quite the collection of tools.

Total Viewership For example, let’s investigate lifetime total “views” within the first portion of the analytics view, shown in Figure 6. A line graph is automatically displayed showing the viewership over time in both minutes viewed, as well as number of views. Note that the spikes in viewership align with cramming for the 4 hourly exams and the final exam on the course calendar! Engagement is also monitored by one of several other usage statistics. For example I have 803 “likes” to 59 “dislikes”, 475 shares by viewers, and course videos have been added to 1,298 external playlists. A curious but encouraging trend develops as time progresses, in that the exam spikes are widening over time, which would indicate improving study habits. But how can we be sure that the trend observed is from my course, given that the channel is an OER?



Figure 6. A partial overview of the channel Analytics tab, showing lifetime engagement data from all sources. Note the spikes correspond to exam dates.

Who Is Watching? Not only does the instructor have the ability to see how many are watching, but we can see demographic data for who is watching as well. YouTube has tools to track who’s watching via the IP addresses and location data of streamed videos. When using the geography tool, a world “heat” map and table is automatically generated to show concentration of viewership by country. I can see that the USA accounts for only 64% of my current viewership in the last 90 days. Clicking on the USA on the map, I can see a state-by-state breakdown, where the State of Georgia, home to the University of Georgia, accounts for 57% of total viewership in this same period. For comparison, if I change the time window to the first 90 days of the channel, the USA accounted for 98% of total viewership and the state of Georgia 85%. As demonstrated in Figure 7, I can filter all viewing sources except the State of Georgia from my lifetime channel view counts and virtually eliminate the background views.



Figure 7. Expanded lifetime view totals from all sources (top) vs. results filtered to include just the State of Georgia. The background viewership is largely removed.

I can now investigate to see how study habits have changed since the course channel has become established. Figure 8 illustrates how viewership has changed for exam 2 of first semester organic chemistry from the Fall 2015 and Fall 2016 semesters. The exam is largely consistent in material covered for each semester, with the only difference being that the Fall 2015 course was not emphasized as a “flipped” classroom model. Since that time, I have partially flipped courses in which in-class clicker questions enforce advanced reading. Note the Fall 2016 course shows 16 additional days of advanced viewing, with some days reaching into the hundreds of views. Also, note the excellent baseline after exam day, further indicating the removal of background views even within the State of Georgia.



Figure 8. Viewership data from Fall 2015 and Fall 2016 first semester organic chemistry, highlighting the days near exam 2 for first semester organic chemistry. The influence of partial course flipping and further establishment of the channel appear to significantly improve engagement.

It is also possible to differentiate the viewership of one course from another. For example, Figure 9 illustrates the convoluted total viewership data from my Spring 2017 teaching schedule, containing two sections of first semester organic chemistry and one section of first semester general chemistry. By filtering the results by course playlist, the data in Figure 9 show excellent resolution of the two classes. Age and gender demographics are also kept for registered YouTube users, and easily accessed via automatic plotting, as shown in Figure 10. Understandably, the largest demographic of viewers (64%) are college age (18-24 years old). In that range, 62% of viewers are female to 38% male. For comparison, 57% of the student body currently at the University of Georgia is female, indicating the desired lack of gender bias for the channel. Averaging the older and younger demographics yields a total viewership of 51% female and 49% male over the lifetime of the channel. Age and gender data are self-reported to both the University of Georgia and YouTube.



Figure 9. Total views for a segment of spring semester 2017 (top) can be separated into viewership for first semester organic chemistry (middle) and first semester general chemistry (bottom) by filtering by playlist. *Note: exam 1 was given on the 9th day of the semester for the lower plot.



Figure 10. Autogenerated age and gender viewership data for registered YouTube users. Videos appear equally utilized among male and female users.

How Are They Watching? With yet more analytical features at the instructor’s disposal, it is very intriguing to look into the usage data by device. Most apps and browsers are encoded to report their identity and device type to websites browsed. This data is readily available via the “Analytics” tab. Very interesting is the comparison of viewership from the first 90 days of the channel to the last 90 days of the channel. Views from my channel homepage make up 99% of all views, while the rest are embedded in other websites by internet users via YouTube’s web developer platform. This has remained consistent and is to be expected; however, the way in which the channel is accessed has changed. In the first 90 days, 15% of viewership came from “suggested videos” from the internet at large, and not direct linking or clicking on the homepage as students in my class would be expected to do. This relatively high initial number for a new channel agrees with the lack of organic chemistry OERs within YouTube in early 2015. Also, 15% external viewership complements the 85% of viewership coming from the state of Georgia during the first 90 days. In the last 90 days, 32% of viewership is coming from “suggested videos”, indicating the rising background of external viewership of the increasingly popular open channel. A breakdown in this manner for device type is also quite interesting and indicative of the way chemical education is becoming a mobile discipline. During the first 90 days of the channel, beginning March 24, 2015, channel view totals as a percentage were 83% personal computer, 11.8% phone, 5% tablet, and 0.2% smart television. In the last 90 days, as shown in Figure 11, the personal computer had dropped to 67%, with mobile phones leaping up to 28% and tablets shrinking to 4% of total views. Smart TV’s and game consoles contributed a combined 1% of total views. This trend will be closely monitored in the future. However, as currently indicated, the need for a mobile platform such as YouTube has never been greater. 128 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Figure 11. Total channel views by device type is given for the first 90 days of the channel beginning in March 24, 2015 (top) in comparison to the last 90 days leading up to July 30, 2017 (bottom). A clear shift to mobile phone viewership is observed. What Are They Watching? As an educator, one of the most powerful tools of the channel is to retrieve engagement data for specific topics. Over the lifetime of my channel, I can see that “Interpreting (IR) Infrared Spectra” is the most popular video, with “Mass Spectrometry” not that far behind. Like in-class clicker data, this can give insight as to what students are struggling with in real time. The clicker can give data, such as percent correct for a question before and after a lesson, to indicate preparation or to measure learning while in class. In a flipped classroom model, the viewership of a particular video before class can let the instructor know what students are struggling with so that a plan of action can be prepared ahead of time. For a discipline such as organic chemistry, where online homework engines are somewhat less effective in their current form, this can bring quantitative analysis to a qualitative subject. Along the same line of reasoning, my course video keys are organized with each question getting its own video within a playlist. As seen in Figure 12, the more difficult questions show higher viewership numbers for the key videos. Sometimes this can be unexpected, giving insight into a topic that should be 129 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


revisited in class. To make sure background viewership is not a factor, this analysis can be done by limiting the window to the previous week of class, for viewership only from the university’s home state.

Figure 12. The video key playlist for first semester organic chemistry gives each question its own video, so that total viewership of the video can give a clue as to which questions gave students the most trouble and can be revisited in class.

Figure 13. Plotted average view duration over time as a daily average. Early videos were longer on average, giving higher spikes, yet the average view duration remains flat near 3.5 minutes.


Attention span is another category kept in the analytics section. As plotted in Figure 13, the average view duration for the course videos is 3 min 42 sec. Longer videos coax at most about 6 minutes of viewership, whereas the 5-10 minute videos sit right in the 3.5 minute average viewership range. Because of this consistent trend, I have moved to keep my lessons as short and targeted as possible, while still properly covering the topic. Note that the average length of my videos decreases over time, yet the average view duration remains relatively flat.


Student Survey Data After the Fall 2016 semester, the first semester organic chemistry students were given a survey concerning the course channel, using an anonymous Google Form survey. Students reported increased engagement throughout the semester, with 64% using the channel for exam 1, 75% for exam 2, 72% for exam 3, 60% for exam 4, and an encouraging 85% for the final exam. Note that the students get to drop one exam, accounting for the reduced participation in exam 4. Responses to additional questions are summarized in Figure 14. Note almost 90% of students say that the channel was helpful to their exam prep, with 18.8% calling the channel “essential”. Other benefits include the 25% who say that they used the channel to catch up after an absence. One additional question asked in the student survey that I am pressing to get a full picture of is the view by students, educational professionals, and university administration concerning opening the course channel to ad support. From the beginning of my OER channel, I have enabled ad support in hopes of supporting undergraduate teaching and research assistants in our chemistry department, in an era where that support is hard to come by. To date, the channel has amassed over $400 in revenue from total viewership. While we don’t achieve the revenue numbers of a typical internet cat video, this is not an insignificant stipend for a month or two of summer research or teaching assistant support for an undergraduate. The estimate is that, with current viewership, one such opportunity could be funded yearly. Figure 15 gives the latest opinion of students in my class concerning the matter. While no student responded that ads were a deal-breaker, 8.7% said that it would be better without the ads. Ultimately, the students are charged nothing, but the types of ads seen are out of the control of the instructor and university. It remains a gray area until a final consensus can be reached.



Figure 14. Student survey data from fall semester 2016 first semester organic chemistry students.



Figure 15. Student survey responses concerning ad-enabling on the course channel

Summary An instructor YouTube channel is a convenient, universal, and engaging technology for the hosting of a personalized course video library in the modern chemistry course. The ease of upload, device compatibility, closed captioning platform, analytical tools, and demonstrated student engagement make YouTube hosting a superior solution for most course video goals. The decision to make the channel private to students within the course or a public OER is retained by the instructor, though subject to YouTube’s user agreement. In the era of rapid information dissemination, I find it unrealistic and disadvantageous to keep the content private. Instead, I have chosen to host an OER for all to use. By making the channel open, after 2 years the channel has gained an increasing online presence from internet viewers at large, currently receiving nearly 35% of over 210,000 channel views from the automated “referred videos” feature. The course has viewers from all 50 US states and 191 countries and territories supported by YouTube worldwide. Many University of Georgia students find the course channel ‘essential’ or ‘helpful’ and convey trust that their instructor is directly producing the videos. Looking ahead to future goals for the channel, in addition to continued development of general and organic chemistry course modules and video keys, I plan to use the new YouTube livestream platform to host review sessions and live office hours, now that the channel has exceeded the 1000 subscriber minimum threshold. Also, the new ability to post an “end of video” interactive slide will allow linking to other videos for more information on a topic. As mobile technology progresses, who knows what will be possible in the near future? However, investing in a platform with solid history and ownership gives the best odds of taking advantage of the most exciting features to come. In conclusion, no matter the size of the course or school, or whether the course is on campus, online, flipped or traditional, YouTube provides a powerful platform that you, the instructor, can use to enhance student engagement in your course. And it is all possible within the current semester, so get started today! 133 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

References 1.

2.

3.


4.

5.

6. 7. 8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14. 15. 16. 17.

Rein, K. S.; Brookes, D. T. Student Response to a Partial Inversion of an Organic Chemistry Course for Non-Chemistry Majors. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 707–802. Rossi, R. D. Improving Student Engagement in Organic Chemistry Using the Inverted Classroom Model. ACS CHED CCCE Spring 2014 ConfChem: Flipped Classroom; 2014, pp 1−20. Luker, C.; Muzyka, J.; Belford, R. Introduction to the Spring 2014 ConfChem on the Flipped Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1564–1565. Mooring, S. R.; Mitchell, C. E.; Burrows, N. L. Evaluation of a Flipped, Large-Enrollment Organic Chemistry Course on Student Attitude and Achievement. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 1972–1983. Seery, M. K. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Student Engagement with Flipped Chemistry Lectures. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1566–1567. D’Angelo, J. G. Use of Screen Capture to Produce Media for Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 678–683. Peshkin, M. How To Build a Lightboard. http://lightboard.info/ (accessed July 29, 2017). Fung, F. M. Adopting Lightboard for a Chemistry Flipped Classroom to Improve Technology-Enhanced Videos for Better Learner Engagement. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 956–959. Richards-Babb, M.; Curtis, R.; Smith, V. J.; Xu, M. Problem Solving Videos for General Chemistry Review; Students’ Perceptions and Use Patterns. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1796–1803. Laroche, L. H. Discovery Videos: A Safe, Tested, Time-Efficient Way to Incorporate Discovery-Laboratory Experiments into the Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 962–966. Box, M. C.; Dunnagan, C. L.; Hirsh, L. A. S.; Cherry, C. R.; Christianson, K. A.; Gibson, R. J.; Wolfe, M. I.; Gallardo-Williams, M. T. Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation of Three Types of Student Generated Videos as Instructional Support in Organic Chemistry Laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 164–170. Man, F. F. Exploring Technology-Enhanced Learning Using Google Glass to Offer Students a Unique Instructor’s Point of View Live Laboratory Demonstration. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 2117–2122. Fung, F. M. Using First-Person Perspective Filming Techniques for a Chemistry Laboratory Demonstration to Facilitate a Flipped Pre-Lab. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1518–1521. https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/press/ (accessed July 29, 2017). Lichter, J. Using YouTube As a Platform for Teaching and Learning Solubility Rules. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1133–1137. Sein, L. T.; Sein, S. E. Lattice Entertain You: Paper Modeling of the 14 Bravais Lattices on YouTube. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1419–1421. Haran, B.; Poliakoff, M. Conveying the Excitement of Chemistry on YouTube. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2013, 52, 8758–8759. 134

Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


18. Tay, G. C.; Edwards, K. D. Dance Chemistry: Helping Students Visualize Chemistry Concepts through Dance Videos. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1956–1959. 19. Fautch, J. M. The Flipped Classroom for Teaching Organic Chemistry in Small Classes: Is It Effective? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 179–186. 20. Fleck, B. K. B.; Beckman, L. M.; Sterns, J. L.; Hussey, H. D. YouTube in the Classroom: Helpful Tips and Student Perceptions. J. Eff. Teach. 2014, 3, 21–37. 21. Cherif, A. H.; Siuda, J. E.; Movahedzadeh, F.; Martyn, M.; Cannon, C.; Ayesh, S. I. College Students’ Use of YouTube in Learning Biology and Chemistry Concepts. Pinnacle Educ. Res. Dev. 2014, 1–13. 22. Berk, R. A. Multimedia Teaching with Video Clips: TV, Movies, YouTube, and mtvU in the College Classroom. Int. J. Technol. Teach. Learn. 2009, 5, 1–21. 23. Jones, T.; Cuthrell, K. YouTube: Educational Potentials and Pitfalls. Comput. Schools 2011, 28, 75–85. 24. Downes, S. Models for Sustainable Open Educational Resources. Interdisciplinary. J. Knowl. Learn. Objects 2007, 3, 29–44. 25. D’Antoni, S. Open Educational Resources: Reviewing Initiatives and Issues. Open Learn. 2009, 24, 3–10. 26. McCollum, B. M. In Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry; ACS Symposium Series; Schultz, M., Schmid, S., Holme, T., Eds.; American Chemical Society: 2016; Vol. 1235, pp 23−45. 27. http://ctl.uga.edu/oer (accessed July 29, 2017). 28. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFWZLr0WnlFa8Dd9YKOCvsg (accessed July 29 2017).


Establishing an Instructor YouTube Channel as an Open

Recommend Documents