Editorial Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 1053−1054
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Introductory Chemistry Using the “Flipped” Environment: An Update Norbert J. Pienta*
Downloaded via 83.171.253.137 on August 20, 2019 at 13:17:23 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
Department of Chemistry, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2556, United States ABSTRACT: A growing body of research and scholarship examines the “flipped classroom” as an environment that promotes meaningful participation by the students. In the flipped class, students have greater responsibilities but also greater opportunities to prepare themselves for learning inside and outside of the class. On the surface, the “flipped” version may seem like it has just repackaged the components of a traditional lecture. To be successful, both the instructors and students must be prepared; some of those strategies are discussed. KEYWORDS: General Public, First-Year Undergraduate/General, Curriculum, Organic Chemistry
C
lecture), and worked on some assignments. The expectation is that the traditional lecture time is replaced by activities that build upon previous knowledge, including the reading, videos, and assignments that might better prepare a student for those activities. From the perspective of the instructor, the strategy seems quite simple, but success (or lack thereof) arises from the details. Two recent events warranted another discussion of the topic. On the basis of experience with flipped activities, your Editor was contacted by faculty members at another school about providing advice and a workshop about the process. In fact, how does one prepare oneself to make the transition from traditional lectures? The literature cited herein (and within the references in those papers) certainly describes what content could be used, in what ways and to what ends, enough to get one started with the basics. However, reading that literature or having a person describe their experiences is the minimum. Instructors embarking on this path need to remind themselves of how students actually learn and that the activities need to promote conceptual knowledge. Having students use clicker questions to solve simple calculations is not likely to accomplish the mission. The “activities” need to be carefully conceived and assembled to provide a pathway from easy to complex and from basic skills to conceptual understanding. From that perspective, using clicker questions provided by someone else can only serve as a model, presumably one worth emulating. It is instructive to attend someone else’s class in order to sit among the students to experience their thought processes and frustrations. Making it too easy does not provide a sufficient challenge; making the work too difficult may result in frustration. The student perspective is the second event that inspired this piece. Do first-semester college students appreciate how they learn? Are they willing to make significant changes to how they work or study? What is appropriate motivation, and how can one get it accepted across the whole class? Do the students really understand what to expect in a flipped classroom or in any class?
ompelling evidence to espouse active-learning strategies and pedagogies that appeared in the metastudy by Freeman et al. in 20141 is part of a timeline for the slow progression away from traditional lectures. Historically, general chemistry courses have been convened in large lecture auditoria, presumably based on the premise that one can lecture to a group of any size; examples can be found for sections of 100, 200, 400, or even 800 students. Although the large venues provide some challenges to student-based learning activities, other issues plague the wider acceptance and use of modern pedagogies. Among some promising candidates for improving instruction, “flipping the classroom” seems to be gaining popularity. In an editorial in this Journal in early 2016,2 readers were encouraged not only to consider the evidence available at the time for this pedagogy but also to implement a flipped classroom while considering other published best practices. That editorial described a few current research papers by Weaver and Sturtevant,3 by Ryan and Reid,4 and by Hibbard, Sung, and Wells,5 as well as a ConfChem online conference,6−14 that had documented the area. Later in 2016, the following studies appeared: Mooring and Mitchell15 reported an evaluation of student attitudes and achievement in organic chemistry; Shattuck16 examined the effectiveness of a partially flipped organic class; Robert, Lewis, Oueini, and Mapugay17 reported on the combined effects of flipped general chemistry classes with peer-led team learning; and Lenczewski18 described a course to support rural students’ understanding. Subsequently, Ranga19 reported on the use of an iPad app in a course; Webber and Flynn20 described solving organic chemistry mechanism questions. Franco and Provencher21 used technology to support student learning in organic chemistry; Bokosmaty, Bridgeman, and Muir22 provided research results from three introductory courses. Hill et al.23 used the pedagogy to introduce safety, and Parsons24 flipped an organic course on retrosynthetic analysis. As synopsized by Rau et al.,25 active learning means that students become more responsible for their own learning. In the “flipped classroom” model, students are expected to arrive in the classroom already having read the book, viewed any accompanying videos (that might emulate the traditional © 2019 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Published: June 11, 2019 1053
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00458 J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 1053−1054
Journal of Chemical Education
Editorial
(12) Rossi, R. D. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Improving Student Engagement in Organic Chemistry Using the Inverted Classroom Model. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (9), 1577−1579. (13) Muzyka, J. L. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Just-in-Time Teaching in Chemistry Courses with Moodle. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (9), 1580−1581. (14) Belford, R. E.; Stoltzfus, M.; Houseknecht, J. B. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Spring 2014 ConfChem Virtual Poster Session. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (9), 1582−1583. (15) 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 (12), 1972−1983. (16) Shattuck, J. C. A. Parallel Controlled Study of the Effectiveness of a Partially Flipped Organic Chemistry Course on Student Performance, Perceptions, and Course Completion. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (12), 1984−1992. (17) Robert, J.; Lewis, S. E.; Oueini, R.; Mapugay, A. Coordinated Implementation and Evaluation of Flipped Classes and Peer-Led Team Learning in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (12), 1993−1998. (18) Lenczewski, M. S. Scaffolded Semi-Flipped General Chemistry Designed To Support Rural Students’ Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (12), 1999−2003. (19) Ranga, J. S. Multipurpose Use of Explain Everything iPad App for Teaching Chemistry Courses. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95 (5), 895− 898. (20) Webber, D. M.; Flynn, A. B. How Are Students Solving Familiar and Unfamiliar Organic Chemistry Mechanism Questions in a New Curriculum? J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95 (9), 1451−1467. (21) Franco, J.; Provencher, B. A. Using a Multitouch Book to Enhance the Student Experience in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96 (3), 586−592. (22) Bokosmaty, R.; Bridgeman, A.; Muir, M. Using a Partially Flipped Learning Model To Teach First Year Undergraduate Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96 (4), 629−639. (23) Hill, D. J.; Williams, O. F.; Mizzy, D. P.; Triumph, T. F.; Brennan, C. R.; Mason, D. C.; Lawrence, D. S. Introduction to Laboratory Safety for Graduate Students: An Active-Learning Endeavor. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96 (4), 652−659. (24) Parsons, A. F. Flipping Introductory Retrosynthetic Analysis: An Exemplar Course To Get the Ball Rolling. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96 (4), 819−822. (25) Rau, M. A.; Kennedy, K.; Oxtoby, L.; Bollom, M.; Moore, J. W. Unpacking “Active Learning”: A Combination of Flipped Classroom and Collaboration Support Is More Effective but Collaboration Support Alone Is Not. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (10), 1406−1414.
My suggestions for instructors are to prepare themselves by reading the evidence-based literature, to have conversations with others who have successfully taught such courses, and to avail themselves of workshops and webinars provided by teaching centers or professional organizations. However, instructors must also prepare their students with explanations and justifications of all expectations, especially the expectations that students should be cognizant of what is happening in the course and they should be prepared to change their learning strategies and invest time and effort perhaps beyond their original expectations. Teaching and learning is a team effort with responsibilities on both sides.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Norbert J. Pienta: 0000-0002-1197-6151 Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS. Norbert J. Pienta retired from the University of Georgia in 2018. In the second half of his 40-year career, his research and scholarship included the use of eye-tracking and web-based tools to explore student understanding and problem solving. He currently serves as the Editor-in-Chief for the Journal of Chemical Education.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111 (23), 8410−8415. (2) Pienta, N. J. A. Flipped Classroom” Reality Check. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (1), 1−2. (3) Weaver, G. C.; Sturtevant, H. G. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Flipped Format General Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (9), 1437−1448. (4) Ryan, M. D.; Reid, S. A. Impact of the Flipped Classroom on Student Performance and Retention: A Parallel Controlled Study in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (1), 13−23. (5) Hibbard, L.; Sung, S.; Wells, B. Examining the Effectiveness of a Semi-Self-Paced Flipped Learning Format in a College General Chemistry Sequence. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (1), 24−30. (6) Luker, C.; Muzyka, J.; Belford, R. Introduction to the Spring 2014 ConfChem on the Flipped Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (9), 1564−1565. (7) Seery, M. K. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Student Engagement with Flipped Chemistry Lectures. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (9), 1566−1567. (8) Hartman, J. R.; Dahm, D. J.; Nelson, E. A. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Time-Saving Resources Aligned with Cognitive Science To Help Instructors. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (9), 1568−1569. (9) Trogden, B. G. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Reclaiming Face Time: How an Organic Chemistry Flipped Classroom Provided Access to Increased Guided Engagement. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (9), 1570−1571. (10) Haile, J. D. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Using a Blog To Flip a Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (9), 1572−1573. (11) Butzler, K. B. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Flipping at an Open-Enrollment College. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (9), 1574−1576. 1054
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00458 J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 1053−1054
