Flipping General and Analytical Chemistry at a ... - ACS Publications

Chapter 7

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 12, 2016 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Flipping General and Analytical Chemistry at a Primarily Undergraduate Institution Joan M. Esson* Chemistry Department, Otterbein University, 1 South Grove Street, Westerville, Ohio 43081 *E-mail: [email protected]

This paper describes the development and assessment of flipped courses in Analytical Chemistry, General Chemistry I, and General Chemistry II at a primarily undergraduate institution. The backwards design process that guided the course redevelopment is described, along with specific pedagogical strategies and examples of pre-class, in-class, and post-class activities. Classroom observations, student self-direction in learning, student learning, and student attitudes in the flipped design were compared with courses taught in a traditional format. Classroom observations indicated that the flipped classroom had greater levels of active student engagement and more individualized learning within the in-class group-learning space. Student self-direction in learning, as measured by differences in pre- and post-scores on the Professional Responsibility Orientation to Self-Direction in Learning Scale and responses on student evaluations, increased in select areas, including student self-efficacy in learning. Student learning in the flipped environment was as good as or better than that in the traditional classroom, as assessed by course grades and standardized American Chemical Society (ACS) exams. Lastly, student attitudes were found to be more positive for the flipped course than the traditional classroom design, and for Analytical Chemistry compared to General Chemistry.

© 2016 American Chemical Society Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Introduction Flipped classrooms are becoming more widely used in higher education, with several examples available of their incorporation into chemistry (1–8). Flipped learning is defined by the Flipped Learning Network as a “pedagogical approach in which direct instruction moves from the group learning space to the individual learning space, and the resulting group space is transformed into a dynamic, interactive learning environment, where the educator guides students as they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter” (9). Although flipped classrooms are becoming more prevalent, limited examples exist of this pedagogical approach’s application to Analytical Chemistry. He and co-workers described the use of video tutorial supplements in Analytical Chemistry, but not within the flipped environment (1). Fitzgerald detailed the development of a flipped classroom in which Prezi was used to deliver content outside of the traditional classroom and class time involved using clickers to assess understanding and group work on online homework (2). Fitzgerald reported that student performance in terms of grade point average for the course showed no change. Scores on a standardized American Chemical Society Analytical Chemistry Exam showed improvement from previous years, but with no statistically significant difference given the small number of students in the course (n=11). Thus, few studies have examined how Analytical Chemistry can be flipped and how student learning is subsequently impacted. Though more research has explored flipped General Chemistry courses, findings have been mixed. Some studies have documented improved student attitudes (3), improved student performance on standardized American Chemical Society exams (4) and semester exams (5), as well as favorable reviews as recorded in student surveys or teaching evaluations (4–7). Other studies have demonstrated differential improvement: in some cases, noting a greater positive effect of the flipped environment on average-performing students (8), and in others, seeing more pronounced results for students with higher high school class rank and math preparedness (6). However, other studies have shown no difference in performance between students in flipped and traditional courses (6, 7). Although the impacts of a flipped course with respect to student attitudes and learning outcomes have been previously described (3–8), limited descriptions of lesson plans, in-class activities, and how they were chosen exist in the literature. Examples of using Just-in-Time Teaching before class to inform mini-lectures during class time have been described (7, 10, 11). In-class activities have been more widely reported and are dominated by problem-solving, either instructor-led or in groups, along with the use of clickers (3, 5, 7), although the implementation of SCALE-UP has also been reported (4). Examples of post-class activities are rare in the literature (7) despite the fact that this phase is essential for students to evaluate and solidify their understanding. Further, to the author’s knowledge, no literature exists that describes the development of flipped lower-level and upperlevel courses simultaneously. This chapter describes the development and assessment of flipped courses in both Analytical Chemistry and General Chemistry at a predominantly undergraduate institution. There were three factors motivating the change in 108 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


course design. First, a flipped environment has the potential to have increased student engagement during face-to-face meetings. Second, flipped classrooms provide an opportunity to spend more class time at higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (applying, analyzing, and evaluating) (12). Lastly, flipped classrooms can reduce the cognitive load of the learner. Underlying the cognitive load theory is the premise that we have a limited amount of working memory, and overloading working memory impedes learning (13). If videos are used to deliver content outside of class, students can pause or rewind the video as needed. This student self-pacing may reduce cognitive load and aid learning. This, combined with the ability of the instructor to work one-on-one or with small groups of students during class time, creates the possibility of individualized differentiated learning. Further, the course re-design was grounded in a generative learning theory in which students integrate new ideas with prior knowledge by emphasizing student construction of meaning (14).

Course Redesign Both General Chemistry and Analytical Chemistry were redesigned in Summer 2013 following the author’s attendance at a Course Transformation Institute run by the Center for Teaching and Learning at Otterbein University. This two-week course was designed in a hybrid environment so the attendees could both learn about hybrid course design, and experience it first-hand. Best practices for hybrid course design were introduced, as well as a variety of technologies that could be used in a flipped course. Attendees were asked to use McTighe and Wiggins’s backwards design approach in reimagining a course (15). Unlike traditional course development, which relies on examining textbook content and developing lectures to convey this information, backwards design emphasizes the identification of learning goals first, followed by development of assessment methods and, finally, design of learning activities. Learning goals for both courses were created by thoughtful examination of the anchoring concepts identified by the American Chemical Society (ACS) Exam Institute (16), ACS standardized exams, a review of topics taught in quantitative analysis (17), and of various textbooks. Learning goals for each course and a sample lesson with an associated assessment plan were shared with other participants in the course design workshop for feedback, and additional redesign continued throughout 2013. In the design stage, the WHERE approach was used (Figure 1). WHERE is an acronym that focuses on: helping the students know where a unit is going and what is expected (W); hooking the students on the topic and holding their interest (H); equipping the students, helping them to experience key ideas and explore concepts (E); providing opportunities to rehearse, revise, rethink, and refine their work (R); and allowing students to exhibit and evaluate their understanding (E). 109 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Figure 1. The WHERE approach to curriculum design. The WHERE approach was introduced by McTighe and Wiggins (15).

Course redevelopment also relied on the consideration of what would occur in the individual learning space before class, the group learning space during class, and the individual learning space after class. The purposes of the pre-class activities were to introduce students to content they could explore at their own pace, and to strengthen their prior knowledge before students explored the content more deeply during class. The in-class activities were selected to engage students in higher-order cognitive skills including application, analysis and evaluation, as well as transfer of their knowledge to new contexts. The post-class activities were designed to allow students to evaluate their understanding, encouraging self-directed learning. For both courses, Blackboard was used as a learning management system to organize content for the students. Each class meeting was associated with a folder within Blackboard that contained learning goals for that day, links to materials for the individual learning space, description of in-class activities, and homework directions. Starting each new day with learning goals helped the 110 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


students to know where the unit was going and what was expected (the W in the WHERE approach). Students were hooked (the H in the WHERE approach) by a real-world example or question given by the instructor, followed by content information provided either in a reading or in a video created in-house using Camtasia software. Although many of the activities were developed in-house, other materials for both the individual learning space and the group learning space included (or were informed by and adapted from) available resources, such as the Analytical Science Digital Library (18), PhET Interactive Simulations (19), the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (20), Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and On-Line Teaching (MERLOT II) (21), Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) (22), and Analytical POGIL (ANA-POGIL) (23). To ensure students watched the videos, completed readings and other individual learning space assignments, Warm Ups were used in which students answered three to five questions related to the content of the learning activities, including an open-ended prompt addressing questions they had about the content (24). During class time, students were encouraged to explore concepts and refine their thinking (the E and R of the WHERE approach) through a variety of methods including clickers, Peer Instruction (PI), simulations, case studies, Team-Based Learning, Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), and individual work. Both formative and summative assessments were completed to evaluate student understanding (the final E in the WHERE approach). Formative assessments consisted of activities such as the Muddiest Point, Minute Paper, and worksheets completed either individually or in groups (25). Summative assessments consisted of quizzes, instructor-written exams or American Chemical Society (ACS) standardized exams, and, in the case of General Chemistry, on-line homework. Although a discussion of the entire course design is outside the scope of this chapter, two modules are discussed in detail below, one from Analytical Chemistry and one from General Chemistry. Moreover, additional examples of learning modules for Analytical Chemistry and General Chemistry are described in Tables 1-4.

Module from Analytical Chemistry The sample learning module in Analytical Chemistry addressed Inferential Statistics (Table 1) (26–29). Here, the learning goals were first clearly articulated in the Blackboard folder for the module to help the students know where (W) the unit was going. Specifically the learning goals from this module were to: (1) explain why both visually and quantitatively examining data is important and (2) describe the purpose of each type of significance test, determining when and how to use each. The pre-class information also included examples from popular media that lack proper statistical interpretation, and part of a TED talk by mathematician Peter Donnelly describing the misuse of statistics in the criminal trial of a woman, which contributed to her wrongful conviction in the deaths of her two children (30). These examples provided the hook (H) to get students interested in statistical 111 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


analysis. The other pre-class material that students examined were three videos to introduce each type of statistical test: one 11-minute video introducing different types of t-tests; one 3-min video introducing the f-test; and one 3-min video introducing the Grubbs test to examine outlying data points. A link with an accompanying worksheet was then provided to the Introduction to Data Analysis Tutorial (26), which is a resource from the Analytical Sciences Digital Library (18) that guides students through: (i) a visual analysis of data regarding the mass of pennies as a function of the year they were minted; (ii) a comparison of the data using t-tests to determine if there are statistical differences; and (iii) an examination of possible outliers. This provided the opportunity for students to explore (E) the statistical tests. The in-class session utilized a cooperative learning strategy in which students worked in small groups on two in-house written case studies; the first examined two possible methods for determining calcium in the context of the effect of parathyroidism on calcium levels; and the second investigated fabricated experimental data linked to an invented forensic case. Both the clinical and forensic applications appealed to student interest, providing an additional hook, as well as the opportunity to rehearse and rethink (R) through the use of the various statistical tests. Case studies were chosen because they provide a realistic and contextually rich situation that students must navigate through, while cooperative learning was used so that students could learn from each other in a way that promotes deeper understanding. To complete the WHERE cycle, post-class activities required students to post in a discussion board about an additional case so that they could exhibit and evaluate (E) their understanding. Another example module on infrared spectroscopy for Analytical Chemistry is described in Table 1.

Module in General Chemistry In General Chemistry a learning module on factors affecting solubility was designed in a similar fashion. The learning goals, specified in Table 2, were clearly posted in the course Blackboard page to aid the students in understanding where (W) the unit was going. In their individual learning spaces before class, students viewed a short video giving a real-world example. Specifically, the implications of amino acid substitutions associated with mutated DNA on the solubility of hemoglobin and its relationship to sickle cell anemia was described. This provided the hook needed to hold (H) student interest, especially considering that many students taking General Chemistry have an interest in clinical fields.

112 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Table 1. Select examples of learning modules in Analytical Chemistry. WHERE Designation

Activity


Example 1. Inferential Statistics W: Help the students know Where the unit is going (Individual learning space)

Identification of learning goals (1) Explain why visually and quantitatively examining data is important (2) Describe the purpose of each type of significance test, and determine when and how to use each

H: Hook the students on the topic (Individual learning space)

Examples from popular media lacking proper statistics

E: Help students Explore concepts (Individual learning space)

In-house video, Introduction to Data Analysis Tutorial (26)

R: Opportunities to Rehearse (Group learning space)

Cooperative learning using in-house created cases

E: Exhibit and Evaluate understanding (Individual and group learning spaces)

Responses in discussion board about a select case in the media In-class exam

Example 2. Infrared Spectroscopy Unit W: Help the students know Where the unit is going (Individual learning space)

Identification of learning goals (1) Describe instrument components used in infrared (IR) spectroscopy (2) Explain the similarities and differences between UV/VIS and IR spectroscopies (3) Interpret simple IR spectra

H: Hook the students on the topic (Individual learning space)

Examples of importance of IR spectroscopy

E: Help students Explore concepts (Individual learning space)

Royal Society of Chemistry Infrared Spectroscopy video (27), Infrared Spectroscopy Tutorial (28)


In-house-created collaborative worksheet


Interpretation practice with the IRHelper (29) In-class exam


Table 2. Select example of a learning module on solubility in General Chemistry.


WHERE Designation

Activity

W: Help the students know Where the unit is going (Individual learning space)

Identification of learning goals (1) Explain what is occurring at the particulate level when two substances are mixed together (2) Explain the relationship between intermolecular forces and solubility and what is meant by ‘like dissolves like’

H: Hook the students on the topic

Real-world examples of solubility (individual learning space)

E: Help students Explore concepts

In-house-made video followed by questions related to the content (individual learning space)


Learning stations that students rotate through, such as a paper chromatography experiment, and another assessing structures of vitamins (i.e. if they are wateror fat-soluble and implications of this)


Dear Mr. Scientist column (31) (similar in concept/format to a Dear Abby advice column); on-line homework In-house exam

The pre-class activities also required students to watch a video discussing factors that affect solubility, including intermolecular forces, pressure and temperature. This provides an initial introduction to the topic and time for students to explore (E) the content. Students also completed an activity before class that asked them first to predict if a particular substance would dissolve in another and explain why, and also to state any question(s) they had about the content in the video. This strategy helped the instructor frame the class meeting to suit the students’ needs. Depending on the student responses, the in-class activities included a mini-lecture to clarify ideas, followed by the rotation of small groups of students through learning stations that provided opportunities for students to rehearse and refine (R) their thinking about factors affecting solubility. The learning stations were chosen so that the students could examine and transfer the material to a variety of different contexts, and also to provide some physical movement to help keep the students awake during their 8 a.m. course. The learning stations included: separation of inks using paper chromatography and subsequent explorations of the relationship between the ink and solvent structures; assessment of the structures of select vitamins to determine if they are fat- or water-soluble and exploration of how this affected warnings used on products containing olestra (the infamous WOW chips from the late 1990s); and examination of the reasons for the packaging and storage conditions for carbonated beverages. The post-class activity for this learning module included the opportunity for students to exhibit (E) their understanding by responding to a letter in a “Dear Abby” style to Mr. Scientist, the fabricated question-and-answer 114 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


person for a popular science magazine (31). The initial letter to Mr. Scientist introduced a fictitious and humorous conflict between the letter writer and a parent or friend that Mr. Scientist could settle. This method was chosen so that students could demonstrate the transfer of their knowledge to a new context in an engaging way. Previous letters have required students to describe how soap works to remove stains and how scuba divers develop the bends. Two additional learning modules for General Chemistry are described in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. Acid-base learning module 1 for General Chemistry. WHERE Designation

Activity

W: Help the students know Where the unit is going

Individual learning space: Identification of learning goals (1) Define and identify acids, bases, and conjugate acid-base pairs (2) Explain the difference between and identify a strong acid (or base) and a weak acid (or base) (3) Describe structural factors that influence acid strength


Individual learning space: Real-world examples of the importance of acid-base chemistry


Individual learning space: in-house made video followed by Warm Up questions

R: Opportunities to Rehearse

Group learning space: Team Based Learning using in-house created worksheet and IF-AT sheets (33)

E: Exhibit and Evaluate understanding

Individual learning space: on-line homework Group learning space: Exam

As evidenced from these examples and others shown in Tables 1-4, the pedagogical strategy and content delivery for both courses were similar, even though the two classes have different student profiles. The students in Analytical Chemistry are a more homogenous group consisting of chemistry majors and minors who are typically second or third year students, while the students in General Chemistry are mainly pursuing other science majors and are mostly in their first or second year. Additionally, the Analytical Chemistry course is smaller than General Chemistry (~10 students versus ~35 students, respectively). The pre-class individual learning space in both courses utilized mainly in-house videos, which were slightly longer for Analytical Chemistry than for General Chemistry (9 min versus 7 min, respectively). With videos from other sources that were used in Analytical Chemistry, students emphasized that it was helpful to have an accompanying handout, as the main ideas of these videos were not as immediately apparent to them as those in the in-house videos, since with the latter, they could listen for the instructor’s voice inflections to key into important ideas.


Table 4. Acid-base learning module 2 for General Chemistry.


WHERE Designation

Activity

W: Help the students know Where the unit is going

Individual learning space: Identification of learning goals (1) Explain how pH is affected by acid (or base) strength and concentration (2) Calculate the pH of various acidic and basic solutions


Individual learning space: Which student is right? Evaluation of two possible answers


Individual learning space: PhET simulation: Acid-Base Solutions (19)

R: Opportunities to Rehearse

Group learning space: Collaborative in-house written worksheet

E: Exhibit and Evaluate understanding

Individual learning space: annotated problem (25) and on-line homework Group learning space: Exam

During the in-class meetings, both courses used a mix of individual and collaborative group learning. However, the specific practices that were used for group work varied between the courses in some cases. In General Chemistry, students were more apt to move at different rates from others in the same class. Since individualized or small group feedback from the instructor was more difficult given the greater number of students, the students required methods with more immediate feedback. Peer Instruction (PI) (32) and Team-Based Learning (TBL) using immediate feedback assessment technique (IF-AT) sheets (33) are two methods that meet this need that were used in General Chemistry. Students in the teams in the TBL-inspired method were required to complete individual readiness assurance tests, team readiness assurance tests, an application exercise, and peer review. Although the teams worked together multiple times throughout the term, these teams were not used every class period when other pedagogical methods were employed. The pedagogical method that was chosen depended in part on whether the topic for the day focused more on conceptual understanding or problems involving mathematical manipulation. It should be noted, however, that the choice of specific group pedagogy is not reflective of the difference between a lower level and upper level course, but rather of class size. There were some differences between the courses in terms of the types of materials used. Since flipping a course requires a significant investment of time in course redesign, initially using materials that are readily available can reduce the overall planning time. PhET Interactive Simulations (19) are free, interactive, research-based simulations for a variety of science fields. However, of the over 30 chemistry-related simulations, only a handful are readily applicable to Analytical Chemistry. Thus, PhET simulations were more widely used in General Chemistry. However, the Analytical Sciences Digital Library (18) provides a compilation of resources for more advanced topics, such as the HPLC Simulator 116 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

(34). Additionally, Analytical Chemistry employed more case studies that were either designed in-house or adapted from the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (20). These case studies required students to apply their knowledge of analytical methods and integrate multiple ideas.


Implementation Beginning in Fall 2013, Analytical Chemistry was taught in a flipped format once per academic year. Although students were surveyed about their experiences, little comparative data is available for the same course taught in a traditional format. The number of students per year varied between 5 and 21 students. General Chemistry II was taught in a flipped format in Spring 2014 and Spring 2015. During Spring 2014, the author taught two sections of the course: one in a traditional style and the other in a flipped format. This allowed direct comparison of student surveys and student performance without confounding the data due to effect of the instructor. In the traditional course, students were first exposed to ideas during the class meeting whereas students’ first exposure to content occurred before class in the flipped format. Although the traditional course used in-class lecture, active learning strategies, such as Think-Pair-Share and collaborative group work, were also employed. Other instructors also taught General Chemistry II in Spring 2014 and Spring 2015 in a traditional style, and these comparative data are also available. The class sizes varied between 24 and 30 students. In addition to student surveys about their experiences that utilized a Likert scale and open-ended questions, the validated Professional Responsibility Orientation to Self-Direction in Learning Scale (PRO-SDLS) was also used to evaluate student learning (35). The PRO-SDLS is a 25-question five-point Likert scale survey that consists of four sub-scales: initiative, control, self-efficacy, and motivation. Additionally, a minimum of three classroom observations were completed for each course using the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) (36). In COPUS, codes for both instructor behavior and student behavior are recorded in two-minute intervals throughout the class. In Fall 2015, General Chemistry I was taught by the author as a flipped class (n = 39), and comparisons were made to students in a traditional section (n = 34) taught by another instructor. Performance on exams and results for the PRO-SDLS were compared. Statistical analyses were completed using SPSS software.

Results and Discussion Classroom Observations Classroom observations are a useful tool to understand what is occurring in the group learning space. During Spring 2014 and Spring 2015, all sections of General Chemistry II were observed using COPUS, in which classroom actions of both the instructor and the students were observed and coded (36). In the flipped classroom, one-on-one extended discussions by the instructor with one 117 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

or a few individuals was found to be significantly greater than in the traditional course regardless of if the same instructor was teaching the traditional course or other instructors were (33% of two-minute intervals sampled in the flipped classroom versus 3% for traditional, p = 0.036 for the same instructor, p = 0.021 for all instructors). These classroom observations support the stated advantage of personalized learning within the flipped classroom (37, 38).


Student Learning – Summative Assessment For Analytical Chemistry, limited comparative analysis is available of the effect of the flipped classroom on student learning. While the exams were similar in both the traditional and flipped classrooms, different exams were given in different years, so direct side-by-side comparison is difficult. Students in the course pre- and post-flip had similar characteristics with no statistically significant difference in math ACT scores. Student performance on course exams also showed no statistically significant difference between the two class formats. The ACS 2013 Analytical Chemistry Exam was administered during the past two years in the flipped classroom, and students placed in the 87th percentile, on average. However, this exam was not adopted until the year of the course re-design, making comparison impossible. Thus, at a minimum, the conclusion can be made that students in the flipped Analytical Chemistry classroom are performing well on national assessments and are learning equally as well as students in the traditional classroom. To probe if student learning is different in the flipped classroom in an upper level course compared to that at the introductory level, student performance was also examined for General Chemistry I and General Chemistry II. In both of these courses, direct side-by-side comparisons can be made between the flipped and traditional formats since both designs were taught in the same term. Since ACT scores have been previously shown to correlate to chemistry performance (39), the average ACT score and distribution of scores for students taught using each style were compared and no significant difference was found. The average course grade was also not statistically different, suggesting a limited impact of the flipped format on student learning. However, the distribution of grades in General Chemistry I varies between the traditional and flipped classrooms when two different instructors taught each course (Figure 2). The percent of As was greater for the flipped course (39% versus 21%), and the number of DFWs was slightly reduced (16% versus 18%). This suggests that the flipped approach may preferentially help average students. It also agrees with the shift to higher grade distributions that has been previously found for some flipped chemistry courses (7, 8, 40). Some studies have also suggested that flipped learning may have differential effects for men and women (4); however, no differences were observed based on gender. Additionally, students in the flipped section of General Chemistry I were found to perform better on the ACS General Chemistry First Term Exam 2015 than those in the traditional course (score of 45 versus 36, respectively, p = 0.001). However, no comparisons can be made to national norms since none were yet available at the time of this writing. 118 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Figure 2. Comparison of Course Grades in General Chemistry I for Flipped and Traditional Classes. Unlike General Chemistry I, no differences in student performance were observed on the ACS 2007 General Chemistry 2nd Term Paired Question exam between the flipped and traditional courses of General Chemistry II. Students placed in the 60th percentile on average, which is lower than that found for the standardized Analytical Chemistry exam. Additionally, to examine learning gains in General Chemistry II throughout the term, the conceptual questions from the ACS exam were given at the start of the term and compared to performance at the end of the semester. The ratio of actual gain to maximum possible gain, known as the Hake gain (41), was determined for each student. When comparing formats taught by the same instructor, the average Hake gain was not statistically different (0.32 and 0.31 for the flipped and traditional, respectively). However, when comparing formats taught by different instructors, the average Hake gain was greater for the flipped design (0.32 for flipped versus 0.23 for traditional). This difference, though, was not statistically significant, given the limited number of students in the flipped course who completed both the pre- and post- exam (n = 19, p = 0.089). Taken together, these results suggest a limited impact of a flipped classroom design on student academic performance, with the exception of the significantly increased performance on the standardized ACS exam in General Chemistry I and the strong performance of students on the ACS exam in Analytical Chemistry. This may in part be due to the small class sizes examined in this study. Seery’s review of publications on flipped learning found that half were shown to improve student academic performance, while the other half saw no differences (7). Additionally, Jensen concluded that a flipped design does not result in higher learning gains when both the flipped and traditional courses use an active-learning approach (42). The data herein support these earlier findings; smaller average differences in student 119 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

performance were observed between the flipped and traditional courses taught by the author than between the author’s flipped course and traditional courses taught by other instructors, who have been documented via COPUS to use fewer activelearning techniques.


Self-Directed Student Learning In a flipped classroom, students are expected to move away from being passive participants and take responsibility for their own learning (38, 43). However, few studies have explored if students are actually doing so. Fautch probed student ownership of learning by giving students a pre- and post- Likert scale survey that included the statement, “I feel autonomous in my learning.” However, no changes were found as the term proceeded (37). In a psychobiology course, van Vliet used the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire and found that students in the flipped course increased their scores with respect to critical thinking, task value (students’ perception of course material in terms of interest, importance, and utility), and peer learning (44). This study examined self-direction in student learning using a pre- and postdesign employing the PRO-SDLS survey (35). In General Chemistry I the average PRO-SDLS score increased during the semester in the flipped classroom (90.3 to 90.6) and decreased for the traditional classroom (89.4 to 89.2). However, neither the average scores nor the changes in scores were statistically different between the two course formats. Similar findings were seen for General Chemistry II. However, significant differences were found on specific questions within the survey, which suggests that students in the flipped classroom experienced an increase in select areas of self-directed learning. For example, the gain for General Chemistry I students was larger in the flipped course on the statement exploring initiative in learning: “I frequently do extra work in this course just because I am interested” (0.58 flipped versus -0.14 traditional, p = 0.006). A greater increase in self-efficacy of learning was also observed in the flipped course, demonstrated by decreased agreement to the statement: “I am really uncertain about my capacity to take primary responsibility for my learning” (-0.62 flipped versus 0.25 traditional, p = 0.012). Student Attitudes The teaching evaluations of students in both Analytical Chemistry and General Chemistry II were examined to better understand student attitudes toward the flipped classroom. Students in Analytical Chemistry gave more favorable responses than those in General Chemistry (Table 5). Previous studies have shown that there is often an adjustment period for students when changing to a flipped learning environment (45, 46). Because students in Analytical Chemistry are typically second or third year chemistry majors or minors while those in General Chemistry are typically first or second year students from a variety of science majors, students in Analytical Chemistry are likely more comfortable learning chemistry in a different format and have a shorter adjustment period to the new learning style compared to General Chemistry students. 120 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Table 5. Select results of teaching evaluations for both flipped and traditional course designs when taught by the same instructor.


Statementa

Average number of hours spent on course per week Under 4 4–8 8-12 12-16 More than 16

General Chemistry II Flippedb

General Chemistry II Traditionalb

Analytical Chemistry Flippedb

Analytical Chemistry Traditionalb

0% 30% 41% 18% 11%

16% 49% 22% 10% 3%

18% 36% 18% 23% 9%

4% 52% 28% 12% 4%

Course assignments help me understand course content.

4.28

4.19

4.45

4.07

This course improves my ability to think critically and independently.

4.33

4.01

4.55

4.18

a

With the exception of the first statement, answers are on a five-point Likert scale with 5 being strongly agree. b Two years of weighted averages are listed, with the exception of the Analytical Chemistry Flipped that had three. Since limited data was provided about the teaching evaluations, no statistical tests were performed.

Table 5 also demonstrates that students rated the flipped course similarly to or more highly than the traditional course for both Analytical Chemistry and General Chemistry II. Specifically, students in the flipped course agreed to a greater extent that the course assignments helped them understand course content, and that the course improved their ability to think critically and independently. This suggests that the time spent in the course redesign was worthwhile and effective from the students’ perspective of their own learning. Additionally, this further supports the notion that students take more responsibility for their own learning in a flipped environment (38, 43). It is also interesting that the students self-report spending more time in the individual learning space of the course (“Average number of hours spent on course per week”) when taught in the flipped design compared to the traditional class, for both General Chemistry II and Analytical Chemistry. In open-ended questions on surveys about the flipped courses, students reported several drawbacks and benefits that are consistent with those reported in other studies (4, 7, 40). Three of these drawbacks were mentioned only by students in General Chemistry, including: limited attention span and focus when watching videos; difficulty self-motivating to do work outside of the group learning environment; and time-consuming nature of the course. Students in both Analytical Chemistry and General Chemistry mentioned not being able to ask questions immediately while watching videos, and difficulty adjusting to a 121 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


new way of learning. Unlike the traditional-course responses, in which several students mentioned the fast pace of the class, no students in the flipped classroom discussed the speed of the course as a difficulty. Positive comments were mentioned more often and several themes emerged. These included the ability to individualize learning and listen to lectures at the student’s optimum pace and multiple times if desired; increased time for active learning and problem-solving in the classroom; ability to ask questions of the instructor more readily during class; earlier exposure to key concepts in the individual learning space to enhance understanding; use of constructivist learning; and use of low-stakes assignments.

Conclusions This chapter summarized the redesign of three different chemistry courses (Analytical Chemistry, General Chemistry I, and General Chemistry II) to flipped classrooms using a backwards design approach. In the flipped classroom, content delivery is moved to the individual learning space, leaving the group learning space for further exploration and application of material. Classroom observations confirmed that the group learning space is transformed to a more active environment, with decreased time in which students passively listen. Student academic performance in the flipped course, as measured by course grade and standardized exam score, was found to be equal to or better than that in the traditional design. Additionally, select aspects of student self-direction in learning were also found to increase, as documented by the PRO-SDLS and teaching evaluations. The attitudes of students in the flipped classrooms expressed in surveys and student evaluations were found to be equal to or more positive than those in the traditional course design. Finally, students in Analytical Chemistry were more apt to agree that the design of the flipped course helped them understand the course content and think critically. Future work will seek to understand the relationship between specific lesson designs and student learning. Specifically, a more detailed analysis of the ACS standardized exam results will be undertaken. Exam questions will be grouped by topic to determine which specific lessons and types of activities are leading to significant improvements in student learning. Further, student scores and attitudinal information will be separated out by different demographics, such as by low and high achieving students and by first generation college students, to determine if the flipped classroom impacts student groups differently.

Acknowledgments The author wishes to acknowledge the staff of the Center for Teaching and Learning at Otterbein University for leading the 2013 Course Transformation Institute. Additionally, the author would like to recognize the National Science Foundation (#1347243), which funded the COPUS-based classroom observations. 122 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

References 1.

2.


3. 4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

9. 10.

11. 12. 13.

14.

15. 16.

17.

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. Fitzgerald, N.; Li, L. Using Presentation Software to Flip an Undergraduate Analytical Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1559–1563. Smith, J. D. Students Attitudes toward Flipping the General Chemistry Classroom. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14, 607–614. Weaver, G. C.; Sturtevant, H. G. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Flipped Format General Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1437–1448. Amaral, K. E.; Shank, J. D.; Shibley, I. A.; Shibley, L. R. Web-Enhanced General Chemistry Increases Student Completion Rates, Success, and Satisfaction. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 296–302. Butzler, K. B. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Flipping at an Open-Enrollment College. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1574–1576. Seery, M. K. Flipped Learning in Higher Education Chemistry: Emerging Trends and Potential Directions. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 758–768. Yestrebsky, C. L. Flipping the Classroom in a Large Chemistry Class-Research University Environment. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 191, 1113–1118. Flipped Learning Network. Definition of Flipped Learning. www. flippedlearning.org/definition (accessed January 8, 2016). Muzyka, J. L. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Just-in-Time Teaching in Chemistry Courses with Moodle. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1580–1581. Haile, J. D. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Using a Blog to Flip a Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1572–1573. Krathwohl, D. R. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theor. Pract. 2002, 41, 212–218. Abeysekera, L.; Dawson, P. Motivation and Cognitive Load in the Flipped Classroom: Definition, Rationale and a Call for Research. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2015, 34, 1–14. Fiorella, L.; Mayer, R. E. Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning Strategies that Promote Understanding; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, 2015. McTighe, J.; Wiggins, G. Understanding by Design, 2nd ed.; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA, 2005. Holme, T.; Murphy, K. The ACS Exams Institute Undergraduate Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map I: General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 721–723. Griffiths, P. R. Whither “quant”? An Examination of the Curriculum and Testing Methods for Quantitative Analysis Courses Taught in Universities and Colleges in the Western USA. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2008, 391, 875–880. 123 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


18. Analytical Sciences Digital Library (ASDL). http://home.asdlib.org/ (accessed January 11, 2016). 19. PhET Interactive Simulations. https://phet.colorado.edu/ (accessed January 11, 2016). 20. National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. http:// sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/ (accessed January 11, 2016). 21. Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and On-Line Teaching (MERLOT II). https://www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm (accessed January 11, 2016). 22. Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). https://pogil.org/ (accessed January 11, 2016). 23. Analytical Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (ANA-POGIL). https:/ /pogil.org/post-secondary/ana-pogil (accessed January 11, 2016). 24. Novak, G.; Patterson, E.; Gavrin, A; Christian, W. Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999. 25. Angelo, T. A.; Cross, K. P. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers, 2nd ed.; Josey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 1993; pp 222–225. 26. Harvey, D.; Otto, W. Introduction to Data Analysis. http://asdlib.org/ onlineArticles/ecourseware/Harvey/DataAnalysisHome.html (accessed January 11, 2016). 27. Royal Society of Chemistry. Infrared Spectroscopy (IR). https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=DDTIJgIh86E (accessed January 11, 2016). 28. Nilsson, G.; Fok, E.; Ng, J.; Cooke, J. Infrared Spectroscopy. http:// www.chem.ualberta.ca/~inorglab/spectut/IRpg1.html (accessed January 11, 2016). 29. Colby College Chemistry. IRHelper Spectral Interpretation. http:// www.colby.edu/chemistry/JCAMP/IRHelper.html (accessed January 11, 2016). 30. Donnelly, P. July 2005. How Juries Are Fooled by Statistics [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_donnelly_shows_how_ stats_fool_juries (accessed January 11, 2016). 31. Bean, J. C. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom; Jossey-Bass: San Franciso, CA, 2001. 32. Mazur, E. Peer Instruction; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997. 33. Epstein Educational Enterprises. Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IFAT). http://www.epsteineducation.com/home/ (accessed January 11, 2016). 34. Carr, P.; Boswell, P.; Stoll, D. HPLC Simulator. http://www. hplcsimulator.org/ (accessed March 11, 2016). 35. Stockdale, S. L.; Brockett, R. G. Development of the PRO-SDLS: A Measure of Self-Direction in Learning Based on the Personal Responsibility Orientation Model. Adult Educ. Quart. 2011, 61, 161–180. 36. Smith, M. K.; Jones, F. H. M.; Gilbert, S. L.; Wieman, C. E. The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A 124 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

37. 38.


39. 40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45. 46.

New Instrument to Characterize University STEM Classroom Practices. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2013, 12, 618–627. Fautch, J. M. The Flipped Classroom for Teaching Organic Chemistry in Small Classes: Is It Effective? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 179–186. Davies, R. S.; Dean, D. L.; Ball, N. Flipping the Classroom and Instructional Technology Integration in a College-Level Information Systems Spreadsheet Course. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2013, 61, 563–580. House, J. D. Noncognitive Predictors of Achievement in Introductory College Chemistry. Res. High. Educ. 1995, 36, 473–490. 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, 1570–1571. Hake, R. R. Interactive-Engagement versus Traditional Methods: A SixThousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses. Am. J. Phys. 1998, 64, 64–74. Jensen, J. L.; Kummer, T. A.; Godoy, P. D. D. M. Improvements from a Flipped Classroom May Simply Be the Fruits of Active Learning. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2015, 14, 1–12. Wallace, M. L.; Walker, J. D.; Braseby, A. M.; Sweet, M. S. “Now, What Happens During Class? Using Team-Based Learning to Optimize the Role of Expertise within the Flipped Classroom. JECT 2014, 25, 253–273. Van Vliet, E. A.; Winnips, J. C.; Brouwer, N. Flipped-Class Pedagogy Enhances Student Metacognition and Collaborative-Learning Strategies in Higher Education But Effect Does Not Persist. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2015, 14, 1–10. Christiansen, M. A. Inverted Teaching: Applying a New Pedagogy to a University Organic Chemistry Class. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1845–1850. Talbert, R. Inverted Classroom. Colleagues [Online] 2012, 9, 1−2 http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1183&context= colleagues (accessed January 11, 2016).


Flipping General and Analytical Chemistry at a ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents