Improving Academic Reading Habits in Chemistry ... - ACS Publications

Chapter 2

Downloaded by PURDUE UNIV on December 4, 2016 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 22, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1235.ch002

Improving Academic Reading Habits in Chemistry through Flipping with an Open Education Digital Textbook Brett M. McCollum* Department of Chemistry and Physics, Mount Royal University, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T3E 6K6 *E-mail: [email protected]

Improving first-year general chemistry student reading habits was the motivation for a systemic redesign of instructor-student-content interactions. A ChemWiki open-education hyper-textbook was designed for course readings, and became a focal point for student learning through a flipped classroom, weekly academic reading circles, and an online learning system. The use of pre-lecture videos was avoided in favor of reading assignments. Additional technology, including mobile apps, were used to further enhance engagement. To strengthen the peer relationships emerging from the team-based learning, formative assessments were redesigned. Dramatically improved reading habits resulted from this set of complementary interventions.

© 2016 American Chemical Society Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Introduction For several years I taught following the approach of Collard, Girardot and Deutsch, providing “skeleton” notes, which students downloaded from the course learning management system (LMS) prior to the lecture (1). Students were generally happy with the approach, watching as I attempted to deliver a dynamic lecture interjected with clicker questions and brief team-based learning activities (2). My department chair and dean have been pleased with my student evaluations of instruction. Based on my annual reviews, I was exceeding expectations at a teaching-focused undergraduate university. However, it was always apparent to me that the majority of my students were completely reliant on me for their learning, devoting only the minimal amount of time outside of class to their chemistry studies. In particular, I was troubled by the inability of my students to properly describe chemical phenomena, the problem apparently stemming from their unwillingness to read the assigned textbook and strengthen their familiarity with chemical jargon. Despite our best intentions, which included assigning reading each class and providing associated learning objectives, my peers and I found that our students expected that any testable course content be covered in lecture to the same complexity of examination questions. The expensive course textbook was treated as a source of additional practice problems or a reference in emergency purposes only, not as a core learning resource. A review of the literature reveals that we were not unique in our experience (3–6). For example, Yonker & Cummins-Sebree report that “a majority of traditional students are ill-equipped or unwilling to read the essential amount of text” (p 169), with 42% of participants reading less than one-quarter of the assigned material (7). The Carnegie credit hour states that, for every one hour of classroom instruction, students should be spending, at a minimum, two hours outside of the course, either preparing for upcoming lectures or completing course assignments (8). However, university students are spending less time studying than attending class, and 3 times fewer hours studying than on socializing or other forms of entertainment (9, 10). To better understand the scope of the problem, I surveyed my students about their reading habits in first-semester general chemistry. While the quantitative data confirmed my concerns (less than 3% of the students were completing the assigned readings ahead of class; another 11% after class), the qualitative comments were distressing in their frankness. Student C1: “Opened it once but it seemed complicated.” Student C2: “Reading is a waste of time.” Unfortunately, these comments were not isolated cases, but the rule. Many of the student responses identified difficulties with understanding the academic text, or an opinion that the text was TLDR – Too Long; Didn’t Read. The potentially negative impact on student learning of indiscriminate use of PowerPoint-style presentations has been explored (11–14). Students have little incentive to read 24 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


course materials which will be outlined by the professor later in class (15). It became apparent to me that my seemingly successful strategies were enabling the poor academic habits of my students. While they were happy with my efforts, and I was performing to the department’s expectations, my students were missing out on developing a vital skill during their introductory university experience: learning how to critically read an academic text. In my opinion, literacy remains a core component of higher education. Evidence suggests students can be successful when provided appropriate scaffolding (16). In this chapter I will share my experience using a personalized open-education digital textbook, with appropriate scaffolds and assessments, and how I have created a learning environment where students are engaging with the course text in a meaningful way.

Context Building on its 100 year history as a two-year college, Mount Royal University (MRU) became a four-year degree-granting undergraduate-only institution in 2009. Most classes on campus have less than 30 students, the major exception being those in the Faculty of Science and Technology where practical laboratory experiences are common and lecture sections are often 40 – 75 students. In Fall 2015, I taught three sections of General Chemistry I (CHEM 1201), each with 40 – 58 students. Two sections served as my control, using a commercial textbook and active lectures. The third section was my experimental section, using an open-education online digital textbook and an inverted or flipped instructional approach (17, 18) with weekly academic reading circles (19, 20). A fourth section was taught in Winter 2016 using the experimental approach. All sections were assigned online learning assignments through OWLv2 from Nelson/Cengage. Classes were run at approximately the same time of day for all sections (between 12:30pm and 3:30pm) and met two days each week for 80 minutes. In this course, tutorials and laboratories are normally de-linked from lectures. This resulted in a mixing of students from all lecture sections, including those not taught by the author, in these learning environments. Thus, the learning innovations only applied to the lecture component of the course. The gender distribution of all sections was similar to the university student population (36% male, 64% female). The age distribution, with the majority of students 18 – 20 years old, was comparable for the traditional and flipped general chemistry sections. All student quotes within this chapter are attributed to study participants from either the control (C) or experimental (E) sections.

Adopting an Open-Education Textbook The first challenge I faced in getting my students to meaningfully engage with their course textbook was to get a copy of the common text into their hands. Modern texts are typically printed in full color on glossy paper, and come with a multitude of digital supporting materials for both students and instructors. 25 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


However, these additional resources have come at a cost, and affordability of commercial textbooks has been identified as a barrier for lower income students (21, 22). Open Educational Resources (OERs) have been identified as a potential solution to accessibility in light of rising textbook costs (21, 23). The STEMWiki Hyperlibrary Project is based at the University of California Davis (24). Similar to other wikis, the content is covered by a creative commons license. The key difference is in terms of quality control: only those with authoring accounts (faculty at various universities and the ChemWiki student volunteers at UC Davis) have authority to edit the wiki. ChemWiki, the core module of the STEMWiki, has been successfully adopted by faculty as a replacement for commercial textbooks (25–28). With the help of STEMWiki Director, Delmar Larsen, I began curating existing content and creating new material when necessary to build a textbook for my course (29). Adopters also have the option to use an existing ChemWiki textbook. The ability to duplicate pages in use by other faculty provided me with the capability to personalize my text without imposing my approach to content on others. Personalization of the text, such that it is tailored to flow effectively with other elements of the course and convey the instructor’s voice, has been described as a benefit of OERs (30). In addition, creating my own ChemWiki textbook allowed me to embed my course learning outcomes directly within the textbook. Whereas my ChemWiki text is a digital textbook, I was curious about the consequence of digital reading as opposed to reading print text. A number of faculty at my institution remain skeptical of digital texts, reflecting a widely held opinion (31). These opinions appear to be based more in tradition than evidence. Although the manner of presentation may influence physical behaviors while reading (32), such as following the text with a finger or cursor, or silently mouthing the words, there is evidence that comprehension is unaffected (33). However, there are opposing views, depending on the digital technology used by the reader (34). While the duration of fixations can vary (longer for young adults and shorter for older readers), regressions are unchanged (35, 36). Most importantly, it has been demonstrated that cognitive learning from digital textbooks is comparable to their print counterparts (37). While it appears that digital textbooks do no harm, there are significant potential benefits. In addition to zero cost for the textbook, my students have appreciated the ability to access the text through the internet-connected devices they already own. Mobility has also been identified as an advantage, with students reading the text on the bus or at the shopping mall. For instructors looking to transform reading assignments into an ideal mLearning (mobile learning) experience, the transition to digital texts is a requirement (38). Adopting ChemWiki as my textbook resolved the issue of getting a common text into my students’ hands. However, there is no guarantee that they will read the textbook. As a friend, colleague and OER advocate recently mused, “what is the pedagogical benefit of a free textbook that no one reads as compared to a commercial textbook that no one reads?” (39). Appropriate scaffolds are required to instigate and support student engagement with academic texts. In my 26 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

experience, these scaffolds include flipped or inverted teaching and academic reading circles.


Flipped Learning The spectrum of instructional methods that can be associated with the flipped learning movement is fairly broad (40, 41). This includes peer-led team learning (PLTL) (42), peer instruction (43), inverted classrooms (17), just-in-time teaching (JiTT) (44), learn before lecture (45), teaching naked (46), and flipped classroom (18). Flipped methods have been embraced by numerous chemistry educators, with a number of recent publications devoted to the topic (28, 47–58). The impact of flipped instructional methods on student achievement has been variable (50, 52). For example, Bradley, Ulrich and Jones offered sophomore organic chemistry students the choice of flipped or traditional when they enrolled in the second semester of the course (59). They observed that the flipped approach did not affect the grade distribution in either positive or negative directions. In contrast, Yestrebsky’s comparative study in first-year general chemistry illustrated a flipped method that successfully supported B- and C-level students in performing at Aand B-level standards, respectively (57). However, Yestrebsky noted that the approach did not reduce the number of D and F grades. One possible interpretation of the mixed influence is that the success of flipped approaches depends on the particular instructional design choices and the level of prior knowledge of the students. Based on the expertise reversal effect, techniques that engage high-prior knowledge learners are often too challenging for low-prior knowledge learners, while instructional methods that are designed for the latter group typically disinterest the former (60, 61). By extension, this suggests that specific choices in the approach of Bradley, Ulrich, Jones and Jones with the student population at Princeton (59), a highly selective university, will not have the same effect in lower prior-knowledge populations. Hence, confusion around the benefits of flipping persists. Reports on the efficacy of active-learning methods in chemistry, such as flipped instruction, should include information on the level of prior knowledge in the sample population. In practice, this may be difficult unless an appropriate standard is identified for all researchers, such as the Toledo placement examination from the American Chemical Society Division of Chemical Education (62). However, such examinations are not best aligned with incoming student knowledge at all levels or in all jurisdictions, and some institutions may not be comfortable publishing the scores of incoming students. Ryan and Reid provide a case of traditional and flipped second-term general chemistry classrooms that, while yielding statistically identical exam performance across the sections, resulted in decreased DFW rates (63). Thus, flipped instructional methods can be designed to support the learning of the lower quartile. However, the benefits observed by Yestrebsky for the middle quartiles were not detected by Ryan (57, 63). 27 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Many flipped classrooms have used online videos (voiced over PowerPoint) to support their students’ learning. Considering that my goal is to create a learning environment where students are engaging with the course text in a meaningful way, instead of extensive reliance on pre-lecture videos, a deeper reflection on flipped instructional methods is appropriate.


Text-Centric Flipping Flipped instruction, as described by Bergmann and Sams involves having students watch pre-recorded lectures before class to prepare for the active learning environment (18). While not all flipped or inverted approaches use online videos,59 it has become the standard method (49–58). Herreid and Schiller report that the majority of teachers prefer using online videos over reading materials for student pre-class preparation, and students prefer videos too (64). However, this approach contains significant pitfalls. Poh, Swenson & Picard demonstrated that watching videos and attending lectures are among the least attention-demanding tasks we can ask of learners (65). In contrast, they observed elevated electrodermal activity – which they associate with higher attention-demanding tasks – when participants were studying, doing homework, or writing an exam. If pre-recorded online lecture videos are simply the combination of two low attention-demanding tasks (65), then indiscriminant use of pre-lecture videos may prove to be as harmful to student learning as indiscriminant use of PowerPoint (11–14). Considering the current popularity of the method, additional research is needed on this important issue. When faculty predigest curriculum content for students in the form of PowerPoint lectures or online videos, are they simply enabling poor study habits (9, 10)? Discussion on the use of pre-class videos for flipped learning at the Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning exposed conflicting opinions on the value of academic texts in the era of online video streaming (66). A question that emerged was: can university-level students successfully read a university-level text? This concern was echoed in the unrelated community of ConfChem (26). That this question is being asked by faculty across many disciplines is alarming! It is the responsibility of university educators and administrators to facilitate an environment where students are appropriately motivated and supported to develop an academic level of reading proficiency. Recall that students can critically read academic texts when provided appropriate scaffolding (16). While I do not consider all pre-lecture videos to be a problem, those that are not supported by active learning tools undermine the importance of text. Anecdotally, in my experience these enablers can result in transfer of negative habits between courses, increasing resistance in learners against active-learning approaches. Upon reflection, in order to achieve my goal of creating a learning environment where students are engaging with the course text in a meaningful way, I began taking the following actions: 28 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

• • •


•

Adopting an online OER textbook (ChemWiki) to reduce barriers Promoting the value of the text by making it central to in-class activities and assigning readings after each class Inverting / flipping the classroom to reduce debilitating student reliance on passive learning experiences Facilitating additional scaffolding that supports learning of the lower quartile while also serving the rest of the class

Despite observations that it is the active-learning that yields the benefits of flipped instructional techniques (67), I recognized that additional scaffolding was required to properly support my students as they engaged with the text. Structuring an active-learning classroom was not sufficient. After all, many of my students were reporting that they were not capable of, or not willing to engage in, academic reading. Peer discussion on the assigned readings through organized academic reading circles was the option I chose.

Academic Reading Circles Academic Reading Circles (ARCs) – also known as reading circles, peer discussion groups, or literature circles – have been used to stimulate discussion and help learners construct meaning from a common text (19, 20). While ARCs have primarily been employed in K-12 English classrooms, there have been several adaptations for second language (L2) courses (20, 68–70). Much of the formalization of ARCs is based on the work of Daniels (19). The key elements of a successful literature circle as described by Daniels (p 18), with updates from Shelton-Strong (20), are: • • • • • • • •

variability in temporary groups student-chosen books (if appropriate) discussions occurring regularly in an open and natural manner students choosing discussion topics use of notes or drawings by the students for guidance the teacher as a facilitator student-focused evaluations a spirit of playfulness and fun

In L2 instruction, the structure of a formal ARC consists of the mutual text, assigned student roles, and the group discussion (70). Adjustments were needed to adopt the ARC method for a chemistry course, including a reduction in the length of time for the group discussion and adaptation of the member roles. Seburn advocates for 60-90 minute uninterrupted group work, followed by further class-wide discussion led by the instructor (p 20) (70). Whereas my classes ran for 80 minutes twice a week, I needed to reduce the ARC open-discussion to a much shorter time frame. Through trial and error, I found that within 1015 minutes most groups were able to discuss the reading in terms of topics they understood, were challenged by, or did not understand. Next, I brought the class 29 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

together to resolve outstanding questions related to the reading assignment, and then the ARC groups engaged in content-driven problem solving. The ARC member roles I used were Leader, Contextualizer, Visualizer, Connector and Highlighter. Based on the course curriculum and learning objectives, duties of the roles were revised. For example, placing the text within social contexts was less important, but emphases on chemical and mathematical representations were needed. A description of each revised role follows.


Leader: Facilitates discussion, leading toward agreement on the key points of the assigned reading. Duties: summarizes the main ideas at the start and end of discussion, and guides the group discussion through the reading, inviting members to share what they have learned in their role Poses questions on: the overarching themes and ideas concepts emerging from the reading how group members would summarize particular key ideas from the reading Contextualizer: Explains why the author refers to other topics, concepts, people, or dates for support. Duties: learns about the context surrounding the reading, and determines which ideas are foci (useful) and which are tangential (insignificant) Shares information on: specific people, places, events, or ideas that the author mentions as support identifies useful and insignificant contextual references Visualizer: Uses visuals to facilitate language used in descriptions and explains visuals that accompany the text, including graphical representations of data. Duties: explains visuals provided in the text, linking them to associated sentences/ paragraphs determines if provided visuals support comprehension or are primarily decorative / expand beyond the key ideas 30 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Create visual representations of concepts in the text, such as mind maps, word clouds, graphs, charts, or disciplinary (chemistry) representations Shares information on: the relationship between visual representations and the text Connector:


Creates meaningful connections between concepts in the assigned reading, equations, and related/familiar situations. Duties: identify connections between the assigned reading and past concepts, personal experiences, or current news/events Shares information on: the relationship between equations and the text concepts in the assigned reading and past course concepts, or material from other courses concepts in the assigned reading and current news/events or personal experiences Highlighter: Facilitates lexical comprehension, raises awareness of topical vocabulary, and explains mathematical representations. Duties: prepare a list of key topical vocabulary, defining each term, identifying its placement within the text, and linking it to other ideas define the variables within equations and illustrate how to perform the necessary calculations Shares information on: key topical vocabulary equations within the assigned reading To help learners prepare for the ARC discussions, students were presented with the SQ3R (Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review) process for reading.71 Users of the SQ3R process proceed through the following steps: • • • • •

surveying the text to develop an overview perspective generate a question based on each section heading to focus their reading actively read each passage to identify relevant information and answer their questions reciting the answers to the questions in their own words review the main concepts to facilitate long-term memory development 31

Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Students were specifically instructed to perform their recitations in written form, not mentally. This adheres to the original instructions for SQ3R and aligns with what is known about writing to improve reading skills (72, 73). I have observed that ARCs motivate students to complete their reading assignments, particularly as they develop relationships with their peers. General chemistry students have identified the ARC groups as the first time they talked to peers in any of their courses. This was true for both my Fall and Winter semester flipped classes. Students admitted that their isolation is self-imposed through the use of headphones and music to avoid talking to others, a documented behavior (74). This self-isolation behavior is likely also a characteristic of my institution being a commuter campus (75). ARCs, along with the other active-learning aspects of my inverted classroom, function to combat student isolation as recommended by Funk (76): “Commuter students may not have the luxury or desire to spend more time on campus except to attend classes. In order to combat feelings of isolation and disconnectedness for commuter students, college administrators [and faculty] should strive to ensure meaningful learning, such as active learning experiences incorporated in the classroom during class time” (p 99). Peer relationships, developed through ARCs, serve another important purpose: learners become comfortable exposing weaknesses in their comprehension. Similar to Grisham and Wolsey (77), I observed that discussions in some ARCs were fairly superficial without instructor intervention. These learners appeared hesitant to engage in meaningful discussion of material they had not mastered, even though that was the purpose of the ARC. I adjusted my instructions for ARC preparation to have students also record all questions they had about the material. Questions they had not resolved in their own study could then be posed to their ARC and the group would attempt to construct a meaningful answer, thus supporting each member’s learning. The key element was that they were expected to share their questions, opening up to their peers about their struggles with the course content. This small change in practice helped less engaged ARCs function better, and quieter ARC members to more fully participate. At this time, I am unsure if the full impact of the ARCs is obvious to students in my inverted classes. However, by teaching both control and experimental sections, from my perspective I see significantly different attitudes toward the textbook and learner responsibilities. A comparison of attitudes towards reading between my regular and inverted sections is illustrative. Consider student C3 from a Fall 2015 lecture section taught using my traditional approach. Student C3 “Doing questions is more helpful than reading.” This student has not participated in an ARC. On the survey he/she reported only using their textbook for practice problems before an exam. For the control section students, among those that opened their textbook at least once, this was a common response. In contrast, consider students E1 – E3 who were in the Fall 2015 inverted class. 32 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Student E1 “Chemwiki is my primary study resource. I transfer what I am reading into my notebook making sure to properly paraphrase.” Student E2 “I’ve tried more lately to take my own notes when reading and have questions ready for class.”


Student E3 “The art of reading to prepare for class helps [me] to come to class ready to ask questions and know what we are going to do.” Notice the positive study habits identified by student E1, and the emphasis on generating questions in preparation for class from students E2 and E3. In a text-centric inverted or flipped classroom, ARCs successfully focus the student preparation on the textbook. As learners build a sense of community within their ARC they are willing to discuss with peers the challenges they face when critically engaging with an academic text.

The Role of Technology in a Text-Centric Classroom Using a web-based OER for my course textbook, internet connected technologies (ICTs) were important elements of my classroom. ChemWiki runs well in any web-browser, permitting a BYOD (bring your own device) learning environment. Smartphones are ubiquitous on our campus, and many students also own a laptop and/or tablet. Thus, all students in the inverted classes were able to access the textbook on ChemWiki, and other learning materials on the course LMS (Blackboard) through their personal devices. Laptops and iPads were the most commonly used technologies, but some students did access content through their smartphones. Most ARCs would load ChemWiki on a member’s laptop, navigating the reading assignment as part of their discussion. Conversations often focused on figures, equations, or chemical representations, and their relationship to the written text. Interestingly, more than half the class maintained their reading and class notes in a paper notebook. Those that used their electronic devices for notetaking had a touch-screen tablet or laptop that facilitated sketching the chemical representations common in an introductory course on chemical bonding models. When selecting a textbook, one consideration for faculty is level of content and the aforementioned expertise reversal effect (60, 61). ChemWiki is no different, as illustrated by the following contrasting comments from two learners in my inverted classes. Student E4 “Personally, reading helps [me] prepare for class. Sometimes I find that pre-lecture material for [name of other course] goes into too much detail. However, ChemWiki is very concise and does not burden the reader with superfluous details. When Brett highlights key terms in preparation to a reading it helps me, A LOT, since I need a lot of structure to effectively organize my notes and study key points in a chapter.” 33 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Student E5 “My only wish [is] that there be more to read and more detailed explanations as well.” These two students are requesting two different textbooks, the first wanting a concise textbook and the second desiring a more in-depth textbook. As a web-based OER, ChemWiki has the potential to partially resolve the expertise reversal effect in a way not possible with static texts. Computer code has been identified and successfully implemented in my ChemWiki hypertext that allows ‘accordion’ content, additional information that can expand out on demand as shown in Figures 1 and 2 (29). This feature permits learners to attempt an exercise without accidentally seeing the solution, and avoids the use of excessive hyperlinks. While hyperlinks support non-linear learning, allowing students to make connections to other concepts or perspectives (78), hyperlinks place a higher cognitive load on users and are not beneficial to low- or high-prior knowledge learners (79).

Figure 1. ChemWiki ‘accordion’ content in its initial collapsed state. In my first use of ChemWiki I used this ‘accordion’ content feature only for solutions to exercises. Based on the survey responses from students in my inverted classes (e.g. Students E4 & E5), I plan on selectively expanding the hypertext through the use of expandable descriptions that are optional reading for students who want additional explanation or examples. All students and faculty at MRU have institutional Google accounts, including access to Google Drive, Google Docs, and more. Shared Google Docs have been used for ARCs to compile questions in preparation for class. This approach can support JiTT (44), allowing the instructor to select class activities based on student questions or misconceptions. Initially, I created the documents and shared them with each ARC, but later moved toward having the group make their own shared document, which they would share with me. Perhaps because no marks were assigned to the shared Google docs, they were not well used. In future semesters I am considering having students submit their reading records (SQ3R and list of content questions) through shared Google docs so that their ARC can provide additional support out of the classroom. This approach would be similar to asynchronous forums, which have been used for ARCs (77), but also allow synchronous editing of the Google doc. Additional technology used during class time included numerous apps, such as the Explain Everything tablet app, coupled with Reflector to broadcast student work to the class through the classroom video projection unit. The Molecules app 34 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


for iPad can be combined with physical models for learning VSEPR Theory (80, 81), and was highly engaging as a team-based learning activity.

Figure 2. ChemWiki ‘accordion’ content in its user triggered expanded state.

Integrating mobile social learning (mLearning) into the ARC or flipped classroom has the potential for even greater impact (38). For example, students with iPads were able to use a shared virtual whiteboard through the Talkboard app. This was used in class during Fall 2015, but the classroom did not have sufficient WiFi bandwidth. Students reported using the app, including the microphone feature for voicechat, to run virtual study sessions from home with the shared whiteboard. Between the ARC discussions and group problem solving, I would bring the class together to resolve outstanding questions. Displaying the ChemWiki textbook on the projector screen permitted me to demonstrate the centrality of the text in the course, which was particularly important in the first few classes. After the problem solving activity, and before the end of class, I gave a brief ‘mini-lecture’ on the content they would read before the next class. This typically focused on identifying terminology they would need to define, listing the topics they would explore, and providing context for more challenging concepts. This approach allowed me to shift between facilitator and instructor as appropriate for a constructivist approach to learning (17, 82–84). 35 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


The online learning system, OWLv2 from Nelson/Cengage, was used to promote reading and support self-assessment of content comprehension. Although students were encouraged to complete the ChemWiki reading first and then attempt the OWLv2 assignments, many reported using both resources side-by-side. Further support for the inverted classroom was revealed through the OWLv2 grades. The inverted students were required to complete their online learning assignments prior to associated in-class problem solving session, while the students in the control sections completed their assignments after the content had been taught in lecture. Students in the inverted sections were more likely to take advantage of the multiple attempts provided on questions to master the content, resulting in a higher class average (about 10% higher) for the inverted sections relative to the control sections.

Strengthening Social Collaboration through Assessments ICTs play a central role in my inverted classroom, including the ChemWiki hypertext, the other learning materials delivered through the course LMS, the online learning system, and more. However, when it came to most in-class assessments I took a low-tech path. To maintain comparability with other sections (both my control sections, and additional sections taught by other instructors) I used the same in-term and final examinations for summative assessment. In contrast, the weekly individual or group quizzes that I used as formative assessments were replaced in the inverted sections with group unit quizzes based on the scratch card quizzes of Michaelsen and Sweet (85). With groups of approximately five students in a class of up to 60 students, I was able to design the group quizzes to be open-response rather than multiple-choice. An example question is shown in Figure 3. Teams were required to generate an ideal solution to earn a grade on a problem. A successful response on their first attempt was granted 4 points. This was then reduced to 2 points, and 1 point, on successive attempts, with a limit of three attempts per question. Next to ChemWiki, these group multi-attempt quizzes were the most popular element of the experimental sections. Students reported that in addition to the team-based problem solving and ARCs, the group quizzes further strengthen their sense of community, similar to the observations of Sweet and Pelton-Sweet (86). After the first group quiz, it was observed that that students began attending the Chemistry Study Center for self-initiated group study sessions.

36 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Figure 3. Using a team-based learning technique, groups of approximately five students worked together on open-response unit quizzes. Each quiz was 8 questions long, and groups were provided roughly 30 minutes to complete the quiz. Grading was done throughout the quiz time, with more points awarded for fewer attempts.



Observed Changes in Behavior Group multi-attempt quizzes, online learning systems, academic reading circles, and inverting my classroom with a web-based open education hypertext; all of these changes were implemented to work together as a systemic intervention. The goal was simple: fulfill my responsibility as a professor and inspire my students to critically engage with academic texts. While some measures of my approach’s success (or lack thereof) are still being assessed, a few salient evidences are available at this time. First, consider the anonymous self-reported reading habits shown in Figure 4. Despite regularly discussing the importance of textbook reading in preparation for class with my students in the two control sections, the change in the fraction of students that completed their pre-lecture reading was insignificant (Fall 2014 vs. Fall 2015 Control). In contrast, the behavior of students in the inverted section was astoundingly dissimilar with 95% of students reporting that they read in preparation for class and the remaining 5% sometimes completing the reading after class.

Figure 4. In each of the semesters shown, traditional active learning methods (Fall 2014 three sections nTotal = 112, and Fall 2015 Control two sections nTotal = 109) have resulted in less than five percent of students completing recommended pre-class readings. In the inverted section (Fall 2015 Experimental one section n = 40), 95% of learners self-reported regularly completing the pre-class readings. Reporting was anonymous. All sections were taught by the author. This dramatic improvement in reading habits was verified through Google Analytics, looking at the readership of my ChemWiki hyper-textbook. When the data are localized to Calgary, the hyper-textbook has demonstrable upticks in number of page views on the mornings of class (the class met at 2:00-3:20pm on Monday and Friday) and a total reading time by Calgary users during the Fall 2015 semester that can be estimated as 28 hours per learner. Yet, I recognize 38 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


that by not restricting the hypertext to course registrants, there may have been other users within the city, such as students in other sections of CHEM 1201 at MRU, students in other courses at the university looking for refresher material, or students at the other local university or colleges. It is worth noting that the hyper-textbook did have significant external reach. As the sixth most accessed hypertext on ChemWiki, over 80% of the 5300 monthly unique page views were by users outside of Calgary. An interesting measure of this intervention’s success relates to the dependence of learners on the course instructor. In my normal student evaluations of instruction, optional student comments almost universally address my enthusiasm for chemistry and my teaching methods. In the Fall 2015 experimental section, my quantitative score for General Evaluation of Instructor decreased slightly (0.15 on a 5 point scale relative to a five-year average, but within error bars) and less than 40% of the student comments were about what I did in class. The other 60% of student comments were about what they did in the class. Topics covered peer relationships, ARCs, team-based learning and assessment, the ChemWiki hyper-textbook, online learning assignments, and instructional time use. This reveals important self-reflections by my students on how the instructional elements discussed in this chapter facilitated their learning. The comments are a reflection of stronger peer relationships and a reduced reliance on me. This is similar to the observations of Yestrebsky (57). A final reflection relates to my own experience in implementing this collection of complementary interventions. The practical and emotional demands of this systemic innovation were significant (87). Besides the creation of the ChemWiki hyper-textbook, additional time investment was required to create or adapt learning materials for the inverted classroom experience and to structure the associated online learning assignments. Regular preparation of lesson plans was key to maintaining my organization. Facilitation of the inverted classroom also required additional focus and energy, with all the extra stimulation (for both students and myself) in an active-learning environment. As a faculty member at an undergraduate teaching-focused university, balancing the demands of teaching and research is always a challenge. While the initial setup of this set of interventions was demanding, the reusability of course materials in Winter 2016 has proven worth the investment. Changing my practice from active lecturer to learning facilitator has been a fruitful experience.

Conclusions A systemic innovation, constructed from a set of complementary and proven interventions, was found to dramatically improve student reading habits. Learners regularly engaged with a faculty-personalized online open education textbook (a ChemWiki hyper-textbook), both for personal study and in the classroom. Academic reading circles and pre-class reading preparations were used to further support critical reading, although changes were required to adopt ARC methods for a HiEd chemistry course. 39 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


By implementing this set of complementary interventions, I have successfully created a learning environment where students are engaging with the course text in a meaningful way. Additionally, facilitation of team-based learning activities, group multi-attempt quizzes and academic reading circles in an inverted / flipped classroom, led to stronger relationships between peers. In the near future, I aim to answer the remaining question, of whether these interventions support learning of the lower quartile while also serving the rest of the class. Additional data is required to make a conclusion regarding grades and whether these activities increase student inclination to engage with academic texts in other courses. However, other indicators of academic learning, such as engagement with the textbook and online learning system, and reports of positive peer collaboration, point in the right direction.

References 1.

2.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Collard, D. M.; Girardot, S. P.; Deutsch, H. M. From the textbook to the lecture: improving prelecture preparation in organic chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 520–523. Michaelsen, L. K. Team learning: A comprehensive approach for harnessing the power of small groups in higher education. To Improve the Academy 1992, 11, 107–122. Simpson, M. L.; Nist, S. L. In Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices; Block, C., Pressley, M., Eds.; Guilford: New York, 2002; pp 365–379. Lord, T. Darn it, Professor. Just tell us what we need to know to pass your course. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2008, 37, 71–73. McCormick, A. C. It’s about time: What to make of reported declines in how much college students study. Liberal Education 2011, 97, 30–39. Culver, T. F. Increasing Reading Compliance and Metacognitive Strategies in Border Students. J. Coll. Read. Learn. 2016, 46, 42–61. Yonker, J. E.; Cummins-Sebree, S. To Read Or Not To Read: How Student Characteristics Relate To Textbook Reading. AURCO J. 2009, 15163–15172. Silva, E.; White, T.; Toch, T. The Carnegie Unit: A Century-Old Standard in a Changing Education Landscape; Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: Stanford, CA, 2015. Brint, S.; Cantwell, A. M. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2010, 112, 2441–2470. Arum, R.; Roska, J. Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses; University of Chicago Press:Chicago, IL, 2011. Adams, C. PowerPoint, habits of mind, and classroom culture. J. Curriculum Stud. 2006, 38, 389–411. Adams, C. On the “informed use” of PowerPoint: Rejoining Vallance and Towndrow. J. Curriculum Stud. 2007, 39, 229–233. Clark, J. PowerPoint and pedagogy: Maintaining student interest in university lectures. Coll. Teach. 2008, 56, 39–45. Mitchell, T.; Hutchinson, S. In Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration 2012 Yearbook: Gateway to Leadership and Learning; 40


15. 16.

17.


18.

19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30. 31.

Kochan, F., Searby, L., Barakat, M., Eds.; Auburn University: Auburn, AL, 2012. Klemm, W. R. Computer slide shows: A trap for bad teaching. Coll. Teach. 2007, 55, 121–124. Manarin, K.; Carey, M.; Rathburn, M.; Ryland, G. Critical Reading in Higher Education Academic Goals and Social Engagement; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, 2015. Lage, M. J.; Platt, G. J.; Treglia, M. Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. J. Econ. Educ. 2000, 31, 30–43. Bergmann, J.; Sams, A. Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day; International Society for Technology in Education: Arlington, VA, 2012. Daniels, H. Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in Book Clubs and Reading Groups, 2nd ed.; Pembroke Publishers: Markham, ON, Canada, 2002. Shelton-Strong, S. J. Literature circles in ELT. ELT J. 2012, 66, 214–223. Valentino, M. L. Donor funded Open Educational Resources: making the case. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances 2015, 28, 112–118. Senack, E.; Donoghue, R. Covering the Cost: Why We Can No Longer Afford To Ignore High Textbook Prices; Student PIRGs: Washington, DC, 2016. Jhangiani, R. S.; Pitt, R.; Hendricks, C.; Key, J.; Lalonde, C. Exploring Faculty Use of Open Educational Resources at British Columbia Post-Secondary Institutions; BCcampus Research Report; BCcampus: Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 2016. ChemWiki. ChemWiki: The Dynamic Chemistry Hypertext, 2016. http:// chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/ (accessed March 23, 2016). Rusay, R. J.; Mccombs, M. R.; Barkovich, M. J.; Larsen, D. S. Enhancing undergraduate chemistry education with the online dynamic ChemWiki resource. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 840. Halpern, J. Why the ChemWiki? ACS CHED CCCE Newsletter,2015, Fall, Paper 7. http://confchem.ccce.divched.org/2015FallCCCENLP7 (accessed March 23, 2016). Allen, G.; Guzman-Alvarez, A.; Smith, A.; Gamage, A.; Molinaro, M.; Larsen, D. S. Evaluating the effectiveness of the open-access ChemWiki resource as a replacement for traditional general chemistry textbooks. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 939–948. Morsche, L. In The Flipped Classroom; Muzyka, J. Ed.; American Chemical Society Symposium Series 1223 and 1228; Amreican Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016. McCollum, B. M. Chem 1201, 2016. http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/ Wikitexts/Mount_Royal_University/Chem_1201 (accessed March 23, 2016). Rhodes, A.; Rozell, T. A constructivist approach to e-text design for use in undergraduate physiology courses. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2015, 39, 172–180. Straumsheim, C. No Rush to ‘Go Digital’, February 22, 2016. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/22/study-facultymembers-skeptical-digital-course-materials-unfamiliar-oer (accessed March 23, 2016). 41



32. Freund, L.; Kopak, R.; O’Brien, H. The effects of textual environment on reading comprehension: Implications for searching as learning. J. Info. Sci. 2016, 42, 79–93. 33. Margolin, S.; Driscoll, C.; Toland, M.; Kegler, J. E-readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2013, 27, 512–519. 34. DeStefano, D.; LeFevre, J.-A. Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Comput. Human Behav. 2007, 23, 1616–1641. 35. Zambarbieri, D.; Carniglia, E. Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 2012, 32, 390–396. 36. Kretzschmar, F.; Pleimling, D.; Hosemann, J.; Fussel, S.; BornkesselSchlesewsky, I.; Schlesewsky, M. Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading effort: Concurrent EEG-eyetracking evidence from the reading of books and digital media. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e56178. 37. Rockinson- Szapkiw, A.; Courduff, J.; Carter, K.; Bennett, D. Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students’ learning. Comput. Educ. 2013, 63, 259–266. 38. McCollum, B. M. In Teaching Science Online; Kennepohl, D., Ed.; Stylus: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, 2016. 39. Nickle, T. Mount Royal University, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Personal communication, October 28, 2015. 40. 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. 41. Saitta, E.; Morrison, B.; Waldrop, J. B.; Bowdon, M. A. In Best Practices for Flipping the College Classroom; Waldrop, J. B.; Bowdon, M. A., Eds.; Routledge: New York, 2016; pp 1–16. 42. Gosser, D.; Roth, V. The Workshop Project: Peer-led Team Learning. J. Chem. Ed. 1998, 75, 185–187. 43. Mazur E. Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997. 44. Novak, G.; Patterson, E. T. The best of both worlds: WWW enhanced in-class instruction. Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education; ACTA Press: Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2000; pp 1–7. http://serc.carleton.edu/resources/ 14236.html (accessed March 23, 2016). 45. Moravec, M.; Williams, A.; Aguilar-Roca, N.; O’Dowd, D. K. Learn before lecture: a strategy that improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2010, 9, 473–481. 46. Bowen, J. A. Teaching naked: How moving technology out of your college classroom will improve student learning; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2012. 47. Shibley, I.; Amaral, K. E.; Shank, J. D.; Shibley, L. R. Designing a blended course: using ADDIE to guide instructional design. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2011, 40, 80–85. 42 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


48. Seery, M. K.; Donnelly, R. The implementation of prelecture resources to reduce in-class cognitive load: a case study for higher education chemistry. Brit. J. Educ. Technol. 2012, 43, 667–677. 49. Smith, J. D. Student attitudes toward flipping the general chemistry classroom. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14, 607–614. 50. Christiansen, M. A. Inverted teaching: applying a new pedagogy to a university organic chemistry class. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1845–1850. 51. Yeung, K.; O’Malley, P. J. Making ‘the flip’ work: barriers to and implementation strategies for introducing flipped teaching methods into traditional higher education courses. New Dir. 2014, 10, 59–63. 52. Fautch, J. M. The flipped classroom for teaching organic chemistry in small classes: is it effective? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 179–186. 53. Seery, M. K. Flipped learning in higher education chemistry: emerging trends and potential directions. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 758–768. 54. Rein, K. S.; Brookes, D. T. Student response to a partial inversion of an organic chemistry course for nonchemistry majors. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 797–802. 55. Flynn, A. B. Structure and evaluation of flipped chemistry courses: organic and spectroscopy, large and small, first to third year, English and French. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 14, 198–211. 56. Hibbard, L.; Sung, S.; Wells, B. Examining the effectiveness of a semi-selfpaced flipped learning format in a college general chemistry sequence. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 24–30. 57. Yestrebsky, C. In Best Practices for Flipping the College Classroom; Waldrop, J. B.; Bowdon, M. A., Eds.; Routledge: New York, 2016; pp 17–28. 58. Eichler, J. F.; Peeples, J. Flipped classroom modules for large enrollment general chemistry courses: a low barrier approach to increase active learning and improve student grades. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2016, 17, 197–208. 59. Bradley, A. Z.; Ulrich, S. M.; Jones, M., Jr.; Jones, S. M. Teaching the sophomore organic course without a lecture. Are you crazy? J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 514–519. 60. Kalyuga, S.; Ayres, P.; Chandler, P.; Sweller, J. Expertise reversal effect. Educ. Psychol. 2003, 38, 23–31. 61. Kalyuga, S. In The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning; Mayer, R., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, 2005; pp 325–337. 62. Toledo Examination; Division of Chemical Education Examinations Institute, American Chemical Society: Ames, IA, 2009. 63. 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, 13–23. 64. Herreid, C. F.; Schiller, N. A. Case studies and the flipped classroom. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2013, 42, 62–66. 65. Poh, M.-Z.; Swenson, N. C.; Picard, R. W. A wearable sensor for unobtrusive, long-term assessment of electrodermal activity. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2010, 57, 1243–1252. 43 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


66. McCollum, B. M. In Exploring the Role of Instructional Styles on Learning Experiences in a Technology-Enhanced Classroom with Open Educational Resources; 2015 Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Banff, Alberta, Canada, November 12–14, 2015; Miller-Young, J., MacMillan, M., Rathburn, M., Eds.; Institute for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Calgary, 2015. 67. 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. 68. Kim, M. Literature discussions in adult L2 learning. Lang. Educ. 2004, 18, 145–166. 69. McElvain, C. M. Transactional literature circles and the reading comprehension in English learners in the mainstream classroom. J. Res. Read. 2010, 33, 178–205. 70. Seburn, T. Academic Reading Circles; The Round: Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2015. 71. Stahl, N. A.; King, J. R.; Eiler, U. Postsecondary reading strategies rediscovered. J. Adolesc. Adult Lit. 1996, 39, 368–379. 72. Robinson, F. P. Effective Study; Harper: New York, 1946. As referenced in Stahl, N. A.; King, J. R.; Eiler, U. Postsecondary reading strategies rediscovered. J. Adolesc. Adult Lit. 1996, 39, 368–379. 73. Graham, S.; Hebert, M. Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educ. Rev. 2011, 81, 710–744. 74. Lever, K. M. Mobile Music Technology, Communication Isolation and Community Building: An Analysis of College Students’ Use of Digital Entertainment. Ph.D. Thesis, Graduate School, New Brunswick Rutgers, NJ, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.7282/T3P84C95 (accessed March 23, 2016). 75. Kodama, C. Marginality of transfer commuter students. J. Stud. Aff. Res. Pract. 2002, 39, 248–265. 76. Funk, M. T. Assessing nontraditional student dropouts on a commuter campus. Dissertations, 2015, Paper 80. 77. Grisham, D. L.; Wolsey, T. D. Recentering the middle school classroom as a vibrant learning community: Students, literacy, and technology intersect. J. Adolesc. Adult Lit. 2006, 49, 648–660. 78. Williams, C. Learning On-line: A review of recent literature in a rapidly expanding field. J. Furth. High. Educ. 2002, 26, 263–272. 79. Seufert, T.; Jänen, I.; Brünken, R. The impact of intrinsic cognitive load on the effectiveness of graphical help for coherence formation. Comput. Human Behav. 2007, 23, 1055–1071. 80. McCollum, B. M.; Regier, L.; Leong, J.; Simpson, S.; Sterner, S. The Effects of Using Touch-Screen Devices on Students’ Molecular Visualization and Representational Competence Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1810–1817. 81. McCollum, B. M.; Sepulveda, A.; Moreno, Y. Representational technologies and learner problem solving strategies in chemistry. Teach. Learn. Inquiry 2016, 4 (4). 44 Schultz et al.; Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


82. Gordon, M. Between constructivism and connectedness. J. Teach. Educ. 2008, 59, 322–331. 83. Parr, C.; Woloshyn, V. Reading comprehension strategy instruction in a firstyear course: An instructor’s self-study. Can. J. SoTL. 2013, 4, Article 3. 84. Butt, A. Student views on the use of a flipped classroom approach: evidence from Australia. Bus. Educ. Accred. 2014, 6, 33–43. 85. Michaelsen, L. K.; Sweet, M. The essential elements of team-based learning. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2008, 116, 7–27. 86. Sweet, M.; Pelton-Sweet, L. M. The social foundation of team-based learning: Students Accountable to Students. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2008, 116, 29–40. 87. Bennett, L. Putting in more: emotional work in adopting online tools in teaching and learning practices. Teach. High. Educ. 2014, 19, 919–930.


Improving Academic Reading Habits in Chemistry ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents