Inverted Teaching: Applying a New Pedagogy to a University Organic

Jul 29, 2014 - To that end, herein is disclosed a sophomore organic chemistry course design in which two groups of students were each taught by one of...
2 downloads 15 Views 380KB Size
Download PDF
Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Inverted Teaching: Applying a New Pedagogy to a University Organic Chemistry Class Michael A. Christiansen* Utah State University, Uintah Basin Regional Campus, 320 North Aggie Blvd., Vernal, Utah 84078, United States S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: Inverted teaching, not to be confused with hybrid learning, is a relatively new pedagogy in which lecture is shifted outside of class and traditional homework is done in class. Though some inverted teaching (IT) designs have been published in different fields, peer-reviewed reports in university chemistry remain quite rare. To that end, herein is disclosed a sophomore organic chemistry course design in which two groups of students were each taught by one of two methods: Group 1 through traditional lecture (TL) and Group 2 through IT. Design rationale and objectives are discussed. Academic performances are compared, along with anonymous student feedback contrasting the two techniques (TL vs IT). Student attendance and viewership, instructor prep time, and total lecture time are also presented for both styles. KEYWORDS: Second-Year Undergraduate, Organic Chemistry, Computer-Based Learning, Internet/Web-Based Learning, Student-Centered Learning

■

where online learning supplements traditional lecture.11 In an inverted course, however, the number of in-class hours remains the same, with content delivery and homework merely switching places.3,9 The only lectures given in an inverted classroom are “just-in-time” lectures delivered to address specific questions.12 Inverted course structures typically require students to watch prerecorded video lectures online and then spend in-class time doing traditional homework or other student-centered learning activities.7,13 This approach was separately proposed in 2000 by Baker,14 as well as Lage, Platt, and Treglia,8 who postulated it as a foreseeable extension of Classroom Management Systems like Blackboard.15 Predicted improvements in video-streaming technologies have set the stage for educators to create a wide range of online IT videos,16 which can now be produced and distributed with greater ease, efficacy, and lower cost than ever before. Access to these technologies can enhance student preparation in advance of live face-to-face instruction, which can then be maximized for scaffolded practice and applied learning. Growing international interest in IT has resulted in scholarly disclosures in various fields. These include reports from Strayer (economics),17 Demetry (materials science),3 Talbert (mathematics),9 and Papadopoulos,1a Toto,1b Kellogg,1c and Haden1d (engineering), as well as a seminal book by Bergmann and Sams (chemistry).13 That we have found, peer-reviewed reports on inverted teaching (as opposed to hybrid learning) are extremely rare in university chemistry education.18 The

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION In recent years, growing attention has turned to a new form of blended learning where lecture is shifted outside of class and traditional homework is done in class.1 This method, depicted in Figure 1, has been given various names, including the

Figure 1. Traditional versus inverted classroom structures.

“classroom flip,”2,3 “backwards classroom,”4 “reverse teaching,”5 “upside-down classroom,”6 “flipped classroom,”7 and “flip teaching.”5 In this paper, the technique will be referred to as “inverted classroom”8,9 or “inverted teaching” (IT).4 Inverted teaching contrasts somewhat with hybrid learning.10 According to one source, hybrid courses follow one of two formats: (1) mixed, where some in-class sessions are completely replaced with online instruction, or (2) adjunct, © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

A

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400530z | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Table 1. Average Student GPA and Freshmen Chemistry Grade Levels for Groups 1 and 2

a

Group

N

Delivery Method

Ages

Majors

Average GPA

Average Chemistry Grade

1 (Fall 2011) 2 (Fall 2013)

6 7

Traditional Lecture Inverted Teaching

20−24 22−34

Biology Biologya

3.48 3.20

A− (3.67/4.00) A− (3.61/4.00)

One student in Group 2 was a chemistry major.

students (three male, three female), aged 20 to 24, whereas Group 2 included seven students (six male, one female), aged 22 to 34. All students from both groups were biology majors, except for one chemistry major in Group 2. Table 1 shows average student GPA and freshmen chemistry grade levels for each group.

theoretical underpinnings and academic implications of inverted chemistry courses at the university level accordingly remain largely unexplored, and no “best practice” approach, if one even exists, has yet to be proposed. Bergmann and Sams (both secondary chemistry educators) acknowledge that “there is no single way to flip your classroomthere is no such thing as the flipped classroom. There is no specific methodology to be replicated; no checklist to follow that leads to guaranteed results.”19 One might conclude, then, that the method’s novelty establishes the need for further investigation. To this end, an IRB-approved study is here reported for which two separate groups of students were each taught their first semester of sophomore organic chemistry by one of two methods: Group 1 through traditional lecture (TL), and Group 2 through inverted teaching (IT). Group 1 also received their second semester of the two-semester course through IT. Their anonymous feedback provides a comparison of the two techniques from a single cohort and will be discussed further on. The primary objectives in this study are to compare TL with IT and to share a course design with interested educators. Although statistical results will be discussed, the intention is not to make broad claims, given the limited sample sizes (N = 6 and N = 7). Aligning with the aforementioned assertion by Bergmann and Sams,19 it should be understood that this structure is only one way of delivering an IT course, disclosed for the benefit of those seeking a possible starting point for IT design in college organic chemistry. Notwithstanding modest class sizes, the basic elements of this course structure should be readily adaptable to larger enrollment settings.

■

COURSE DESIGN

Group 1 (Traditional Lecture, Fall 2011)

This course was taught by delivering two 100 min weekly lectures in front of overhead Powerpoint slides, made available online before class. Lectures were broken up every five to six slides (about every 25 min) by working out short, in-class problems in groups of two. While students worked on problems, the instructor walked around the class to observe and address concerns. Groups were then switched, and the problems were reworked with new partners. Once completed, lecture continued, and the pattern repeated. As needed, the instructor addressed questions by writing answers on an overhead Elmo cam. Handwritten overhead notes were scanned and posted online after class. Over the course of the semester, students were given eight take-home problem sets, worth 20% of their grade, and five exams (four midterms and one comprehensive final, worth 100 points eachthe lowest exam score was dropped), worth 80% of their grade.21 Group 2 (Inverted Teaching, Fall 2013)

Following a schedule distributed the first day of class,22 lectures were prepared as Powerpoint files and posted online at least 1 week in advance. Accompanying lecture videos, also posted online before class, were recorded in advance by the instructor using Camtasia Studio 7.0 and a laptop doc cam.23,24 These videos included PowerPoint lectures with picture-in-picture footage of the narrating instructor at the bottom right-hand side of the screen. Students were asked to watch the lecture videos before class, according to a schedule. This was encouraged through short, multiple-choice quizzes at the beginning of each class period, coinciding with the start of each new chapter (about one quiz per week).25 Students spent in-class time (two 100 min weekly periods) working in assigned three-person groups on interactive problem sets,21 which included a combination of questions generated by the instructor or the publisher’s repository.26 While students worked on these problems, the instructor periodically walked around the class to observe, address concerns, and deliver short “just-in-time” lectures as needed. Over the course of the semester, students were given five exams (four midterms and a final, worth 100 points eachthe lowest exam score was dropped), worth 70% of their grade, and 13 in-class quizzes about each lecture video, worth 10% of their grade. Students were also given eight in-class problem sets, done together in groups, worth 20% of their grade (the lowest score was dropped). Only one problem set was graded per group. Each group member then received the same grade, with the following modification: at the end of the term, students

■

RATIONALE AND FOCUS The focus of this course design centers around concerns about IT at one institution and other online forums in three major areas: (1) student academic performance, (2) student enthusiasm and engagement, and (3) student accountability. The structure chosen accordingly focused on the following research questions: • How will IT affect student grades and comprehension, relative to TL? (academic performance) • How will students feel about IT, compared with TL? (enthusiasm and engagement) • Will students actually watch the IT video lectures before class? (accountability) • How will IT affect student attendance, relative to TL? (accountability) Other considerations included: Will the overall amount of lecture time increase in the IT course, relative to TL?20 And: How much more time will lecture prep require for the instructor, relative to the TL course?

■

SAMPLING POOL The modest class sizes at the rural campus used in this study led to an indisputably smaller sampling pool than most university settings. For this analysis, Group 1 included six B

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400530z | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

were required to give an anonymous “peer grade” (A, B, C, D, or F) to each member of their group, including themselves. Individual group members’ problem set grades were then adjusted according to eq 1

87th percentile). The role of the teaching format (TL vs IT) in this result is presently unclear. Analogous data with Group 2 is still underway. How Did Students Feel about IT, Compared with TL? (Enthusiasm and Engagement)

individual problem set grade = (group’s collective problem set grade) × Y

Student opinions were formatively assessed through two anonymous surveys per semester: one at Week 5 (soon after Exam 1) and another at Week 15.28 Each evaluation had a qualitative and quantitative section. One key question asked Group 2 to rate how much they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “I prefer the new inverted teaching model to a traditional lecture style.” On a Likert scale of 1−5 (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree), the average response was 4.00 at Week 5 and 4.00 at Week 15, indicating that students generally “somewhat preferred” IT to TL. (Full survey results are included in the Supporting Information.) The one student who strongly disliked IT gave the following reason: I have found it difficult to watch the out of class lectures on YouTube due to time constraints. Class time is about the only time that I have for instruction and learning due to constraints of responsibility. So I feel that I am not maximizing my time or using it efficiently with the inverted style of teaching. One could defend the usefulness of assessing opinions from a single group of students taught using both styles, by the same instructor. As mentioned above, Group 1 was taught using TL during Semester 1 and IT during Semester 2. When students were asked to rate their agreement with the statement “I prefer the new flipped teaching model to traditional lecture style,” their average response was 3.83 at Week 5 and 4.67 at Week 15. The explanation for this shift may be housed within two individual student responses given in the qualitative section of the Week 15 survey: I really like the flipped teaching method. At first it seemed a little bit overwhelming, but now I feel like I have more time. Since I have learned to use the flipped teaching method a little better, I feel like I actually learn more because I can stop and really absorb what I am being taught and then move forward at my own pace [underline added for emphasis].In the last evaluation I was not sure how much I liked the flipped teaching method, but now I prefer it and wish some of my other classes would do the same model for teaching. Like I said before, it is hard to get used to but a very good method of learning [underline added for emphasis]. It thus appears that for students who are used to a TL style, an interim adjusting period may be needed before they learn how to use or become accustomed to an IT approach. Qualitative data supported this hypothesis: for Group 1, much trepidation about IT existed during Week 5 of their second semester, but by Week 15, students almost universally preferred it. The observation that IT requires an acclamation period for students is consistent with assertions made by Talbert.9 By the end of each semester in which IT was used, anonymous survey results from both groups reflected a highly positive view of the technique from 83% (5/6) of students from Group 1 and 86% (6/7) of students from Group 2. Students who responded positively most often mentioned IT’s ability to conform to their individual schedules and learning speeds, as video lectures could be watched online anytime and sped up, slowed down, or repeated at will. One representative comment summarized:

(1)

In eq 1, Y is the average of three peer grades, calculated by converting our institution’s letter-grade percent values to numbers, as follows: F = 0.5, D− = 0.575, D = 0.65, D+ = 0.6833, C− = 0.7167, C = 0.75, C+ = 0.7833, B− = 0.8166, B = 0.85, B+ = 0.8833, A− = 0.9167, A = 1. This peer grade system was used to encourage students to actively contribute to group work, rather than letting one student do a disproportionate amount. All exams were taken individually and not as groups.

■

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

How Did IT Affect Student Academic Performance, Relative to a TL Style? (Academic Performance)

Students’ academic performance was assessed by comparing problem set (“homework”) and exam scores for both semesters, as indicated in Tables 2−3. A t test analysis was then used to Table 2. Average Problem Set Scores for Year 1 (TL) and Year 2 (IT) Average Class Score (%) Problem Problem Problem Problem Problem Problem Problem Problem Average

Set Set Set Set Set Set Set Set

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Year 1 (TL, N = 6)

Year 2 (IT, N = 7)

92.50 86.67 93.22 95.00 86.03 84.88 93.33 84.44 89.51 ± 0.04

99.43 87.57 96.34 100 100 97.71 96.74 100 97.23 ± 0.04

Table 3. Average Exam Scores for Year 1 (TL) and Year 2 (IT) Average Class Score (%)

Year 1 (TL, N = 6)

Year 2 (IT, N = 7)

Exam 1 Exam 2 Exam 3 Exam 4 Final Exam Average

86.42 88.67 79.92 90.58 75.64 84.24 ± 0.06

83.38 94.95 82.00 72.71 94.36 85.48 ± 0.09

determine if the two data sets were statistically different. The t test comparison of each problem set average, from Year 1 to Year 2, gives results that are far below the threshold needed to reject the null hypothesis at 95% confidence interval, with the given sampling size. Thus, at the very most, these data may indicate that the two methodologies (TL versus IT) yielded statistically equivalent results between semesters. Similar conclusions were also reached from students’ exam scores, seen in Table 3. Ultimately, more data are needed and will be forthcoming as additional years’ results are acquired. It should also be noted that students in Group 1, who were taught during Semester 1 through TL and Semester 2 through IT, took a normalized ACS comprehensive exam as their endof-year final.27 The overall class average was 55.83/70 (79.8%, C

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400530z | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

I really enjoyed the flipped teaching model this semester. It gave students the opportunity to teach each other. I am a strong believer that teaching a subject helps solidify it in your mind and helps you to truly understand it. This method of teaching does just that. It allows students the opportunity to teach each other and solidify the concepts in their minds. The one student from Group 1 who still disliked IT by Week 15 of the second semester indicated its greatest shortcoming to be the fact that everyone was graded together as a group on their problem sets, which encouraged some students to just “divide and conquer” rather than “[teach] each other and [work] on the packet in unison.” This student suggested that problem sets should be graded individually. A future study examining this modification will be forthcoming.

(13.09 h) total, corresponding to a decrease of 62% in overall lecture time. This decreased lecture time for the IT course resulted partly from the fact that video lectures were not interrupted by student questions. Furthermore, each video was prescripted and edited prior to posting to remove extraneous pauses and unnecessary additions by the instructor. How Much More Time Did Lecture Prep Require for the Instructor, Relative to the TL Course?

Consistent with Haden et al.’s assertion,1d the IT semester involved a much greater time investment from the instructor. For the TL course, each chapter required the instructor to prepare a Powerpoint presentation (60 to 180 min of prep time) and then deliver it in class (100 to 150 min), amounting to an average time investment of 160 to 330 total minutes (2.67 to 5.5 h) per chapter. By comparison, each IT chapterdivided into two to five video lecturesrequired the instructor to prepare a Powerpoint presentation (60 to 180 min of prep time), write a script (240 to 480 min of prep time), and record, edit, and post the final scripted lectures online (90 to 120 min of prep time).23,24 This corresponded to an average time investment of 390 to 780 total minutes (6.5 to 13 h) per chapter, or 2.4 times the amount required by the TL course. Despite this drawback, it should be noted that IT lectures have the advantage of great reusability and potential impact. For instance, the instructor’s videos are now publicly available for free on YouTube,24 where they have been watched nearly 150,000 times in 20 months, in 176 countries/territories and all 50 U. S. states. Video comments that have come in from later students at this institution, as well as from online viewers, have helped in assessing and improving these videos, providing opportunities to find and correct inadvertent errors and omissions. These iterations are understandably ongoing.

Did Students Actually Watch the IT Video Lectures before Class? (Accountability)

Students in Group 2 were incentivized to watch the scheduled videos before class through weekly in-class quizzes.25 The primary purpose of these formative quizzes was not to assess student comprehension of organic chemistry concepts but merely to determine if students were actually watching the videos. Thus, about half of these quiz questions centered on nonconceptual topics (jokes, stories, or other anecdotes) taken from the videos. For such questions, students would not do well without having seen them first. The consistently high quiz grades, amounting to an average of 89.4% (Group 1, IT semester) and 84.4% (Group 2), seem to indicate that students generally did watch the video lectures before class. In addition to the quizzes, the use of in-class problem sets and the aforementioned “peer grade” system also served to further motivate students to watch the videos according to schedule. How Did IT Affect Student Attendance, Relative to a TL Style? (Accountability)

■

Attendance was fairly high for both groups and did not deviate statistically from one year to the next. During Year 1 (TL), the average attendance was 94.7%. For Year 2 (IT), it was 93.7%. High attendance in Year 2 (IT) was motivated by weekly inclass quizzes, daily problem sets, and the embedded “peer grade” system described above.

CONCLUSIONS This disclosure detailed one inverted teaching (IT) course design for a first-semester undergraduate organic chemistry class. One group of students received this course through a traditional lecture (TL) format and was compared with another group taught using IT. By t test analysis, student grades did not deviate significantly between the two groups. However, these findings are limited by a small sample size (N = 6 and N = 7). Thus, further data will be forthcoming as they are acquired over ensuing years. Beyond course details and rationale, five additional observations were made. First, 83−86% of students preferred IT to TL by the end of each semester. That preference, however, was not immediate. For individuals in Group 1, who were taught by both methods over two semesters, anonymous surveys showed that students required an “adjusting period” before becoming accustomed to IT. Once that acclamation was reached, student affinity for IT surpassed that of TL. Second, students were encouraged to watch the scheduled video lectures before class through weekly, formative quizzes. These quizzes were used primarily to determine if students actually watched the videos and not to assess conceptual comprehension. The consistently high quiz scores (89.4% average for Group 1 and 84.4% for Group 2) indicated that students generally did watch the videos according to schedule. Third, student attendance was high but did not statistically deviate between groups. During the IT semester, attendance

Did the Overall Amount of Lecture Time Increase in the IT Course, Relative to a Traditional Lecture (TL) Course?

One existing worry about IT is that because online lectures have no time limits, it might increase the total amount of lecture.20 To address this concern, lecture time was judiciously tracked through both formats. The results showed a significant decrease in lecture time when IT was used. As Table 4 indicates, after adjusting for downtime spent on in-class problems, the average amount of lecture time during Year 1 (TL) came to 85 min per class period and 2040 total minutes (34 h) for the term. By comparison, the IT lectures given in Year 2 amounted to an average of 16 min each and 784 min Table 4. Total lecture time: traditional lecture (TL) vs. inverted teaching (IT)

Year 1 (TL) Year 2 (IT)

Number of Lectures

Average Lecture Time (min)

Total Lecture Time (min)

Average Lecture Time Per Chapter (minutes)

24 49

85 16

2040 784

136 56 D

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400530z | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Frolik, J.; Verrei-Berenback, W.; Shiroma, W. Assessment of a Hybrid, Online/In-Class Course Developed at Multiple Universities. www.uvm. edu/%7Emuse/downloads/ASEE_2009_final_04feb09.pdf (accessed Feb 18, 2014). (2) Strayer, J. F. Effects of the Classroom Flip on the Learning Environment: A Comparison of Learning Activity in a Traditional Classroom and a Flip Classroom that Used an Intelligent Tutoring System. Ph.D. Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 2007. (3) Demetry, C. Work in Progress − An Innovation Merging “Classroom Flip” and Team-Based Learning. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Washington, DC, October 27−30, 2010; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): New York, NY, TIE1− TIE2. (4) Houston, M.; Lin, L. Humanizing the Classroom by Flipping the Homework versus Lecture Equation. In SITE 2012 − Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Austin, TX, March 5−9, 2012; Resta, P., Ed.; Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE): Chesapeake, VA, ISBN 1-880094-92-4, pp 1177− 1182. (5) Moroney, S. P. Flipped Teaching in a College Algebra Classroom An Action Research Project, 2013. University of Hawaii Department of Educational Technology ETEC 690 Web site. http://scholarspace. manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/27140 (accessed Feb 18, 2014). (6) Berque, D.; Byers, C.; Myers, A. Turning the Classroom Upside Down Using Tablet PCs and DyKnow Ink and Audio Tools. In The Impact of Tablet PCs and Pen-based Technology on Education; Reed, R., Berque, D., Prey, J., Eds.; Purdue University Press: United States, 2009; pp 3−9. (7) Tucker, B. The Flipped Classroom. Education Next 2012, 12 (1), 82−83. (8) (a) 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. (b) Lage, M. J.; Platt, G. The Internet and the Inverted Classroom. J. Econ. Educ. 2000, 31, 11. (9) Talbert, R. Inverted Classroom. Colleagues 2012, 9, 1−2. (10) Ealy, J. B. Development and Implementation of a First-Semester Hybrid Organic Chemistry Course: Yielding Advantages for Educators and Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 303−307. (11) Rodriguez, M. A.; Anicete, R. C. R. Students’ Views of a Mixed Hybrid Ecology Course. J. Online Learn. Teach. 2010, 6 (4), 1−5. See also: (a) Lin, Q. Student Views of Hybrid Learning: A One-Year Exploratory Study. J. Comput. Teach. Education 2008, 25 (2), 57−66. (b) Ho, C. P.; Burniske, R. W. The Evolution of a Hybrid Classroom: Introducing Online Learning to Educators in American Samoa. TechTrends 2005, 49, 24−29. (12) (a) Slunt, K. M.; Giancarlo, L. C. Student-Centered Learning: A Comparison of Two Different Methods of Instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 985−988. (b) Hinde, R. J.; Kovac, J. Student Active Learning Methods in Physical Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 93−99. (13) Bergmann, J.; Sams, A. How to Implement the Flipped Classroom. In Flip Your Classroom; International Society for Technology in Education: Eugene, OR, 2012; pp 35−50. (14) Baker, J. W. The “Classroom Flip”: Using Web Course Management Tools to Become the Guide by the Side. In Selected Conference Papers, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on College Teaching and Learning, Jacksonville, FL, Apr 12−15, 2000; 9− 17. (15) Blackboard Home Page. http://www.blackboard.com/ (accessed July 3, 2013). (16) For some examples, see: (a) Khan Academy Home Page. https://www.khanacademy.org/ (accessed Feb 18, 2014). (b) Crash Course! Video Home Page. https://www.youtube.com/user/ crashcourse (accessed Feb 18, 2014). (c) Periodicvideos Home Page. https://www.youtube.com/user/periodicvideos (accessed Feb 18, 2014). (d) Massachusetts Institute of Technology Video Home Page. https://www.youtube.com/user/MIT (accessed Feb 18, 2014).

was encouraged through the above-mentioned quizzes, group problem sets, and an embedded “peer grade” system. Fourth, unexpectedly, this IT design encompassed 62% less overall lecture time than TL, which partly addresses the concern that IT classes might lead to increased amounts of lecture.20 And fifth, consistent with the assertions of Haden et al.,1d this IT course prescribed a 2.4-fold increase in prep time for the instructor, largely due to the greater time required to create and post online lecture videos.23 Despite this drawback, it is noted that IT videos have the advantage of indefinite reusability and broader impact. 24 The videos created continue to be reevaluated and modified through student and peer feedback. As video-producing and streaming technologies continue to improve and become a more integral part of our modern educational landscape,29 scrutiny of inverted teaching is likely to increase. To this end, this IT course design is shared in anticipation that it may serve as a starting point for educators interested in developing their own chemistry IT curricula. Despite the small student numbers used in this study, we cannot foresee any reason why this course design would not be readily adaptable to classes of any size. Therefore, extensive samples of course material and evaluation data are included in the online Supporting Information. Detailed tutorial instructions on creating, producing, and posting chemistry lecture videos will be shared in a later communication.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

Class syllabi and schedules, sample problem set and quiz questions, and full copies of all evaluation results from both groups. This material is available via the Internet at http:// pubs.acs.org.

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to thank USU’s former Faculty Assistance Center for Teaching (FACT) for training him in using Camtasia Studio 7.0, as well as the Uintah Basin Impact Mitigation District and Utah State University for financial support.

■

REFERENCES

(1) For examples, see: (a) Papadopoulos, C.; Santiago-Román, A.; Portela, G. Work in progress  Developing and implementing an Inverted Classroom for Engineering Statics. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Washington, DC, October 27−30, 2010; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): New York, NY, F3F-1 F3F-4. (b) Toto, R.; Nguyen, H. Flipping the Work Design in an industrial engineering course. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, TX, October 18−21, 2009; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): New York, NY, 1−4. (c) Kellogg, S. Developing online materials to facilitate an inverted classroom approach. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, TX, October 18−21, 2009; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): New York, NY, 1−6. (d) Haden, C.; Flikkema, P.; Weller, T.; E

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400530z | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(e) Educator Video Home Page. https://www.youtube.com/user/ EducatorVids?feature=chclk (accessed Feb 18, 2014). (17) Strayer, J. F. How Learning in an Inverted Classroom Influences Cooperation, Innovation and Task Orientation. Learn. Environ. Res. 2012, 15, 171−193. (18) Seery, M. K.; McDonnell, C. The Application of Technology to Enhance Chemistry Education. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14, 227− 228. (19) Bergmann, J.; Sams, A. Our Story: Creating the Flipped Classroom. In Flip Your Classroom; International Society for Technology in Education: Eugene, OR, 2012; p 11. (20) Toppo, G. “Flipped” classrooms take advantage of technology. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-10-06/ flipped-classrooms-virtual-teaching/50681482/1 (accessed Feb 18, 2014). (21) Sample problem set questions are included in the Supporting Information. (22) Sample class syllabi and schedules are included in the Supporting Information. (23) Detailed instructions on creating, producing, and posting chemistry lecture videos will be shared in a later communication. For general principles, see ref 13. (24) The instructor’s lecture videos are available online at: Mike Christiansen YouTube Home Page. https://www.youtube.com/ channel/UCpUkAZfpeUBMmA_zAAERyZw (accessed Feb 20, 2014). (25) Sample quiz questions are included in the Supporting Information. (26) Bruice, P. Y. Organic Chemistry, 6th ed.; Prentice Hall: Glenview, IL, 2011. (27) ACS Division of Chemical Education Examination: Organic Chemistry, Stock Code OR08. (28) Copies of the Week 5 and Week 15 course evaluations are included in the Supporting Information. (29) Christensen, C. M.; Eyring, H. J. The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2011.

F

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400530z | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX