Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Online Prelaboratory Videos Improve Student Performance in the General Chemistry Laboratory Mike Stieff,*,† Stephanie M. Werner,† Bill Fink,‡ and Dianne Meador§ †
Department of Chemistry, University of IllinoisChicago, 845 West Taylor Street Room 4376, Chicago, Illinois 60607, United States ‡ Department of Chemistry, University of California, Davis, California 95616, United States § Department of Chemistry American River College, 4700 College Oak Drive, Sacramento, California 95841, United States ABSTRACT: This paper examines the effectiveness of adding an online component to the general chemistry laboratory in which students view prelaboratory instructional materials through online videos prior to completing general chemistry laboratory activities. Using a quasi-experimental design, we compared the performance of 1089 general chemistry students who viewed online prelaboratory videos for two laboratory activities and attended face-to-face prelaboratory lectures for two additional laboratory activities. Students were assessed on their understanding of the rationale for specific laboratory procedures, their efficiency at completing each activity in the allotted time, and their help-seeking behavior during laboratory sessions. Students were more efficient and demonstrated a greater understanding of the rationale for procedures for the two laboratory activities that used online prelaboratory videos than those that used prelaboratory lectures. No differences were observed in help-seeking behavior between the two conditions. These results suggest that online prelecture videos have significant potential for improving student learning in the general chemistry laboratory and for reducing demand on institutional resources for associated courses. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Laboratory Instruction, Internet/Web-Based Learning, Chemical Education Research FEATURE: Chemical Education Research
■
INTRODUCTION Video-based instruction for the general chemistry laboratory has been advocated for several decades, and preliminary studies of their efficacy showed that they can improve lab activity among students, increase efficiency when setting up an apparatus and taking measurements, and reduce intervention from teaching assistants.1−4 Advances in learning technologies have transformed the role of video-based instruction with the rise of online platforms that allow students to view videos prior to laboratory instruction and engage in interactive learning activities around the videos themselves. Modern online prelab videos typically include a brief introduction to a laboratory experiment, review of related concepts, demonstration of equipment and techniques, and safety protocols.5−8 Although the effectiveness of online video chemistry lecture courses is now well-documented,9 online video teaching has not been leveraged as extensively in the general chemistry laboratory. This is surprising as an online video teaching model in the chemistry laboratory should bring the same benefits previously seen in the lecture hall when the format relocates traditional “information transmission” approaches to an online setting and frees class time for more student− instructor interaction.10 Practically, online prelab videos in the general chemistry laboratory can also remove the need for instructors to deliver a prelaboratory lecture either stand-alone or at the beginning of the laboratory session. Instead, students could receive online basic laboratory information to learn relevant terminology, familiarize themselves with equipment and instrumentation, and review important safety and waste © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
disposal procedures. With earlier access to this basic information, students are likely to come to instructional laboratory better prepared to execute laboratory procedures and engage with their instructors regarding principles of scientific argumentation and inquiry related to experimentation. Indeed, faculty using online tutorials have reported that they are particularly advantageous for preparing students to conduct experimental work.6,11 Likewise, students report that they find such tutorials engaging, relevant, and useful.6,12 However, it should be noted that general chemistry laboratory student goals vary widely from upper-level chemistry students. DeKorver and Towns found that the primary goal of 77% of chemistry students was to complete the lab work as quickly as possible, and more than 50% of students had the goal of completing the lab to receive a satisfactory grade.13 Consequently, it is not clear that the same increased engagement and improved learning outcomes would result from online videos for general chemistry laboratory as they do for the general chemistry lecture or upper division courses.14−16 Extant studies on the effectiveness of online video laboratory instruction mostly report no empirical data on student success or that video interventions have no statistically significant effect on student success in the laboratory.11,12,17 For example, Benedict and Pence reported an intervention that involved their own students creating instrumental and technique lab Received: February 19, 2018 Revised: May 25, 2018
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00109 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
assistant professional development. Second, by locating prelaboratory activities online independent of the instructor, an online video model removes the opportunity for students to request additional information about a procedure or for the instructor to respond to students’ developing understanding formatively. This missed opportunity may lead students to misunderstand complex procedures and engender a false sense of preparation from viewing a video, both of which may compromise student performance in the laboratory or create a need for more assistance. In this paper, we present the results of a quasi-experiment that aimed to assess the relative benefits of delivering instructional materials online or face-to-face to a single cohort of general chemistry laboratory students in at a large researchextensive university. Our aim was 3-fold. First, we analyzed student performance on postlaboratory achievement assessments to determine if the two instructional approaches differentially impacted student learning outcomes related to laboratory procedures. On the basis of the earlier reports of the efficacy of the online video instructional models, we predicted that student understanding of general chemistry laboratory procedures would be improved for lab activities associated with an online prelab video. Second, we analyzed student efficiency at completing assigned in-lab activities to determine if the instructional approaches led to differences in procedural efficiency. Consistent with our first prediction, we predicted that the increased understanding of procedures would lead students to complete lab procedures more efficiently and reduce the amount of time required to complete the entire lab. Third, we analyzed student help-seeking behaviors to determine if the instructional approaches differentially impacted the realtime need for instructor assistance in the laboratory. Here, we posed no specific prediction: increased understanding of lab procedures from the video might reduce help-seeking behavior; alternatively, the lack of interaction with the lab instructor prior to the lab might increase help-seeking behavior.
instruction videos for analytical and general chemistry laboratory courses. Other students and faculty voted on the best video using specific criteria, and the best video was linked to the instrument and prelab handouts via QR code. The authors reported that the videos became a tool that students could use to access during the laboratory; however, no data were collected on student success or understanding of the laboratory exercises with the use of these videos.11 In another analytical chemistry laboratory that used online prelaboratory video demonstrations, students self-reported feeling more prepared, spending more time preparing themselves for the course, and assessing the prelab video demonstrations accompanied by e-quizzes as “very valuable”. However, the students did not attain higher levels of performance in the laboratory relative to a previous course that employed traditional preparatory methods.12 Three recent empirical reports from organic chemistry offer some evidence that online video instructional techniques do improve the chemistry teaching laboratory. First, Jordan et al. reported on the relative effectiveness of student-generated laboratory and instrument instruction videos to business-asusual instruction. Observations of the class and student questionnaires showed that even though students in the comparison group felt more confident in their abilities, students with video instruction performed better in laboratory and needed less assistance from course teaching assistants (TAs).6 Nadelson et al. showed that the use of videos led to an increase in post-test laboratory quiz scores while also allowing students to complete their work more quickly.7 Similarly, Box et al. reported on the effectiveness of student-generated videos in organic chemistry for improving students’ understanding of experimental methods and efficiency. Their analysis also showed the instrumentation video had a large positive effect size on correct responses to prelab questions.5 Schmidt-McCormack et al. used videos in upper-level physical and analytical chemistry lab courses and reported that students were more confident and autonomous, and displayed a positive shift in the meaningful learning in the laboratory instrument (MLLI) affective domain with increased student expectations of laboratory procedure and observations. Postlaboratory interviews indicated that students relied on TA assistance for questions relating to instrumentation and data analysis that were more complex and conceptual than the rote information that was presented in the prelab videos.8 Interestingly, this same findings were observed with prelab activities that involved simulations instead of instructional videos,18 which suggests that it is the preparatory nature of the activity that is beneficial rather than the specific modality of the instructional content. Although these results are promising, there are at least two reasons to suspect that teaching that employs online prelaboratory videos may not be beneficial for student performance. First, as the studies above report, it is not the content of the online materials that leads to improvements in student success; rather, it is how the classroom itself is transformed with the additional time the online video model provides for active learning techniques. Under an online prelab video model, successful interventions are those that use class time to engage students in scientific argumentation and inquiry practices as modeled by instructors.19 As such, replacing a prelaboratory lecture session with an online component may not lead to noticeable differences in student outcomes without significant reforms to the laboratory activity or teaching
■
METHOD
Participants and Context
Participants included 1089 undergraduate students enrolled in a first term general chemistry laboratory course in a U.S. research-extensive university on the west coast. Each student was enrolled in one of 55 lab sections of the course, which were taught by 28 graduate student teaching assistants. Lab sections ranged from 16 to 24 enrolled students with an average daily attendance of 20 students. As part of this research, 330 lab sessions were observed. Instruments
Assessment of Understanding of Laboratory Procedures. Student understanding of the laboratory procedures associated with each laboratory was measured using an achievement assessment developed by the primary laboratory instructor to assess student learning independent of this research project. Assessment questions asked students to explain the rationale for each step in a procedure with a short response that demonstrated knowledge of concepts related to the step or the entire procedure. For example, in the Observing Chemical Reactions activity, students were asked, “Why do we add only a few drops at a time and subsequently record our observations, instead of immediately adding an excess of reagent?” Each assessment included 6 items except for the Observing Reactions assessment, which included 4 items only B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00109 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Figure 1. Student accuracy on postlaboratory conceptual assessment of procedures was higher on laboratories that employed online prelab videos (gray) compared to those that employed face-to-face prelaboratory lectures. Error bars represent ±1SE.
interactions with students were not recorded; TAs were tasked only with tallying the number of requests for each category.
due to the fewer number of procedures in this experiment. Student responses were scored in a binary fashion by an independent rater who was blind to condition. Achievement on each assessment was calculated as the percent of correct responses. Survey of Student Efficiency. Student efficiency at completing each laboratory activity was measured using an observational survey completed in real-time by each teaching assistant from the start of the session in 20 min intervals. For each of the four activities, teaching assistants recorded the number of students who were actively working on each specific step in the relevant activity. Teaching assistants were prompted to record their observations of student activities by an automatic timer that alerted them every 20 min during each session. Efficiency was calculated by determining the amount of time taken to complete the laboratory as a proportion of the time allotted for the activity. For example, if 100% of the students in a section completed the Observing Chemical Reactions activity within 100 min, the efficiency of the section was calculated as 0.55 (100 min to complete activity/180 min allotted for activity), which indicates the entire section completed the laboratory in 55% of the time allotted by the instructor. Survey of Student Assistance. Student requests for assistance were measured using an observational survey completed by each laboratory teaching assistant from the start of the session. For each of the four activities, TAs recorded the number of times they were asked for assistance during a laboratory session and the type of assistance requested. Specifically, teaching assistants recorded interactions with students that involved execution of a specific step in the laboratory procedure; equipment setup; and chemistry concepts related to the activity, safety, and waste disposal. For each activity, assistance was calculated as the total number of requests made in each lab session for assistance of any type. The specific details of a student request or the quality of the
Procedure
Students completed four laboratory activities over the course of the term as part of the normal curriculum sequence in the department. In order, these laboratories were Observing Chemical Reactions, Reactions of Copper, Spectrophotometry, and Volumetric Analysis. The Observing Chemical Reactions and Reactions of Copper activities were each designed to be completed within one 180 min laboratory session. The Spectrophotometry and Volumetric Analysis activities were each designed to be completed within two consecutive 120 min laboratory sessions; these sessions occurred within a normal 180 min session as scheduled by the university. The impact of the designed online video tutorials was examined using a within-subject repeated-measures design. Prior to completing the laboratory activities, students either viewed an online video tutorial or attended a ∼30 min prelab lecture delivered by their assigned graduate teaching assistant. Online video tutorials preceded the Observing Chemical Reactions and Volumetric Analysis laboratories; prelab lectures preceded the Reactions of Copper and Spectrophotometry laboratories. As such, each condition included one 180 min activity completed in one lab session and one 240 min activity completed in two lab sessions. The instructional faculty in the department confirmed that the two laboratories that employed online videos were not perceived by the instructional staff to differ meaningfully in the amount of time required or difficulty compared to those that employed prelab lectures. Each online prelaboratory video was designed and recorded by the general chemistry laboratory coordinator at the research site. Videos included a review of the laboratory procedure, a demonstration of equipment included in the laboratory, and a review of safety and waste disposal procedures. Prelab lectures were delivered by individual teaching assistants prior to the start of the lab activity each week. The instructional goals of the C
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00109 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Figure 2. Students took more time to complete the laboratory activities associated with prelab lectures than those associated with online videos. This pattern was observed for every quartile of students. Error bars represent ±1SE.
1, student achievement differed among the four activities. As the research question of this study focused on the relative achievement of students after they completed either the prelab lecture or online video, individual two-way comparisons between laboratories were not conducted. Instead, the average achievement on the two laboratories comprising each group was calculated and compared via a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA that compared achievement between modalities (online vs lecture). The result indicated that student achievement for laboratory activities completed with online prelaboratory videos (M = 0.87, SD = 0.13) was higher than for lab activities completed with online prelaboratory lectures (M = 0.69, SD = 0.16), F(1, 727) = 334.15, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.26).
teaching assistants were identical to those of the laboratory coordinator in the online videos; however, each teaching assistant developed an individual lesson plan and lecture based on guidelines from the general chemistry laboratory coordinator. TAs typically reviewed the laboratory procedure and demonstrated equipment use, safety procedures, and waste procedures. Prior to participating in each lab session, students were required to complete an online quiz before coming to the laboratory to demonstrate (1) they had completed any necessary prelaboratory calculations, (2) they were familiar with the relevant equipment, and (3) they understood any relevant safety policies. All students were required to pass each quiz before they were permitted to begin a laboratory activity. Students could not access the prelaboratory videos to complete this quiz. This preparatory quiz was not included as a measure in this study. The Assessment of Understanding of Laboratory Procedures was administered individually to students during the relevant laboratory session immediately after the student completed the laboratory activity. Teaching assistants collected data on the two surveys during each activity.
■
Do Online Prelab Lectures Increase Student Efficiency at Executing Laboratory Procedures?
TAs submitted complete surveys for 300 (lecture, 89%; online video, 89%) lab sessions over the course of the term. For the two laboratories that were completed over two lab sessions, completion times were aggregated across surveys. For each session, the proportion of allotted time required by students to complete the assigned lab activity was calculated for each quartile of students as they finished the activity. The proportion of allotted time used for each lab section was then compared via a mixed repeated-measures ANOVA to compare the effect of modality (online vs lecture) on session efficiency for each of the four quartiles (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). A main-effect of percent completed was observed (F(3, 187) = 200.75, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.52). As can be seen in Figure 2, the amount of time required to complete the lab varied between quartiles with more students requiring increasingly longer periods of time to
RESULTS
Do Online Prelab Videos Improve Student Understanding of Laboratory Procedures?
728 students (67%) completed all four procedural assessments. A one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of each of the four lab activities on achievement. A main-effect of lab activity was observed (F(3, 727) = 251.03, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.26). As can be seen in Figure D
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00109 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Table 1. Distribution of Assistance-Seeking Requests by Modality Prelab Lecture
Online Prelab Lecture
Category
Count
Md
SD
Count
Md
SD
p
Procedure Equipment Related concept Waste disposal Safety Total
2072 444 285 289 97 3187
16.0 1 0 1 0 23
19.1 8.95 5.49 3.76 1.67 31.4
1545 630 353 365 224 3117
8.0 4 1 2 1 17.5
17.4 7.56 6.68 6.88 5.75 35.9
0.016 0.008 0.50 0.31 0.001 0.68
activities with little understanding of the rationale beyond a procedure, the justification for choosing specific instruments, or linking claims and evidence in a scientific investigation.23 Our finding that students displayed a better understanding of concepts related to specific laboratory procedures when they had access to online prelaboratory videos suggests that the instructional approach might provide a significant improvement in students’ laboratory skills and science concepts. While this study does not provide direct evidence to explain why this improvement occurred, we suggest that student performance may have been worse in the prelaboratory lecture setting due to the wide variance in instructional quality from the ad hoc lectures delivered by novice teaching assistants, many of whom were first-year graduate students with no previous teaching experience. Through the online prelaboratory videos, students received consistent instruction from a more experienced faculty member, which may have improved their performance. Alternatively, increased preparedness from the videos may have afforded students more opportunities to engage with their teaching assistants during the laboratory activity to discuss the design of an experiment. We did observe a greater number of interactions between students and teaching assistants regarding equipment and related concepts in sessions that employed online prelaboratory videos. This observation suggests that additional studies with a larger sample of teaching assistants could better reveal whether the online videos promote richer interactions between students and teaching assistants or simply more interactions and whether the modality of delivery or the content of instruction itself yields improved outcomes. Second, we aimed to determine if the different instructional approaches led to differences in procedural efficiency at executing laboratory techniques. To date, most studies investigating the relative benefit of online preinstructional videos have focused primarily on student learning outcomes on achievement assessments. In this study, we predicted that improvements in learning might also be evident in other ways, such as reduced time-to-completion, particularly in laboratory settings where students must demonstrate competence through real-time performance. Our results confirmed this prediction with evidence that the laboratory activities associated with online prelab activities were completed more efficiently in less time. Not only did entire lab sessions complete these laboratories in a shorter amount of the allotted time, but also individual students finished earlier. This second finding has direct implications not only for student learning but also for the allocation of resources to support the undergraduate chemistry laboratory curriculum. First, the use of the online prelecture videos removed the need for a face-to-face prelaboratory lecture with teaching assistants prior to the lab activity itself. Thus, the use of online prelecture videos can reduce the contact hours for a laboratory session each week and reduce space allocations. Second, we observed
complete the lab activities. A main-effect of modality was also evident (F(1, 187) = 7.28, p = 0.008, ηp2= 0.04). Participants required less time on average to complete the two activities that employed online videos than the two following a prelab lecture. (Lecture: M = 0.87; SD = 0.14; Mdn = 0.89. Online video: Mdn = 0.81; SD = 0.17; M = 0.81.) Do Online Prelab Lectures Impact Student Help-Seeking Behaviors Differently Than Face-to-Face Prelab Lectures?
Teaching assistants submitted complete surveys for 211 (64%) lab sessions. For each category, a Kruskal−Wallis one-way analysis of variance test was used to predict the number of requests for assistance by modality (online vs lecture). The models revealed that the type of modality preceding the lab activity did not have a significant impact on total number of assistance requests; however, the distribution of requests changed significantly between curricula for some categories. Table 1 shows the absolute number and average number of assistance requests by category and the related descriptive statistics. For the procedure, equipment, and safety categories of assistance-seeking, we observed a significant difference in the absolute number of interactions between conditions. Students asked more procedural questions in the lecture condition compared to the online prelab lecture condition. For all the equipment and saftey categories, we observed the reverse trend with more questions asked in the online prelab lecture condition.
■
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS The present study pursued three goals. First, we aimed to determine whether an online prelab video teaching approach improved student understanding of laboratory procedures. Prior work has shown online prelab video models of instruction, in which students view online videos of basic course content prior to face-to-face instruction, lead to significant improvements in student engagement and learning outcomes.20 However, a majority of these studies have been conducted in lecture settings, and the extent to which such benefits also occur in instructional laboratory settings remains unknown. Those studies that have occurred in the laboratory (e.g., Seery and Towns) have demonstrated that online videos can improve a student’s self-confidence and skill at executing laboratory procedures.21,22 Consistent with our hypothesis, the results here demonstrate that the same benefits observed in lecture settings are observed in the laboratory setting. Importantly, we have shown that students displayed a greater understanding of the concepts associated with laboratory procedures for activities that included online prelaboratory videos than they did for activities that included prelaboratory lectures. This finding has strong implications for addressing the longstanding challenge that students can complete laboratory E
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00109 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
online prelaboratory videos produce the same effects with different laboratory curriculums and different student and teaching assistant populations. Despite these limitations, our results suggest that new interventions that employ online prelaboratory videos hold significant potential for improving student performance in the general chemistry laboratory. Repeatedly, students emerge from general chemistry teaching laboratories with poor understanding of instruments, procedures, and experimental designs. While professional development programs that focus on teaching assistant training have shown much promise for addressing this issue (e.g., Tien et al. 1999),24 our findings demonstrate that comparably minor revisions to instructional approaches can also lead to improvements in student outcomes. Certainly, high quality interactions with instructors have the strongest and most lasting impact on student retention and achievement in STEM classrooms,25 and our work suggests that online prelaboratory videos may provide one mechanism to free up more classroom time for such interactions. Indeed, at the time of this writing, the research site for this study now includes online prelab videos for all general chemistry laboratories.
students to complete laboratory activities almost 10% faster when they prepared for the laboratory activity with the online prelaboratory videos. Our analysis shows that the reduced time to complete each lab is likely due to fewer procedural errors, as evident in the reduced amount of time for students to complete each step or to begin the entire procedure anew. Regardless of the causal mechanism by which student efficiency was increased, the reduced amount of time needed to complete the laboratory activities suggests that courses that employ online prelaboratory videos might reduce the total amount of time required for a class to use laboratory space for individual activities or an academic term. Finally, we aimed to determine if the instructional approaches differentially impacted the real-time need for instructor assistance in the laboratory. As described above, we made no specific prediction given that the online prelaboratory videos may have reduced a need for support through improved preparedness or increased a need for support by removing opportunities for student−instructor interactions prior the lab. Our analysis revealed no significant differences in the frequency of help-seeking behavior among students in the two conditions overall; however, we did observe a shift in the types of questions students asked in each condition. While students asked more questions about the procedure in the lecture condition, they asked more questions about safety and equipment in the online prelaboratory video classes. While this result does not offer positive evidence to support the use of either method, it does demonstrate that the use of online videos here did not generate an additional burden on the teaching assistants during the laboratory activity. This finding is consistent with that of Jordan et al., who reported that online prelab video instruction allowed organic chemistry TAs to focus on the more struggling students since most students needed less TA assistance.6 Our findings here are qualified by three limitations of the study design. First, although we aimed to ensure that the laboratory activities in each condition were of comparable complexity and time, we do not have an objective measure of the relative difficulty of each lab. Simpler laboratories may be completed in shorter periods of time; however, the variation in time and procedures included in each of the four activities suggests that difficulty was comparable across conditions as estimated by the general laboratory coordinator at the research site. Second, as seen in the research literature on online prelab video instruction, the quality of instruction in face-to-face interactions between instructors and students is more critical than the online materials. In this study, we were not able to control the quality of interactions between students and teaching assistants in the prelaboratory lectures or during the laboratory. As such, poor quality instruction may be the primary driver of decreased performance in the lecture condition as opposed to high quality instruction in the online condition. While this is a potential complexity of the study, at least our design demonstrates that the use of online prelaboratory videos can mitigate some of this effect if not add value to business-as-usual instruction in the general chemistry laboratory. Finally, our selection of a single university research site for this study raises potential questions about the generalizability of the findings to other sites. Curriculum revision or professional development programs in place at other universities may also produce consistent gains in student performance across general chemistry laboratory activities as we have seen here. Studies at additional sites are needed to see if
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: mstieff@uic.edu. ORCID
Mike Stieff: 0000-0002-1639-891X Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest. Reported data are available upon request from the corresponding author.
■ ■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge the support of the cohort of teaching assistants who assisted with data collection for this project. REFERENCES
(1) Burewicz, A.; Miranowicz, N. Effectiveness of multimedia laboratory instruction. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2006, 7, 1−12. (2) Kempa, R. F.; Palmer, C. R. The Effectiveness of Video Tape Recorded Demonstrations in the Learning of Manipulative Skills In Practical Chemistry. British Journal of Educational Technology 1974, 5, 62. (3) Simpson, P. Videotapes in laboratory teaching. Educ. Chem. 1973, 10, 174−175. (4) Watson, J. R. Videotapes in undergraduate chemistry laboratories. Educ. Chem. 1977, 14, 84−86. (5) Box, M. C.; Dunnagan, C. L.; Hirsh, L. A.; Cherry, C. R.; Christianson, K. A.; Gibson, R. J.; Wolfe, M. I.; Gallardo-Williams, M. T. Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation of Three Types of StudentGenerated Videos as Instructional Support in Organic Chemistry Laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (2), 164−170. (6) Jordan, J. T.; Box, M. C.; Eguren, K. E.; Parker, T. A.; SaraldiGallardo, V. M.; Wolfe, M. I.; Gallardo-Williams, M. T. Effectiveness of Student-Generated Video as a Teaching Tool for an Instrumental Technique in the Organic Chemistry Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 141−145. (7) Nadelson, L. S.; Scaggs, J.; Sheffield, C.; McDougal, O. M. Integration of Video-Based Demonstrations to Prepare Students for the Organic Chemistry Laboratory. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2015, 24, 476−483. (8) Schmidt-McCormack, J. A.; Muniz, M. N.; Keuter, E. C.; Shaw, S. K.; Cole, R. S. Design and implementation of instructional videos for
F
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00109 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
upper-division undergraduate laboratory courses. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2017, 18, 749−762. (9) Weaver, G. C.; Sturtevant, H. G. Design, implementation, and evaluation of a flipped format general chemistry course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1437. (10) Smith, M. K.; Wood, W. B.; Adams, W. K.; Wieman, C.; Knight, J. K.; Guild, N.; Su, T. T. Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions. Science 2009, 323, 122− 124. (11) Benedict, L.; Pence, H. E. Teaching Chemistry Using StudentCreated Videos and Photo Blogs Accessed with Smartphones and Two-Dimensional Barcodes. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 492−496. (12) Jolley, D. F.; Wilson, S. R.; Kelso, C.; O’Brien, G.; Mason, C. E. Analytical Thinking, Analytical Action: Using Prelab Video Demonstrations and e-Quizzes To Imporve Undergraduate Preparedness for Analytical Chemistry Practical Classes. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 1855− 1862. (13) DeKorver, B.; Towns, M. General Chemistry Students’ Goals for Chemistry Laboratory Coursework. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 2031−2037. (14) Andrews, T. M.; Leonard, M. J.; Colgrove, C. A.; Kalinowski, S. T. Active Learning Not Associated with Student Learning in a Random Sample of College Biology Courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education 2011, 10, 394−405. (15) Freeman, S.; O’Connor, E.; Parks, J. W.; Cunningham, M.; Hurley, D.; Haak, D.; Dirks, C.; Wenderoth, M. P. Prescribed Active Learning Increases Performance in Introductory Biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education 2007, 6 (2), 132−139. (16) Haak, D. C.; HilleRisLambers, J.; Pitre, E.; Freeman, S. Increased Structure and Active Learning Reduce the Achievement Gap in Introductory Biology. Science 2011, 332, 1213−1216. (17) Fung, F. M. Using First-Person Perspecitive Filming Techniques for a Chemistry Laboratory Demonstration To Facilitate a Flipped Pre-Lab. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1518−1521. (18) Winberg, T. M.; Berg, C. A. R. Students’ cognitive focus during a chemistry laboratory exercise: Effects of a computer-simulated prelab. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2007, 44, 1108−1133. (19) Prunuske, A. J.; Batzli, J.; Howell, E.; Miller, S. Using online lectures to make time for active learning. Genetics 2012, 192, 67−72. (20) Deslauriers, L.; Schelew, E.; Wieman, C. Improved Learning in a Large-Enrollment Physics Class. Science 2011, 332, 862−864. (21) Seery, M. K.; Agustian, H. Y.; Doidge, E. D.; Kucharski, M. M.; O’Connor, H. M.; Price, A. Developing laboratory skills by incorporating peer-review and digital badges. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2017, 18, 403−419. (22) Towns, M.; Harwood, C.; Robertshaw, M.; Fish, J.; O’Shea, K. The Digital Pipetting Badge: A Method To Improve Student HandsOn Laboratory Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 2038−2044. (23) Cavinato, A. G. Challenges and successes in implementing active learning laboratory experiments for an undergraduate analytical chemistry course. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2017, 409, 1465−1470. (24) Tien, L. T.; Rickey, D.; Stacy, A. M. The M.O.R.E. thinking frame: Guiding students’ thinking in the laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching 1999, 28, 318−324. (25) Kinzie, J.; Kezar, A. J. Examining the Ways Institutions Create Student Engagement: The Role of Mission. Journal of College Student Development 2006, 47, 149−172.
G
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00109 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
