Student-Generated Digital Tutorials in an Introductory Organic

Communication Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Student-Generated Digital Tutorials in an Introductory Organic Chemistry Course Brittany A. Hubbard,† Grayson C. Jones,‡ and Maria T. Gallardo-Williams*,† †

Department of Chemistry, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, United States Department of Computer Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, United States

‡

J. Chem. Educ. Downloaded from pubs.acs.org by AUBURN UNIV on 02/28/19. For personal use only.

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: As a means to encourage engagement in a large introductory organic chemistry class, students were tasked with the creation of digital tutorials for specific problems sourced from the assigned class textbook. Students had the freedom to choose how to produce their tutorials as long as the final product was a digital object suitable for sharing with other class members. Analysis of the project outcomes showed that most students successfully produced a tutorial meeting the required criteria and engaged in self-regulated learning by improving their tutorials as a result of instructor feedback and peer review. Tutorial media varied depending on the students’ preferences, but video content was the most common medium chosen by students, followed by slide shows and infographics. Completed tutorials were made available to other students in the course and also to the general public in an online open-access repository. As a result of their development of these reusable assignments, students reported positive outcomes in their self-reflection forms, including new or improved organic chemistry content learning as well as the acquisition of new technical skills and an appreciation of the peer review process. This report details the design and outcomes of the project with an emphasis on student perceptions of the completed works. KEYWORDS: Second-Year Undergraduate, Organic Chemistry, Computer-Based Learning, Multimedia-Based Learning, Student-Centered Learning

■

INTRODUCTION Students’ success in an organic chemistry course is often a reflection of their engagement and participation throughout the semester. Large sections comprising nonmajors make it challenging for instructors to stimulate the diverse interests of all students while ensuring that they cover the ample amount of course material required. This is particularly challenging in survey courses or courses designed for majors other than chemistry. Since the traditional lecture-based classroom has largely been proven to be ineffective,1,2 it is of interest to develop new pedagogical techniques that allow for student creativity and engagement in the organic chemistry classroom.3 One method to increase student participation in the organic chemistry classroom is to develop a class project that allows students a measure of freedom.3,4 The project described in this paper required each student in an introductory organic chemistry class to solve an assigned problem from the class textbook by developing a digital tutorial using any method of his/her choice. The aim of this project was to increase the student’s understanding of the topic while allowing him/her to use his/her creativity to produce an educational tool that could be used by a wider audience.5,6 While students were constrained regarding the topic of the tutorial, there was no limit on how to present the information. Peer review in small © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

groups was used throughout the project to emphasize smallgroup interaction within a large section and to promote student inquiry.7 While most available chemistry tutorials are developed by instructors,8−10 the generation of reusable digital content by students is a rapidly expanding practice.11−15 Most students have previously used tutorials (either provided by instructors or found online) when preparing for their first-year undergraduate chemistry and other science classes, so they have developed an understanding of their own preferences.8,15 This assignment gave students an opportunity to think critically about their presentation choices while also allowing freedom to experiment with different digital media products. As part of the assignment, students were provided with examples of digital tutorials and suitable programs for their creation. Support was made available to students via the NC State Libraries Makerspace.16,17 The Libraries also provided students with opportunities to use video recording equipment and software as well as recording rooms at no cost to the students. Received: June 15, 2018 Revised: February 8, 2019

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00457 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Communication

Resources and Grading Rubric

The primary goal of this study was to analyze submitted selfreflection forms to see whether there were any instances of selfreported positive outcomes such as new learning or improved understanding of class concepts as well as peer-regulated learning. A second goal was to determine what tools undergraduate students would select in the context of making a reusable digital tutorial that could be used as a learning resource by other students in the class.

■

An online resource Web site was created for the class,19 linked from the class Web site. Examples and links describing possible project ideas and desirable outcomes were provided to students via the class learning management system (see the Supporting Information). All activities related to the project were done by the students asynchronously, and no class time was taken up by this endeavor. The project was quite flexible yet rigorous, and it was a graded component (10% of final class grade). Students were divided into groups of four for the peer review component of the assignment and provided with detailed peer review forms and instructions (see the Supporting Information). Peer reviews and instructor feedback were sent back to the individual students via the learning management system, and students were encouraged to make revisions and improvements prior to their final submissions. The class instructor reviewed each assignment using the same form provided for the peer review and returned this feedback to students for improvement. Rubrics were made available to students on the class site to ensure consistent expectations when grading across a large variety of outcomes. The grading rubric as it was presented to students is shown in Table 2. All of the categories on the rubric were considered equally important.

METHODS

Course Description

Introduction to Organic Chemistry (CH220) at North Carolina State University, a semester-long course with two lecture meetings per week (each 75 min long), was used for this study. It is a standalone course offered for students in majors that do not require the traditional two-semester organic chemistry sequence. There were 195 students enrolled in the course in one lecture section. Data collection for this study was conducted during the spring semester of 2018 (January−April) with the approval of the University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Consent was obtained from the students at the beginning of the semester to collect class materials and to post products online for research.

Content Analysis

Assignment Description

The final reflections of work for each individual student were analyzed for content and coding. As recommended by Creswell,20 the data analysis stage began with a combination of thematic coding and summarizing content analysis. Both manifest and latent content (i.e., words as written by participants as well as their underlying meaning or significance) were examined and interpreted within the coding frame. To ensure qualitative reliability, the research team employed reliability procedures such as independent coding by two separate coders and norming sessions to encourage consistency among coders.21 Categories were defined as exhaustive and mutually exclusive using the constantcomparative method. Where areas of overlap were found, the coding scheme was reconsidered and refined using the constant-comparative method.22

The project was briefly introduced in class during the first lecture of the semester and also posted online. The main learning objective described was to be able to create a digital tutorial for the purpose of demonstrating how to solve a problem from the course. Each student was assigned a problem from the class textbook.18 Problems were assigned only from chapters 1−7, which was material covered in the first 8 weeks of the semester. This was done to make sure that all of the students had enough time to prepare their tutorials for submission. Students were encouraged to use their creativity when producing their tutorials and to make them appropriate for an audience of their peers in the class. Detailed instructions were posted on the class management system (Moodle), with links to online submission forms for each step, resources, and relevant deadlines. The steps of the assignment as presented to students are summarized in Table 1.

■

RESULTS For this project students were allowed to choose any type of technology to create a reusable digital tutorial that successfully led to the solution of an introductory organic chemistry problem from the class textbook.18 Allowing students the freedom to choose the production method resulted in the use of a wide range of technologies. Of the 195 students in the course, 183 submitted projects and 171 submitted selfreflections. The types of projects submitted are summarized in Figure 1. The most common forms of the project were video tutorials (36%) and slide shows (31%), with fewer infographics (19%), documents (9%), and Web sites (4%). However, all of the submissions can be subcategorized by the tools and techniques employed, further illustrating the creativeness and breadth of technology students used to develop their tutorials. For example, within the video category students used a variety of techniques, including animation, slow motion, Minecraft, and even cross-stitch props, among others. Most of the tutorials were of a serious nature, but 31% of the tutorials incorporated humorous elements. The tutorials were com-

Table 1. Timeframe for Assignment Components Part

Task

1 2

Problem is assigned to the student Student submits a proposal detailing chosen format for the tutorial Student completes the tutorial and submits it Peer-review tutorials in small groups of four students are conducted; reviews are submitted Student completes revisions and submits revised tutorial

3 4

5 6

All projects are posted on the project Web sitea

Required Form

Due Date [Week]

− Proposal form

1−19−18 [1] 2−15−18 [4]

Submission form Peer-review form

4−12−18 [10]

Final submission form −

4−26−18 [12]

4−19−18 [11]

End of the semester

a

See ref 19. B

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00457 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Communication

Table 2. Grading Rubric Category Effort Information Creativity/ Originality Peer review participation Final reflection

Score of 0−5

Score of 5−10

Minimal time and effort spent on preparation of Adequate time and effort spent on preparation project. Sloppiness apparent in various aspects of of the project. Some degree of sloppiness project. Overall appearance not acceptable. apparent. Overall appearance is acceptable. Chemistry information mainly inaccurate. Chemistry information in project has minor errors or mistakes. Project lacks creativity and originality. Inadequate Project shows some signs of creativity or thought behind the project. originality. No participation in peer review process. Limited participation in peer review process. The reflection does not address the student’s thinking and/or learning.

The reflection explains the student’s thinking about his/her own learning processes

Score of 10−20 Project is extremely neat. Much effort spent on the appearance of the project. Attractive and organized. Chemistry information in project is accurate. Project is very creative and original. Unique approach to problem. Student participates in peer review and gives constructive and timely feedback. The reflection explains the student’s own thinking and learning processes, as well as implications for future learning.

that they developed or refined a new technical skill, meaning they learned or became more proficient in using the technology they chose to generate their tutorials. Forty-three percent of students commented that they gained or improved their ability to communicate or teach their assigned topic. Most of these comments were related to the student’s ability to break down the problem and effectively communicate the solution in a step-by-step sequence within a short time frame. Several comments were made that being forced to communicate in this manner required students to fully understand the material, which helped prepare them for solving problems on the final exam. Though the students were not asked to comment on the peer review component of the project, 16% of responses reflected positive outcomes directly correlated with selfregulated learning as a result of the peer review. Students reported that they enjoyed being able to share their projects as well as view their classmates’ projects. The students also exhibited a high level of engagement within a large classroom while working on improving their tutorials. In addition, a small percentage (4%) of students reported seeking outside assistance beyond the instructor and peer review to help them complete this project.

Figure 1. Digital platforms chosen by students for digital tutorials.

bined on a Web site that was made available to the entire class (to be used for peer review) as well as to the general public.19 At the end of the project, students were asked to submit a reflection on what they learned so that self-reported outcomes of the assignment could be evaluated. As shown in Table 3, 50% of the responses stated that the student gained a better understanding of the course material, while 16% of the responses reported that the student learned new course material. This result indicated that the majority of students felt the project increased their knowledge of organic chemistry. Beyond the content of the course, students commented on several other valuable skills they acquired during the completion of the project. Some students (18%) reported

■

CONCLUSION The free-choice component of this project enabled students to use their creativity and interests to produce tutorials that could be shared with their peers and the general public. A broad

Table 3. Content Analysis of Students’ Final Reflections of Work Results Category

N (%a)

Representative Student Reflection Comments

Learned new course material

28 (16)

Better understanding of course material

85 (50)

Acquisition or refinement of technical skill

31 (18)

Acquisition or refinement of communication/teaching skill

73 (43)

Improvement of study habits

35 (20)

Positive gains from peer review

16 (9)

“I learned how to properly differentiate between E and Z configurations given molecules of similar structures.” “I learned how to name structures with triple bonds.” “I increased and solidified my skills of naming alkenes.” “Making the tutorial helped me better understand how to label a molecule using para, ortho, or meta.” “I also learned a lot about the video editing and filming process from this tutorial.” “I also learned how to use OBS screen capture software, that has nothing to do with organic chemistry but I enjoyed it.” “I learned how to use my knowledge and creativity to solve the problem step by step so I can tutor my audience and be able to explain clearly and thoroughly.” “After this tutorial, I know more about how to express solutions and perspective in a neat and organized way.” “I also learned that I study better with video tutorials than power points or straight readings.” “That I need to be better about planning when I will work on assignments so I can get them done.” “Also, enjoyed watching and learning from my classmate’s tutorial.” “I learned more from going through the tutorials of other classmates during the peer reviews.” “From this project I learned how to pull on the resources provided to me by the college. I had trouble solving this problem because it was from the last chapter we completed this semester. Therefore, the tutoring center was very beneficial to me.”

Pursued support to complete the project

6 (4)

a

Percentage of Ntotal = 171 submitted responses. C

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00457 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Communication

(7) Tasker, T. Q.; Herrenkohl, L. R. Using peer feedback to improve students’ scientific inquiry. J. Sci. Teacher Educ. 2016, 27, 35−59. (8) Burrmann, N. J.; Moore, J. W. Implementation and student testing of a web-based, student-centered stereochemistry tutorial. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1178−1187. (9) Jacobs, D. L.; Dalal, H. A.; Dawson, P. H. Integrating chemical information into the chemistry curriculum on borrowed time: the multiyear development and evolution of a virtual instructional tutorial. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 452−463. (10) D’Ambruoso, G. D.; Cremeens, M. E.; Hendricks, B. R. Webbased animated tutorials using screen capturing software for molecular modeling and spectroscopic acquisition and processing. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95, 666−671. (11) Ryan, B. A walk down the red carpet: students as producers of digital video-based knowledge. Int. J. Techn. Enhanced Learning 2013, 5, 24−41. (12) 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. (13) Lancaster, S. Beyond the presentation: Student authored vignettes. Educ. Chem. (London, U. K.) 2014, 51 (2), 18−21. (14) Morsch, L. A. Student Authored Video Vignettes in Chemistry. e-mentor 2017, 2017 (3), 25−32. (15) Box, M. C.; Dunnagan, C. L.; Hirsh, L. A. S.; 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, 164−170. (16) NCSU Libraries. Makerspace. https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/ services/makerspace (accessed February 2019). (17) DiMonte, L.; Rogers, A.; Wust, M. Think and Do: Makerspaces and Making Support Programs at the NCSU Libraries. Buch Bibliothek 2017, 69 (1), 28−31. (18) McMurry, J. Fundamentals of Organic Chemistry, 7th ed.; Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning: Belmont, CA, 2011. (19) Gallardo-Williams, M. T. Student-Generated Organic Chemistry Tutorials. http://go.ncsu.edu/organic_tutorials (accessed February 2019). (20) Creswell, J. W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2014. (21) Gibbs, G. R. Analyzing Qualitative Data, 2nd ed.; The Sage Qualitative Research Kit, Vol. 6 (Flick, U., Series Ed.); Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2018. (22) Glaser, B. G.; Strauss, A. L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research; Transaction Publishers: New Brunswick, NJ, 2009.

range of technologies were utilized to develop the projects, indicating that students actively engaged with media they enjoyed using. Students were able to improve their work with instructor comments and peer review and produced selfreflections as part of their assignments. An analysis of student comments showed that the majority of students felt that this assignment improved their knowledge of organic chemistry either by learning new material or by seeking a better understanding of the material discussed in class. Additional positive outcomes were reported, such as gaining new skills and developing better study habits, which will benefit students beyond the scope of the course. The tutorials created in this class are currently being used as review materials by students enrolled in the course. Future work includes the revision and improvement of existing tutorials based on student feedback and a determination of the most popular tutorial styles based on student engagement and outcomes.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

* Supporting Information S

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00457. Tutorial project instructions and list of resources (PDF, DOCX) Tutorial project peer review form (PDF, DOCX)

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Maria T. Gallardo-Williams: 0000-0002-0056-264X Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was completed thanks to a grant awarded to M.T.G.-W. by the NC State STEM Initiative. We are thankful for the contribution of Allen Moore, who was a student in CH220 and designed the illustration used for the graphical abstract as part of his digital tutorial. We are also thankful to our reviewers for their useful comments.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Arum, R. Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses; University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2010. (2) Hake, R. R. Interactive-Engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. 1998, 66, 64−74. (3) Bolte, C.; Streller, S.; Hoffstein, A. How to motivate students and raise their interest in chemistry education. In Teaching ChemistryA Studybook; Eilks, I., Hofstein, A., Eds.; Sense: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp 67−95. (4) Frohock, B. H.; Winterrowd, S. T.; Gallardo-Williams, M. T. IHeartChemistryNCSU: free choice, content, and elements of science communication as the framework for an introductory organic chemistry project. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2018, 19, 240−250. (5) Littlejohn, A.; Buckingham Shum, S. Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to eLearning. J. Interact. Media Educ. 2003, 2003 (1), 1. (6) Friesen, N. What are educational objects? Interact. Learn. Environ. 2001, 9, 219−230. D

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00457 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX