Teaching and the Internet - ACS Publications - American Chemical

Chapter 10

Back to Basics: Principles of Teaching That Will Never Expire Downloaded by UNIV OF FLORIDA on November 12, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 8, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1270.ch010

Michael A. Christiansen* Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Utah State University – Uintah Basin Regional Campus, 320 North Aggie Blvd., Vernal, Utah 84078, United States *E-mail: [email protected]

The modern internet forebodes potentially seismic changes to educational institutions across the globe, expanding both professors’ reach and students’ access. It also represents a likely source of disruptive competition to historically-insulated universities and colleges. Some consequently wonder: in the future, will the traditional tenured professor remain an unalterable fixture of postsecondary education, or eventually become a statistical novelty? While perfect predictive power remains impossible, one thing is likely: to stay competitive in an ever-shifting age of information, postsecondary educators would do well to prepare ourselves to adapt to new conditions and improve our teaching prowess. Regardless of what the future holds, our edge of efficiency and effectiveness will likely hinge on properly implementing fundamental teaching principles. To that end, this chapter’s author draws on 13 years of postsecondary teaching experience to summarize four such principles, which will never expire, but are often disregarded or poorly implemented. Though not all-encompassing, these indispensable principles are as follows: (1) avoid baffling jargon; (2) do not fear change, but be willing to learn new things; (3) love your students, love your job, and act accordingly; and (4) get to know your students, and modify your lessons to connect your course to their interests and academic goals.

© 2017 American Chemical Society Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Downloaded by UNIV OF FLORIDA on November 12, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 8, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1270.ch010

The Internet Is Changing Postsecondary Education. Will We Be Ready? In their 2011 book, The Innovative University, authors Clay Christensen (a Harvard Business School Professor and disruptive innovations expert (1)) and Henry J. Eyring (current BYU-Idaho president (2)) assert that the means of delivering higher education—and by extension, the modus operandi of higher-ed institutions themselves—have remained historically insulated from significant disruptive changes, due to the prior absence of technologies that might unseat the status quo (3, 4). However, Christensen and Eyring also warn that the previously-nonexistent internet now represents this very kind of disruptive innovation, which may affect seismic shifts in higher education and may even imperil vulnerable institutions who stalwartly resist appropriate change (4). In effect, some traditional universities and colleges, long shielded from innovative disruption, now face the reality of adapting, transforming, or obsolescing, thanks to the World Wide Web. Understandably, many educators and administrators at postsecondary institutions worry about what this academic disruption may portend. For example, Dr. David R. Wheeler, assistant professor of journalism at the University of Tampa, wrote for CNN News in 2014: “If higher education continues down its current path, full-time professors—already an endangered species—may become extinct. The reason: Uncontrollable fervor for online education” (5). Wheeler’s concern over a possible future extinction of traditional academics is not unique. For instance, in a 2012 Pew Research Center article summarizing responses from 1,021 postsecondary educators, administrators, and stakeholders, qualitative feedback included an intriguing statement from Dr. Michel Coconis, assistant professor of social work at Wright State University. Dr. Coconis’s prediction, which represents a common theme expressed by the study’s participants, seems to echo Wheeler’s aforementioned concern: Higher education will not even need all the buildings they are constructing because it will all be Walmart University. The best professors, based on someone’s criteria (I cannot yet specify) will be identified, recorded, perhaps have some enhancements, and then catalogued, and everyone can take those courses for their degree. I fear that everyone will get the same degree as this replaces high school, and perhaps the advanced education will eliminate courses such as liberal arts and focus on the technical aspects of a select few majors. I think most courses will be online with video/audio, and maybe writing will be minimal. It is possible that 2020 brings the move to hybrid, and that my scenario [occurs], say, [by] 2040 (6). While it obviously remains impossible to predict the future perfectly, significant changes in higher education undoubtedly await. We now live in a world where students often seek answers online instead of from their professors or textbooks (7, 8); and where the internet provides universities with new revenue options, such as online offerings (9, 10) or high-profit forums like Massive Open Online 172 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Courses (MOOCs) (11, 12). Moreover, as budgets shrink at some institutions and traditional fulltime faculty often get replaced with less-costly adjuncts (13, 14), we naturally wonder what the future may hold for classic tenured professors. Will we remain indispensable fixtures of higher education, or will we become statistical rarities, destined for replacement by an elite few who dispense online courses, YouTube videos, and MOOCs? Again, the answer defies certainty. However, it would be wise to appropriately prepare. Applicably, in his review of a biography about world-famous chemist Henry Eyring (1901-1981), Dr. Jack Simmons, an emeritus professor at the University of Utah, wrote: “[Eyring said] that he worked harder than required because ‘if the economy goes to ruin and there’s only one chemist in the country with a job, it’s going to be me’” (15). Thus, in our modern world, where the internet has expanded competition to a global scale, and where new opportunities and challenges may invoke tumultuous shifts in postsecondary education, we need to work harder than ever, much like Eyring philosophized, to become the best teachers we possibly can. This chapter’s purpose, then, is to share crucial lessons housed within four fundamental teaching principles that I believe will never expire, regardless of what future technological innovations come: in effect, to arm you with the most critical teaching lessons I have ever learned. Some may argue that they are too basic, but I see university and college educators violate them often enough that they merit attention. Additionally, for all who aspire to bright futures in a postsecondary teaching world whose moors are shifting, and wherein the day may come when employment opportunities favor only the best, our professional destinies might depend on our mastery of such basics.

What Is the Author’s Postsecondary Teaching Background? I now preempt my central thesis to first explain my background. My goal here is not to sound arrogant, but to merely establish my credibility as a qualified, experienced, and outstanding science educator. Although my formal graduate and postdoctoral research training was in traditional lab-bench research, I am a teacher to the core: in other words, an educator first, and a chemistry researcher second. Advantageously (though I did not view it that way at the time), funding constraints during my graduate tenure often precluded me from fulltime lab research and instead afforded me a saturated teaching/TA load, dating back to 2004. As a result, I have been teaching college chemistry with very few interruptions for the past 13 years. The fact is, I absolutely love it. Teaching is not just what I do. It’s who I am. My current position as an associate chemistry professor levies a 70/25/ 5 split between teaching, scholarship/research, and academic service: that is, a 70% emphasis on teaching. Consequently, since starting my post at Utah State University (USU) in the fall of 2011, my research emphasis has shifted to chemical education, where most of my peer-reviewed publications now lie (16–20). My student evaluations are among the highest at my institution. In less than six years, I have received two institutional teaching awards and one educational grant. I 173 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


have a chemistry YouTube channel with over 3.2 million views (21). And my teaching success has led to my recent appointment as editor-in-chief of USU’s new peer-reviewed, cross-disciplinary journal, the Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence (22). Again, my purpose here is not to brag. I know that with all my strengths, I still (and always will) have many things to improve. Nevertheless, I hope to emphasize the fact that like you, I cherish teaching. I live it and breathe it. I read, work, and think about it continually. I have witnessed and have been guilty of both good and bad examples of it, and I wish to convey to you some of the most crucial lessons I have learned over the past 13 years: teaching principles that will never expire, regardless of what the future brings.

Teaching’s Intangibles Sometimes Make Its Evaluation Difficult and Subjective All of us have undoubtedly witnessed both good and bad teaching. However, unlike mass, velocity, length, or volume, it is nearly impossible to objectively quantify. This is complicated by the fact that there are countless examples of outstanding teaching styles and personalities, even within the same field. In other words, proficient instruction encompasses diverse methods and individuals, and though we typically recognize it when we see it, effective teaching is difficult to measure. One reason for this is that unlike the metrics of pure physical science, teaching is an art, replete with much of the variable and intangible subjectivity one encounters when evaluating poetry, literature, paintings, or sculptures. At its foundation, however, good teaching must not only transmit knowledge and information, but also enthuse, inspire, and kindle students’ interest, often in areas and ways that they had never previously considered. With that said, there are certain broad teaching principles that any educator, from any field, would do well to apply. Though not all-encompassing, I now list four that are indispensable but all too often disregarded.

Four Principles of Teaching That Will Never Expire Principle 1: Avoid Baffling Jargon It was August of 2012. Sitting in a massive conference room in Salt Lake City with hundreds of other postsecondary science educators and professionals, I watched the lights dim as our National Science Foundation (NSF) speaker, Chris Mooney, introduced an unforgettable YouTube video entitled “Turbo Encabulator” (23). Based on a satirical paper written by engineer J.H. Quick in 1944 (24), this 1977 video features classic narrator-actor, Bud Haggart, using a bewildering cacophony of meaningless technobabble to describe a fictional device. Though likely not the intent of this humorous video’s original creators, Mooney’s purpose in sharing “Turbo Encabulator” with us was clear: that 174 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


when talking about science, we scientists often use so much baffling jargon that laypeople cannot understand what we do or why it’s important. In fact, the primary purpose of the NSF’s workshop (“Science: Becoming the Messenger”) was to teach science professionals how to “develop writing and new media skills, to hone their public presentations and even to produce video” (25). In other words, to teach scientists how to clearly communicate to nonscientists the significance of what we do. Appropriately, this NSF workshop was led by television and communications experts, instead of scientists. The need for such a workshop became readily apparent when Mooney invited a professor—who was given weeks of advance notice to prepare for this—to take the stage and spend a few short minutes explaining her research to him, while he roleplayed as a layperson. Her instructions were straightforward: keep your explanation brief and simple enough for a nonscientist to understand. After a quick moment, the professor began: “Well, to understand my research, you must first understand the difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.” I almost involuntarily face-palmed, and disappointingly, her explanation only got worse, becoming ever more complex and bewildering as she continued. By the time she finished, even I, as a PhD organic chemist, had no idea what she was talking about. Now, I was almost certainly not the most intelligent person in that room, but the fact that the NSF is even holding such workshops (which have occurred annually since 2011) confirms that many of us scientists struggle with this particular issue. I accordingly reemphasize Principle #1: avoid baffling jargon. We postsecondary educators in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields are among the greatest violators of this principle. In fact, this NSF workshop helped me to better realize my own deficiencies in this area. I consequently returned home and spent time developing a one-sentence, vernacular-free explanation of my own research, which I now readily dispense to laypeople who inquire. I invite you to consider doing the same. So, how does Principle #1 apply to teaching? Well, for some unfathomable reason, many professors seem to think that the more words they say, the better they are teaching. This is incontrovertibly false. The truth is often the very opposite: generally (and there are situational exceptions), the fewer—but more effective—the words you say, the better you are teaching. Many years ago, I was assigned as a TA to take notes and hold study sessions for students enrolled in a large undergraduate lecture course. Although the guest lecturer instructing the class was very kind and patient, he was also an agonizingly terrible teacher. His greatest flaw was that he could not teach chemistry with words that regular humans can understand. Even the simplest of questions, such as “How much time is given for each exam?”, were met with responses that included terms like “eigenvalues,” “vectors,” and “Schrodinger’s equation.” Here is the point. KEEP. IT. SIMPLE. If the answer is “yes,” say “yes”. If the answer is “no,” say “no.” If the answer is “50 minutes,” say “50 minutes”. Do not attempt to baffle your students with technical jargon, in a quest to make yourself look smart. When it comes to your field of study, you are smart. You don’t need to prove it. Answer students’ questions directly and with the simplest terms possible, not the most complex, so that they have the greatest chance of understanding. 175 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Now, some confusion is unavoidable. By their nature, STEM fields are especially laden with technical vocabulary, which we educators have to use. In doing so, however, we should not worsen things by adding perplexing balderdash when simpler terms would suffice. Why use 10 words, when one is enough? Given the critical importance of STEM fields to society’s future (26, 27), tremendous resources have been devoted to decreasing our students’ attrition rates (28, 29). Some of that attrition emanates from factors beyond educators’ control, such as student underpreparedness (30, 31), disinterest (32), or other variables (33). Nevertheless, when we teach poorly, we bear some responsibility for our students’ flight from STEM, and that failure often flows from misapplying Principle #1. In saying this, I do not suggest that we dumb down our subjects, but only that we avoid unnecessarily “smarting them up” by making them more complicated than needed. One of the best ways to improve in this area is to practice out loud. If necessary, warn your colleagues, to avoid worrying them. Then, alone in your office, practice teaching your courses’ most technically-difficult concepts. Film and watch yourself. Listen to the terms and phrases you use. Where helpful, write them down. Where feasible, eliminate unnecessary words or phrases and replace complex terms with simpler ones. As you do this through multiple iterations, it will help make you a superior teacher.

Principle 2: Do Not Fear Change. Be Willing To Learn New Things Many individuals berate university educations as too expensive and ineffectual at preparing students for future careers (34, 35). Some ask, “Why can’t a university education simply prepare students to enter the workforce?” The fact is, if students traverse their entire university experience believing that its sole purpose is to give them job training, then we professors have failed them. Centered focus on job training remains the prerogative of technical institutions and colleges, but the university’s purpose is different. In the words of USU Associate Professor Matthew Sanders, “The primary purpose of college isn’t learning a specific set of professional skills; the primary purpose of college is to become a learner” (36). Cognitively, the brain is like a muscle. The more we use it, the more neurologically-complex it becomes, and the more our ability to learn new things, and to learn them more quickly, increases (37–39). Thus, one of the most important skills a university student should gain from a college education is the ability to learn how to learn. When armed with this skill, the student or lifelong learner becomes more mentally nimble and readily adaptable to any career or career change, regardless of what the future brings, which new fields emerge, or which previous fields disappear. For me, this is the best answer to the classic student question, “When am I ever going to use this?” The frank response is: you students may never use this specific thing that we’re teaching you right now. But the process of memorizing new facts, absorbing new theorems, interpreting data, critically thinking, and solving 176 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


new problems—even if you never use them in your career—will keep your brain honed and sharpen your ability to learn new things. That ability is indispensable, especially if you one day face the reality of having to change career paths or completely move from one field to another. When I started my career as a USU teaching-emphasis professor in 2011, I had no formal training in education research. And yet, it is now my primary academic focus. Additionally, when I decided to investigate flipped learning (19), I had never previously made and posted a video online. And yet, I now employ YouTube as a major source of content delivery. How did I gain these skills, for which I had no prior training, and which became increasingly relevant to my new teaching-emphasis position? By learning them. And why was I able to do that? Because through all of my prior schooling, I had gained one of the most arguably important skills one can obtain from a university education: the ability to learn how to learn. This skill and adaptability applies to us professors, as well. Whether accurate or not, resistance to change remains one of the most commonly-cited features of academic culture (6, 40, 41). One might imagine a professor declaring, “I’ve been teaching this topic the same way for 50 years, and I’m not about to change now!” As educators, sacrosanct immutability denies our students the opportunity to learn new discoveries in our fields, or to learn them with updated and more effective methods or teaching techniques. On the other hand, continual and purposeless change, mercurially chasing every new fad or theory, may waste precious time and resources with little payoff. Hence, striking a proper balance between these two extremes (no change versus constant change) should be our goal. Along this journey, we educators should proceed with appropriate prudence and caution, but also with courage. Do not be afraid to change how you teach, merely because it requires you to change. As I experienced with flipped learning (and hopefully with many other aspects of my teaching in the future), changing how we teach can sometimes lead to previously undiscovered frontiers that we eventually cherish and wonder how we ever lived without.

Principle 3: Love Your Students, Love Your Job, and Act Accordingly In an expression of where he placed his priorities, a personal mentor of mine frequently told me in graduate school, “Students are what we do.” Notice that he did not say “research,” “committee work,” “grants,” “publications,” “consulting,” or “conference presentations.” He said “students.” Though it may defy reason, I love my students almost as much as my own children. After all, without them, I wouldn’t have the opportunity to enjoy this career that I cherish so deeply. In saying this, of course, I do not mean that I love my students romantically or in an unprofessional or inappropriate way. I only mean that I care deeply about them, and I suspect that as a postsecondary educator, you feel similarly about your students. If not, then you’re probably in the wrong career. Principle #3, then, manifests itself in various ways, of which I will now summarize a small handful. 177 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


The postsecondary teacher-student relationship is unique in at least one way: in exchange for them paying us, we give them work to do. We should remember, however, that without their patronage, our jobs would not exist. Hence, we should take the time to thank them for being our students, even if only once or twice per semester. In doing this, we should not engage in groveling, flattery, insincerity, or a lack of appropriate professionalism toward them; or inadvertently make our students think that we like them so much that they can leverage or manipulate us for higher grades than what they earn. We should simply thank them for enrolling in our classes, so we can do what we love: teach them. Next, we should ensure our students that the grade they earn is not a reflection of how we feel about them personally. We may have some detestable students who earn A’s, or likeable students who fail. Nevertheless, the grades they receive are what they earn, not what we give them. We don’t give grades. Students earn grades. Next, we should never be offended by questions, even if they challenge what we teach. Time constraints often preclude us from answering, especially when questions are off-topic, but when necessary, we can civilly assure inquisitive students that we will happily answer their questions outside of class, through office hours, email, or other appropriate forums. As educators, we should encourage curiosity, not stamp it out when it becomes inconvenient. As an example, during my postdoctoral years, I did extra work tutoring students in general and organic chemistry. One day, two of my students told me that in their lecture class, someone asked the professor a completely reasonable question, which many other students also had, but were too afraid to articulate. The professor was visibly upset by the interruption, but still answered the question. Upon finishing it, however, the professor censured the student in front of the class for “wasting the class’ time” by asking such a “stupid” question. The professor’s rebuke was apparently so humiliating that the student left the room in tears, never to return again. I reemphasize, then, that we should not be offended by questions or vilify a student for asking them. When time is limited, we can respond by sincerely saying something like, “That is a great question. I am so sorry, but I do not have time to answer it right now. However, can you please email me that question as soon as class ends? I promise I’ll answer it later.” We then answer the question through email, office hours, or other appropriate means, such as a written or filmed response to the entire class, uploaded to our course management system (CMS). Relatedly, we should never be afraid to say, “I don’t know the answer to that question. I have never thought about that.” Too many professors fear this. I do not know why, having never seen it cause problems. Do some professors assume that by telling students there are some things we do not know, that suddenly the students will doubt everything we teach? Perhaps, but students may find it more frustrating to hear a professor give a rambling answer that sidesteps the original question, instead of just saying, “I don’t know.” With that said, when this occurs, a good instructor will pledge to look up the answer and share it later with the student or the entire class. Moreover, a good instructor will also follow through with that pledge. 178 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Next, we should grade our students’ work and give them feedback as promptly as we reasonably can. An illustrative example comes from a current USU administrator who previously served as director of another multi-campus institution in the western United States. One summer, he received a complaint from a student, whose final grade in a class had not yet been submitted by the professor, due to the student handing in late work. The late hand-in time, however, was caused by extenuating circumstances and had been prearranged and agreed to by the professor. It was now the start of the summer term, and the student’s spring graduation was being threatened by the grade’s holdup. Upon sending emails to the professor to politely request that the final grade be submitted—conditions to which the professor had agreed in advance—the student eventually received the response: “I am currently off-contract. I will submit your grade in the fall, when I return.” Thus, the professor knowingly jeopardized a student’s graduation by refusing to submit a final grade—an act that could be done completely online, in just a few minutes—because he had a nine-month contract, and it was currently one week into the summer term. Evidently, doing even a few minutes of work outside of the contracted period seemed anathema to this particular educator. The administration had to intervene, and the student graduated on time. Next, we should show enthusiasm and love for our fields. As much as possible, speak with passion, fervor, and excitement; and avoid making your lectures dreary, monotone, inflectionless sermons. When you teach with energy and enthusiasm about your field, students notice, and it helps them enjoy what you teach. Relatedly, we should never express dislike for our jobs in front of our students or colleagues. Even professors who love every facet of their job face occasional bad days and frustrations. Do not openly manifest or express these negative feelings to your students, or they may believe that you do not like your job, and by extension, that you do not like them. Furthermore, as much as possible, avoid burdening your colleagues with your frustrations, as they are also facing their own challenges. Instead, when necessary and appropriate, discuss serious problems with your administrators. Otherwise, grit your teeth, toughen up, and focus on what you love about your job. Next, we should reply swiftly to our students’ emails or texts. Most modern college students have grown up with digital communication from the time they were small children. They are not accustomed to waiting three to five days for a response. It follows that students will prefer professors who answer their emails or texts within 24 hours, to those who do not. Last, we should suppress the tendency to stereotype students and instead focus on their tremendous potential, regardless of their backgrounds. We do not know and cannot see what our students will one day become. In fact, our ability to do so may be hampered by our own biases. As a result, we should strive to see every student as having great potential, regardless of appearance or background, and then act accordingly. An applicable quote, often attributed to writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, says, “If I accept you as you are, I will make you worse; [but] if I treat you as though you are what you are capable of becoming, [then] I [will] help you become that” (42). 179 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Principle 4: Get To Know Your Students, and Modify Your Lessons To Connect Your Course to Their Interests and Academic Goals Years ago, my family visited a dentist who was being shadowed by a first-year dental student. Upon hearing that I attended graduate school in organic chemistry, the dental student innocently asked, “Organic chemists don’t actually do anything, do they?” I was disappointed—not with the dental student, but with the organic chemistry professor who had presumably taught him years earlier—because his professor had evidently failed to make any lasting connections between organic chemistry and dentistry, or even between organic chemistry and real life. This represents a lack of properly implementing Principle #4. As an aside, I suggest that if you teach organic chemistry, then at minimum, you should tell your students multiple times each term that this field is used to make medicines. This can connect the subject to virtually all students’ personal lives, because nearly everyone has taken an over-the-counter or prescription medicine and has accordingly benefited from organic chemistry. Making such connections is the essence of Principle #4. Though often harder for large classes, to start using this principle, you must strive to learn your students’ names. Additionally, a CMS-facilitated entrance survey (or other appropriate questionnaire) can allow you to learn things about your students’ degree majors, academic interests, or reasons for taking your course. With this knowledge in hand, you can now modify your lessons to help connect your students’ interests to what you teach. For example, if you teach a freshman general chemistry class that is being taken by a large number of engineering majors, you might modify some of your lectures to show how certain chemistry principles apply to engineering. Alternatively, if a later section of that course includes a heavy concentration of pre-veterinary students, then you can shift to make in-class connections to veterinary science. Although the circumstances and mode of implementation may vary widely, the objective remains the same: to pique students’ interests by helping them connect your subject to their personal lives, passions, and professional futures. With that said, Principle #4 must be used with caution and prudence, as poor execution can backfire or even lead to legal repercussions. For example, asking students overly personal or invasive questions, or openly discussing their interests or academic performance in class, may offend them, drive them away, or even violate institutional policy or national law. Furthermore, depending on your method and reasons for employing this principle, you may also need to seek the preapproval of an Institutional Review Board, or other applicable entity. When in doubt, consult your administration first. Despite such possible hang-ups, when implemented properly, Principle #4 can increase students’ engagement and interest in your class, draw them in, and help them feel a deeper connection to you, their peers, and the concepts you teach. In the end, these factors can all combine to produce greater learning. My execution of this principle comes as a direct consequence of my evolving use of flipped learning in my classes (43–45). To explain, in “flipped learning” (or “flipped classroom”), lectures are prerecorded in advance and posted online, where 180 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


students watch them outside of class. Students then spend in-class time doing higher-learning activities or problem sets together, facilitated by the instructor. Thus, the locations of lecture and traditional homework have been “flipped”, with lecture occurring outside of class and traditional homework being done in class. Through five years of employing this pedagogy, I have found that its greatest strengths lie in the fact that it frees up class time and makes my in-class structure less rigid, which allows me to get to know my students better, address higher-order questions or misconceptions right when my students face them, and connect course concepts to my students’ individual interests and personal lives. To explain, I keep an extra laptop at my class lectern, which includes an open document listing all my students’ names, along with other appropriate information I obtain from a CMS entrance survey during the first week of class. As the semester unfolds, I periodically ask individual students to tell me interesting (but not overlypersonal) things about themselves, such as their hobbies, favorite movies, music, food, and so forth. I then discreetly record this information in my open document. I call these inquiries “bridging questions” because their purpose is to help form an eventual “bridge” (or connection) between the course’s concepts and my students’ personal or academic passions (16). To achieve this goal, whenever a student asks a concept question, I quickly look at the information I have recorded about that student and then try to give a response that answers the student’s question while also connecting the concept to the student’s interests. For example, I once used bridging questions to discover that before attending USU, one of my students had previously played basketball at a junior college. When that student later asked a question about molecular orbitals, I attempted to relate my answer to basketball. Obviously, it is not always easy (or sometimes even possible) to seamlessly relate certain topics to every conceivable student hobby or passion. However, this is not necessarily bad. In fact, students often find it humorous and engaging when their interests are awkwardly shoehorned into seemingly un-relatable subjects. Thus, this technique requires the instructor to stay lighthearted, flexible, and adaptable. Through bridging questions, I have been able to make uncounted connections between my students’ personal interests and course content. Additional examples include: •

•

• •

I once related the chemistry of fossil fuel combustion in military vehicles to a student’s personal interest in auto mechanics. (The student happened to be an army mechanic.) I once connected water purification chemistry to a recent lead contamination of drinking water in Flint, Michigan, for a student who was originally from Michigan. I once discussed the chemistry of pesticides and fertilizers with a student who lived on a farm. I once addressed a long series of questions about the chemistry of cosmetics for a student who had previously worked in the cosmetics industry. 181

Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Again, I would never have known about these students’ personal interests or backgrounds if not for bridging questions, and my ability to use bridging questions would be limited without the time flexibility created by flipped learning (16). For more information about bridging questions, I invite you to consult reference (16). Regardless of which techniques or approaches you use, your students’ ability to connect your course content to the real world and their personal lives will help them value what you teach. I accordingly reemphasize the importance of getting to know your students and modifying your lessons to bridge their interests and academic goals to your course content.

Conclusions Although the internet will likely effect significant changes to higher education in the future, it also expands individual teachers’ sphere of influence across the globe. While traditional career paths like public and private education will undoubtedly continue, new teaching opportunities certainly await. These include fully-online courses from both traditional and private institutions, as well as the possibility of educators starting their own free or for-profit teaching websites. For the latter, despite a lack of formal accreditation or official academic resourcing, when helmed by skilled educators, such websites may provide valuable supplemental instruction to help struggling students around the world. In the end, an expanded online reach likely signifies increased global competition. While a growing understanding of how to employ new techniques and technologies becomes ever more important, in the end, no such implements, bells, or whistles can adequately compensate for bad teaching. Thus, I believe the victory will ultimately go to those who have mastered the basics. I accordingly outline and explain what I believe to be the four most important teaching principles I have learned through 13 years of postsecondary education: • • • •

Avoid baffling jargon. Do not fear change. Be willing to learn new things. Love your students, love your job, and act accordingly. Get to know your students, and modify your lessons to connect your course to their interests and academic goals.

Some individuals may wish to avoid change, or yearn for simpler times before the internet and its incumbent competition. By analogy, some past individuals likely wished that civilization would remain fixed in eras when village blacksmiths, town coopers, manufacturers of horse-drawn carriages, or VCR repairmen were vibrant, ubiquitous, and relevant professions. In the end, human technological advancements have always brought growing pains. However, they also deliver greater conveniences, opportunities, solutions, and an increased quality of life. As the internet and other technologies alter the professional future for postsecondary educators, our impetus to remain competitive, nimble, and prosperous may depend on various factors; but fundamentally, it will always come back to our ability to 182 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

be outstanding teachers. To the degree that we implement these basic-but-critical teaching fundamentals, we will emerge victorious.

References


1.

Clayton Christensen homepage. http://www.claytonchristensen.com/ (retrieved on July 2017). 2. Crandall, B. Henry J. Eyring becomes President of BYU-Idaho; BYU-Idaho Newsroom, Apr 10, 2017. http://www.byui.edu/newsroom/4-10-17president-eyring (retrieved on July 2017). 3. Christensen, C. M.; Eyring, H. J. The Educational Innovator’s Dilemma. In The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out; Wiley Imprint: San Francisco, CA, 2011; pp 17−19. 4. Christensen, C. M.; Eyring, H. J. Vulnerable Institutions. In The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out; Wiley Imprint: San Francisco, CA, 2011; pp 195−196, 205. 5. Wheeler, D. R. Will online classes make professors extinct? CNN News, Feb 3, 2014. http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/25/opinion/wheeler-tenuredprofessors/ (retrieved on July 2017). 6. Anderson, J. Q.; Boyles, J. L.; Rainie, L. The future impact of the Internet on higher education: Experts expect more-efficient collaborative environments and new grading schemes; they worry about massive online courses, the shift away from on-campus life. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project [Online] 2012. https://www.google.com/ url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved= 0ahUKEwiz97bVrLTVAhVHxVQKHa0sAycQFggmMAA&url=http%3A% 2F%2Fwww.pewinternet.org%2Ffiles%2Fold-media%2FFiles%2FReports %2F2012%2FPIP_Future_of_Higher_Ed.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH0dUQYeSM FiFXNOWr_UM31b3FdAQ (retrieved on July 2017). 7. Tan, Z. Y. How Has Google Affected The Way Students Learn? KQED News, Feb 8, 2016. Online access: https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2016/02/08/ how-has-google-affected-the-way-students-learn/ (retrieved on July 2017). 8. Godsey, M. The Deconstruction of the K-12 Teacher. The Atlantic, Mar 25, 2015. Online access: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/ 03/the-deconstruction-of-the-k-12-teacher/388631/ (retrieved on July 2017). 9. Ravipati, S. Report: Private Colleges, Universities Expand Online Learning Opportunities. Campus Technology new revenue for universities replacing traditional lectures with online offerings, Nov 14, 2016. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2016/11/14/report-private-collegesuniversities-expand-online-learning-opportunities.aspx (retrieved on July 2017). 10. Rovai, A. P.; Downey, J. R. Why some distance education programs fail while others succeed in a global environment. The Internet and Higher Education 2010, 13, 141–147.

183 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


11. Conole, G. G. MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. Revista de Educación a Distancia 2013, 39, 1–17. 12. Johnson, H. Professors Brace for the Impact of Online Learning. Inside Higher Education Jun 21, 2012. http://www.schools.com/articles/collegeprofessors-brace-impact-online-learning.html (retrieved on July 2017). 13. Edmonds, D. More Than Half of College Faculty Are Adjuncts: Should You Care? Forbes, May 28, 2015. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ noodleeducation/2015/05/28/more-than-half-of-college-faculty-areadjuncts-should-you-care/#80d672916005 (retrieved on July 2017). 14. Fruscione, J. When a college contracts ‘adjunctivitis,’ it’s the students who lose. PBS Newshour, July 25, 2014. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/makingsense/when-a-college-contracts-adjunctivitis-its-the-students-who-lose/ (retrieved on July 2017). 15. Simons, J. Remembering Henry Eyring, C&E News, June 9, 2008. http://cen.acs.org/articles/86/i23/Remembering-Henry-Eyring.html (retrieved on July 2017). 16. Christiansen, M. A.; Nadelson, L.; Cuch, M. M.; Etchberger, L. H.; Kingsford, T. A.; Woodward, L. O. Flipped Learning in SynchronouslyDelivered, Geographically-Dispersed General Chemistry Classrooms. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 662–667. 17. Christiansen, M. A.; Lambert, A. M.; Nadelson, L. S.; Dupree, K. M.; Kingsford, T. A. In-Class Versus At-Home Quizzes: Which is Better? A Flipped Learning Study in a Two-Site Synchronously-Broadcast Organic Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 157–163. 18. Christiansen, M. A.; Weber, J. M.; Sam, A. B.; Kingsford, T. A. Positive Student Responses to Embedding a Student-Chosen Research Project into a Sophomore Organic Chemistry Lab. Chem. Educ. 2015, 20, 335–341. 19. Christiansen, M. A. Inverted Teaching: Applying a New Pedagogy to a University Organic Chemistry Class. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1845–1850. 20. Christiansen, M. A.; Crawford, C. L.; Mangum, C. D. Less Cookbook and More Research! Synthetic Efforts Toward JBIR-94 and JBIR-125: A Student-Designed Research Project in a Sophomore Organic Chemistry Lab. Chem. Educ. 2014, 19, 28–33. 21. Mike Christiansen Chemistry YouTube Homepage. https://www.youtube. com/channel/UCpUkAZfpeUBMmA_zAAERyZw (retrieved on July 2017). 22. Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence homepage. http:// digitalcommons.usu.edu/jete/ (retrieved on July 2017). 23. Turbo Encabulator. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLDgQg6bq7o (retrieved on July 2017). 24. Quick, J. H. The turbo-encabulator in industry. Students’ Quarterly J. 1944, 15, 22. 25. Science: Becoming the Messenger, 2012 Workshop Homepage. https:// www.nsf.gov/events/event_summ.jsp?cntn_id=124634&org=NSF (retrieved on July 2017). 26. Engler, J. STEM Education Is the Key to the U.S.’s Economic Future. U.S. News & World Report, June 15, 2012. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/ 184 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

27.

28.


29.

30.

31.

32.

33. 34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

articles/2012/06/15/stem-education-is-the-key-to-the-uss-economic-future (retrieved on July 2017). Langdon, D.; McKittrick, B.; Beede, D.; Khan, B.; Doms, M. STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future; ESA Issue Brief #03-11; U.S. Department of Commerce: Washington, DC, July 2011. K-12 Resources for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education. National Science Foundation webpage. http://www. nsfresources.org/ (retrieved on July 2017). Henry, M. S. FY 2016 Appropriations: STEM Education Programs Mostly Funded Flat. American Institute of Physics: Dec 23, 2015. https:// www.aip.org/fyi/2015/fy-2016-appropriations-stem-education-programsmostly-funded-flat (retrieved on July 2017). Strenta, C.; Elliot, R.; Adair, R.; Matier, M.; Scott, J. Choosing and leaving science in highly selective institutions. Res. Higher Educ. 1994, 35, 513–547. Sheehy, K. High School Students Not Prepared for College, Career underprepared. U.S. News & World Report, Aug 22, 2012. https://www. usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2012/08/22/high-schoolstudents-not-prepared-for-college-career (retrieved on July 2017). Heilbronner, N. N. Pathways in STEM: Factors affecting the retention and attrition of talented men and women from the STEM pipeline. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Mansfield, CT, Jan 2009. Rask, K. Attrition in STEM fields at a liberal arts college: The importance of grades and pre-collegiate preferences. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2010, 29, 892–900. Bond, C. Why College Isn’t Worth the Money. Forbes, Sep 4, 2015. https://www.forbes.com/sites/caseybond/2015/09/04/why-college-isntworth-the-money/#70eeb65653dc (retrieved on July 2017). Long, H. Is college worth it? Goldman Sachs says maybe not. CNN Money, Dec 9, 2015. http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/09/news/economy/college-notworth-it-goldman/index.html (retrieved on July 2017). Sanders, M. L. When Learning Job Skills is Not Enough. In Becoming a Learner: Realizing the Opportunity of Education; Matthew L. Sanders: Logan, UT, 2012; p 2. Bernard, S. Neuroplasticity: Learning Physically Changes the Brain. Edutopia, Dec 1, 2010. https://www.edutopia.org/neuroscience-brainbased-learning-neuroplasticity (retrieved on July 2017). Stevens, A. P. Learning rewires the brain. Science News for Students, Sep 2, 2014. https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/learning-rewiresbrain (retrieved on July 2017). Cross, K. P. Learning Is About Making Connections. The Cross Papers, June 1999. http://djames84.net/Cert_51/Learning%20Is%20About%20 Connections.pdf (retrieved on July 2017). Diamond, R. M. Why Colleges Are So Hard to Change. Inside Higher Educ. Sep 8, 2006. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/09/08/ why-colleges-are-so-hard-change (retrieved on July 2017). Tagg, J. Why Does the Faculty Resist Change? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 2012, 44, 6–15. 185

Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


42. Talk: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe webpage. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/ Talk:Johann_Wolfgang_von_Goethe (retrieved on July 2017). 43. Ryan, M. D.; Reid, S. A. Impact of the Flipped Classroom on Student Performance and Retention: A Parallel Controlled Study in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 13–23. 44. Weaver, G. C.; Sturtevant, H. G. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Flipped Format General Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1437–1448. 45. Hibbard, L.; Sung, S.; Wells, B. Examining the Effectiveness of a Semi-SelfPaced Flipped Learning Format in a College General Chemistry Sequence. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 93, 24–30.

186 Christiansen and Weber; Teaching and the Internet: The Application of Web Apps, Networking, and Online Tech for ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Teaching and the Internet - ACS Publications - American Chemical

Recommend Documents