Information • Textbooks • Media • Resources edited by
Teaching with Technology
Gabriela C. Weaver
Teaching Chemistry via Distance Education
Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907
Erwin Boschmann Department of Chemistry, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5157;
[email protected] Chemistry is taught via distance education in five continents (1). However, in the United States the field has been slow to develop. Even though Peterson’s Guide to Distance Learning Programs 2002 (2) lists over 120 technology-mediated distance education (nonlaboratory) chemistry courses, a survey of American institutions reveals that, aside from some efforts (3, 4), there are no established models of technologybased distance education programs for complete chemistry courses that include the laboratory. There are good reasons, however, to promote such courses. A considerable body of literature documents that students learn best when they are actively engaged in the subject with fellow students and with faculty members (5–12). “Delivery technologies” such as videotapes, television programs, and some CD-ROMs, though often more sophisticated in their presentation, are but substitutes for lectures and books. On the other hand, “engagement technologies” call for student involvement. Thus, a computer program that provides constant feedback to motivate the student, with loop-backs where necessary, interactive videodiscs, and welldesigned Web environments, even email, all remain static until the student participates. The impact of these engagement technologies on learning is quite positive (13–19). Chemists have a long history of using technology for teaching and learning (20–23); the most notable protagonist is Stanley Smith, who pioneered the PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations) system (24). Descriptions of particular approaches, technologies, and summaries soon followed in the literature (25–30). The Elementary Chemistry 101 course for nonmajors at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, IUPUI, has offered a distance education option since 1990 and has been cited by others in the literature (1, 31–33). Funding from the Annenberg兾CPB Project was used to explore ways to reach a segment of society that, while feeling psychologically isolated from the campus, could be reached with technology. This course has evolved to the point where the lecture, recitation, laboratory, quizzes, homework, exams, office hours, and counseling are provided in any combination of on-campus (day, evening, or weekend) or distance education (television or Web) formats. The total enrollment in this course is 200–300 students per semester, with up to sixty students availing themselves of some portion of the distance education option and approximately twenty students taking everything, including the laboratory, via distance education. A description of our teaching experience in this course with particular attention given to the laboratory delivery and use of new technologies is presented. Lecture Initially we taught chemistry via distance education by using live television then videotapes that were broadcast over 704
the local cable or PBS systems. Students were issued a comprehensive course guide, lecture outlines with learning points, and a document entitled “Our Promise兾Your Promise’” that commits the teaching staff to serving the student with regular, electronic contact and unlimited electronic office hours, and specifies what students must do in order to be successful, such as study two hours each day, be an active learner, and join a study group. Cognizant that one-way television is a non-interactive delivery technology, beginning in 1996 an IUPUI team developed an interactive version of the lecture for the Web, thus providing for student control. While most institutions use off-the-shelf platforms (34), Indiana University uses its own, known as “Oncourse”. This engagement-driven tool allows the student to choose a pretest, call up the digitized videos for any lecture, take a quiz, go to the chat room to consult with other students or the instructor, click on helpful tools such as a periodic table, a calculator, glossary, dictionary, notebook, other chemistry Web sites, and directly access university resources such as the library and the School of Science, or email the professor. Email contact is encouraged, and once a week, at a prearranged hour, live, required chat time is established for everyone. However, there are some drawbacks. Frequent and immediate communication with the isolated distance education students is more difficult than for on-campus students. Distance education students are expected to take on added responsibility for their learning, a fact likely reflected in the high dropout rate. The security of supervised testing was a major concern that we solved with an agreement committing a proctor to serve on our behalf. Proctors are given passwords that change from time to time and are valid only at specific sites, dates, and times. Still, the Web offers advantages: virtual access, lower cost, common and easy user interface, interactivity, multimedia, a digital information system, and live and digital library access. Laboratories No other aspect of the course caused as great a challenge as the delivery of the laboratory experiments via distance education. How can experiments be designed for the home setting that are safe, legal, and maintain academic integrity? While the search for answers to these questions has produced a more thoughtful course, the absence of proven U.S. examples (10, 33) that we could model our work after became evident very quickly. Distance education science laboratory courses have been run successfully for decades in Australia, New Zealand, India, Canada (33), and the United Kingdom (31), but not in the United States presumably owing to safety and legal concerns. Convinced that a meaningful and safe laboratory experience could be developed for the distance education students, we began doing so in 1990. We knew of
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 6 June 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
Information • Textbooks • Media • Resources
the work at Athabasca University in Alberta, Canada (35), at Monash University in Australia (36), and The Open University in the United Kingdom (37). In 1993 we assembled the known experts on the subject and organized an NSFfunded conference on “Teaching Science Laboratories via Distance,” with keynote addresses by representatives from each of the above named institutions. At least two publications have appeared, in part, as a result of the conference (1, 33). Efforts to develop distance-education laboratories in this country are just now emerging (33, 38, 39). Our criteria for the distance education laboratories were: the experiments be credible experiences illustrating the same chemical principles as the on-campus laboratories, the experiments be easy to perform without direct supervision, the experiments be safe, and the experiments meet or exceed all legal requirements. In order to accomplish the above criteria we made several decisions about the materials provided to the student: •
Rely on home chemicals whenever possible. Thus, when the on-campus laboratory uses CoCl2 to illustrate dissolution and diffusion, coffee crystals are used in the home experiment; and for the Li and water reaction to illustrate a chemical change, toilet bowl cleaner substitutes nicely.
•
Any chemical sent to the student must be of low concentration, low in toxicity, and easily disposed of at home.
•
Whenever possible, provide the distance education student with plasticware.
•
All experiments are done on the microscale, for example 0.2-mL reaction wells and Beral pipettes are used. The smaller amounts afford portability and additional safety for home use.
•
Some experiments are conducted as virtual experiences. For example, for the Boyle’s Law experiment the students taking the distant laboratories watch a videotape of the experiment previously recorded by an instructor on campus and sent to the student. The student must carefully follow the experiment, is responsible for all observations, measurements, recording of data, data analysis, and, of course, the laboratory report. One student commented, “I am glad we do not need to have all of that equipment at home when doing the labs.”
is included and the student must sign a safety pledge. Furthermore, clear disposal instructions are given at every step, along with emergency procedures and phone numbers. Students living nearby the university are invited to come to campus during the first week of the term to obtain safety instructions and for possible participation in one on-campus laboratory exercise. Experiments that the students perform at home are constantly evolving; however, some experiments used recently are listed in Table 1. The writeup for each experiment lists all the materials needed from the student’s home supply and those provided by the department; the latter materials are provided one experiment at a time with the next materials issued only after the previous non-disposable items have been returned. At the beginning of the term, the student is also issued an equipment kit to be used for the entire term (Table 2). Of particular concern has been a sturdy, inexpensive, and accurate weighing device. While suppliers are getting close to meeting these requirements, our current solution is to issue a spring balance, accurate to within a gram. Obviously, such a spring balance does not allow for quantitative results, but easily permits the observation of trends. Evaluation Three different approaches were used to evaluate the effectiveness of these teaching methods: an external review, a campus assessment, and an analysis of student performance. These are described in detail.
External Review Early in the project the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications (a unit of WICHE, the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education) was engaged to conduct an independent evaluation. During twoday visits at the beginning and the end of the course, the evaluator studied self-reports and student evaluations and individually interviewed three available students, one faculty member, one teaching assistant, and four administrators. The interviews lasted 20–30 minutes. The main conclusions of the evaluation report were: •
Students like the flexibility that the course offers. One student commented, “I enjoy the take-home labs. I am really relaxed and don’t feel like I have to rush. I also do them when the kids are in bed. Since I do not need to come to campus, I do not need to get a baby-sitter.”
•
Technology is not a hindrance to students.
•
The experiments are good and convenient, but do take time. Again a student commented: “The take-home labs are really neat and fun, but they do take a lot of time.”
•
Testing with a proctor reduces tension compared to in-class testing.
•
Self-discipline is required to remain on schedule.
At the request of the campus safety and legal officers, the student is asked to become a partner with the staff in carrying out the experiments safely. The officers’ key points are: •
It is important to have a signed document pledging the student’s partnership in safety.
•
The laboratory must be designed so that safety is perceived by the student as an integral part of the learning experience.
•
A safety review must include issues of liability, prudent practice, environmental concerns, and transportation of hazardous materials.
•
Specific instructions for obtaining assistance in emergency must be included.
Thus, our instructions are written with many cautionary notes. Safety glasses and gloves are provided. A safety video
The evaluator also noted that: •
The remote students need learning communities comparable to those of on-campus students.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 6 June 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
705
Information • Textbooks • Media • Resources Table 1. Current Laboratory Experiments for Distance Education Experiment
Description
Observing Matter
Seven unknowns are used to study pure or impure substances, physical and chemical changes, elements and compounds, and the law of definite composition
Elements
Sn, Si, Pb, Al, Cu, and Fe are identified by name, symbol, family, and description. Density trends and relative ionization potentials are determined by their reaction with H2O, HCl, and HCl plus heat.
Scientific Measurements
The length, volume, and mass, plus the densities of a solid, liquid, and gas are determined.
Ionic and Covalent Compounds
The appearance, melting point, and solubility in water for five compounds are studied.
Molecular Models
Molecular models are prepared for CH4, NH3, H2O, PCl5, SF6, CO2, HCN, C2H6, and C3H8.
Chemical Fourmulas (Video)
Antimony iodide is prepared from the elements and its formula is determined.
Kinetics
The effects of concentration, temperature, surface area, and catalysis on the decomposition of H2O2 is studied.
Metal Ions in Rock
Simple qualitative analysis of a few cations is performed.
Chemical Equilibrium
The equilibrium of methyl orange in acid, neutral, and basic media, is studied and LeChâtelier’s principle is illustrated.
The World of Gases (Video)
Boyle’s Law is a video experiment, and Charles’ Law is done at home.
Molecular Composition of Hydrated Salts
The dehydration of two hydrated salts is measured.
Solutions
Solubility, saturation, electrolysis, colligative properties, suspensions, and colloids are studied.
Acids and Bases
Natural indicators, the pH of common household chemicals, and a simple titration are studied.
An Analysis of Popcorn
The density, kernel damage, mass loss upon popping, and “popability“ (volume of popped corn/mass of unpopped corn) are measured.
Table 2. Distance Education Laboratory Equipment Quantity
706
Item(s)
Quantity
Item(s)
1
96-well reaction plate, 8.5 × 12.8 cm (8–12 well strips, and frame)
1
plastic spring-scale weighing platform
1
15-cm test tube
1
15-cm ruler
6
10-cm test tubes
1
4-cm Beral pipette
2
beakers (40-mL and 80-mL)
1
test-tube holder
2
graduated cylinders (10-mL and 50-mL)
1
125-mL Erlenmeyer flask (plastic)
1
gas generating apparatus, cut from Beral pipettes
1
wire gauze
1
spring scale, Ohaus,1-g increment, Model 8010-M, or Model 8262-M
1
safety goggles
1
plastic coated thermometer, Flinn Scientific (᎑10 ⬚C to 110 ⬚C) 1 degree divisions, or Nasco SB 12269 (᎑30 ⬚C to 110 ⬚C)
1
pair disposable gloves
1
swizzle stick (a stirring rod)
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 6 June 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
Information • Textbooks • Media • Resources •
The costs of the project are high and will continue to be high until more students are involved.
•
Projects such as this must have top administrative support to fund up-front costs and support faculty.
Campus Assessment Each school on campus administers routine end-of-semester evaluations that measure student satisfaction with the course, the instructor, and the teaching. Additionally, for the distance education option, another evaluation and personal interview were administered to refine our approach. Thus, specific questions were asked about which portions of the laboratory were not clear, how the process could be improved, what did not work, and what were the safety concerns. Overall, satisfaction among on-campus and distance education students is approximately the same. However, it emerged that a breakdown in technology-mediated communication has a severe and immediate impact on distance education students’ feelings of being left out. Student Performance Since the same instructor taught both via distance education and on campus, comparisons were relatively easy. For instance, in the spring of 1999, a pretest was administered in class (twenty-five multiple choice questions covering all course topics). Of the 138 campus or day students, 38.9% had correct answers; whereas of the 15 television or Web students, 56.7% had correct answers. The same test given at the end of the semester (post-test) showed 65 campus or day students performing with 63.8% correct answers, while 9 television or Web students performed with 77.3% correct answers. Student performance for two semesters is shown in Table 3 indicating that evening and distance education students perform better, but withdraw more. Note that all students self-select into the various sections. The only correlation we found is that evening and distance education students are approximately five years older than on-campus day students; their greater maturity apparently playing in their favor, as indicated in Table 3 by their generally higher percentage of A’s.
However, the television or Web students withdrew at a higher rate. Based on informal interviews, this is likely a result of their greater nonacademic time commitment and their erroneous assumption of lower requirements for a distance education course compared to the on-campus course. Conclusions Teaching a chemistry course via distance education is a viable option—and for some students it is the only option. However, the lecture approach cannot, and should not, simply be replicated for distance education delivery. For instance, many more changes in camera angles are expected when watching television, even as part of a computer program, than when sitting in a lecture. Furthermore, the message must mold the medium. Just because a given technology is available or is less expensive does not necessarily mean it can be used efficiently. In our case live television did not work well since image quality is generally not good, the production is expensive, and the distance education students feel like observers and not spoken to. Interestingly, the course as a whole is better than it was before bringing in the distance education component. This is due to the heightened sense of urgency created by the fact that the course is now available to the public via technology, thus resulting in careful evaluation of the chosen course objectives, of the topics introduced, and of the use of animations, special effects, and field trips. Based on results such as found in Table 3, distance education students appear to be performing as well as, or better than, the on-campus students; however, they also withdraw at a rate higher than on-campus students. It is imperative to communicate with distance education students often and immediately after milestones such as exams and quizzes, lest they feel alone and left out. It is necessary to constantly examine emerging technologies in light of good pedagogy. Every technology decision must be made, first and foremost, on its potential to enhance good pedagogy rather than availability or cost. Therefore, we must be willing to decide what old or emerging technologies we will not use.
Table 3. Percent of Students Earning a Specific Grade or Withdrawing Students
A
B
C
D
F
Withdrawn
4.1
12.2
36.2
10.2
15.3
21.9
Fall 1999 Day students (196) Evening students (170)
7.1
13.3
30.0
7.1
11.2
31.2
Television students (23)
4.3
4.3
26.0
—
13.0
52.2
Web students (24)
8. 3
8.3
25.0
4.2
8.3
45.8
6.6
13.2
35.8
7.9
13.9
17.2
Spring 2000 Day students (151) Evening students (111)
9.9
23.4
31.5
4.5
11.7
18.9
Television students (25)
8.0
8.0
28.0
3.6
12.0
40.0
Web students (15)
6.7
7.0
26.7
—
20.0
26.7
NOTE: The number of students is in parentheses.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 6 June 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
707
Information • Textbooks • Media • Resources
Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge all those who have helped bring this project to its current state. Susan Frantsi wrote the early experiments and tested them in her home. Mona Werling and Michelle Shultz committed considerable time to the project. Richard Wyma, IUPUI, wrote a careful analysis of the distance education option. Keith Anliker, the University safety officer, reviewed the materials, provided helpful suggestions, and produced the safety video. Many students have made valuable contributions and suggestions for improvement. Acknowledgment is also due to IUPUI for its support in television and videotape productions, and to the WebLab and CyberLab and their creator, Ali Jafari, and to the Community Learning Network for funding the online course creation. I am grateful to the Chemistry Department for its willingness to permit experimentation, to the Annenberg兾CPB Project (Grant# 1808/20021) and to the National Science Foundation (Award Number 9353668) for their financial support. Finally, my thanks go to the following persons who have read the manuscript prior to submission: Jay Bardole, Vincennes University; Stuart Bennett, The Open University; David Brooks, University of Nebraska; Glenn Crosby, Washington State University; Christine Fitzpatrick, IUPUI; Dietmar Kennepohl, Athabasca University; David Licata, Coastline College; Kenny Lipkowitz, IUPUI; Toni Patti, Monash University; Stanley Pine, California State University; Ronald Ragsdale, University of Utah; and William Robinson, Purdue University. The referees and the column editor provided many very helpful suggestions. Literature Cited 1. Bennett, S.W. International Newsletter on Chemical Education 1994, 41, 10. 2. Peterson’s Guide to Distance Learning Programs 2002, 7th ed.; Petersons Publishing Co.: Princeton, NJ, 2001. 3. Crosby, G. A. The Fifth Chemical Congress of North America, November 11-15, 1997, Cancun, Mexico, paper #2465; and private correspondence with R. O. Ragsdale, University of Utah; Jay Bardole, Vincennes University; and David Licata, Coastline College. 4. Brooks, D. Web-Teaching; Plenum: New York, 1997; Burke, K. A.; Greenbowe, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 1308; Apple, T.; Cutler, A. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 462. 5. Wiggins, G. AAHE Bulletin, 1997, 50 (3), 9. 6. Johnson, D.; Johnson, R. Cooperative Learning 1993, 13 (3), 17–18. 7. Pascarella, E. T.; Terenzini, P. T. J. Coll. Student Development 1996, 37 (2), 123. 8. Chickering, A. W.; Gamson, Z. F. AAHE Bulletin 1987, 39 (7), 3.
708
9. Barr, R. B.; Tagg, J. Change 1995, 27, 13. 10. Brennan, M. Chem. Eng. News 1996, 74 (Apr 29), 12. 11. Van Doren, J. M.; Nestor, L. P.; Knighton, W. B. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 1178. 12. Nunn, C. E. J. Higher Educ. 1996, 67, 23. 13. Stanley, R. Community College Journal 1992, 63 (2), 32. 14. Kulik, C. C.; Kulik, J. A. Computers in Human Behavior 1991, 7–8 (1–2), 75. 15. Kulik J.; Bangert-Drowns, J. R.; Williams, G. J. Educ. Psy. 1983, 75, 19. 16. Gorrell, J. J. Res. Computing Educ. 1992, 24, (3), 359. 17. Lanza, A; Roselli, T. J. Computer-Based Instruction 1991, 14 (2), 48. 18. Smith, S. University of Illinios. Private communication, 1989. 19. Ehrmann Stephen. Change 1995, 27 (2), 24. 20. Barnard, W. R.; Bertaut, E. F.; O’Connor, R. J. Chem. Educ. 1968, 45, 617. 21. Barnard, W. R.; O’Connor, R. J. Chem. Educ. 1968, 45, 745. 22. Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 3. 23. Joesten, M. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 508. 24. Smith, S. G.; Sherwood, B. A. Science 1976, 192, 344; Smith, S. G. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 1080. 25. Lagowski, J. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 12. 26. Spencer, J. N. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 182; Bodner, G. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 186; Hawkes, S. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 179; Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 15; Crosby, G. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 4. 27. Smith, S. G.; Jones, L. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 8. 28. Smith. S.; Stovall, I. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 911. 29. Brooks, D. W.; Liu, D.; Walter, L. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 123. 30. The Electronic Classroom; Boschmann, E., Ed.; Learned Information, Inc.: Medford, NJ, 1995. 31. Ross, L. R. Chem. Eng. News 1994, 72 (Sep 12), 35. 32. Rogers, S. M. AAHE Bulletin 1995, 48, 6. 33. Kennepohl, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 938. 34. Paulisse, K. W.; Polik, W. F. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 704; Penn, J. H.; Nedeff, V. M.; Gozdzik, G. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 227; Cartwright, A. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 699; Cole, R. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 826. 35. Kennepohl, D.; Last, A. M. J. Coll. Science Teaching 1997, 27, 35; Kennepohl, D.; Last, A. M. Education in Chemistry 1998, 19; Private communication with Dietmar Kennepohl, Athabasca University, Alberta, Canada, 2000– 2001. 36. Patti, Tony. Monash University, Australia. Private communication, 2000. 37. Bennett, Stewart. The Open University, United Kingdom. Private communications, 1997, 2000. 38. Patterson, M. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 554. 39. Kimbrough, D. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1509.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 6 June 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
