The Evolution of a Hybrid General Chemistry Course for Science Majors

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 12, 2016 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch003

Chapter 3

Less Class Time, More Learning: The Evolution of a Hybrid General Chemistry Course for Science Majors Margaret D. Haak* and Michael W. Burand Department of Chemistry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 *E-mail: [email protected]

A hybrid (“flipped”) general chemistry sequence for science majors was designed at Oregon State University and implemented beginning in the winter term of 2014. The goal of this project was to increase student success and improve learning outcomes. Preliminary exam and student survey data suggest that these goals have been met. Over the course of the two and one-half years this course has been taught, a number of refinements have been made to its structure; these changes are discussed. In addition, the logistics of successfully engaging students in a hybrid course as well as the factors that have been most important to the success of the class are described to assist faculty interested in designing and implementing a hybrid course format in their classrooms.

“I was a little weary [sic] about the hybrid course but I found it to be exceptional. The group work with all the TAs and professors’ help was awesome and effective!” “I really enjoyed this course and that I was able to learn so much more; I received my first A on a chemistry test! YAY!” “This course basically taught me to never take a hybrid course ever again. I have never had such little understanding on concepts and

© 2016 American Chemical Society Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

received such low scores, not because of the instructors, this format is not suitable to my learning style that is best for me.”


“Out of all of my classes this term the Chem [231] Hybrid was perhaps the most stressful, awkward and unproductive class I have ever had the misfortune of taking. […] This course has caused me mental, physical and emotional harm…”

–CH 231 students, March 2014

Introduction Lecturing has long been considered the gold standard in teaching, especially at post-secondary institutions. Even today, in the face of much research showing that active learning pedagogies increase student performance and decrease failure rates (1–4), traditional lecture remains the most common teaching style. There is, however, significant movement at many institutions toward more active learning pedagogies ranging from the use of clickers to pose questions during a lecture to completely flipped classrooms where the “lectures” are online and viewed outside of class time, and in-class time is devoted to problem-solving activities, discussions, and writing. There is no one definition of what constitutes an active learning strategy, but most definitions include descriptors such as “doing”, “discussing”, and “reflecting.” One of the earlier definitions describes active learning as “involving students in doing things and thinking about what they are doing” (5). A flipped classroom involves a redefining of the roles of instructors and students. A traditional lecture instructor typically explains concepts, provides definitive answers, and tells students if they are right or wrong. Conversely, an instructor in a flipped classroom asks questions designed to lead students to define concepts in their own words, guides students to find answers for themselves, and encourages students to determine on their own if their answers are right or wrong. The student role also changes dramatically; instead of passively accepting information, students become active participants by discussing information and concepts, drawing conclusions, and thinking critically about their answers (6, 7).

Background The journey into a flipped general chemistry classroom at Oregon State University (OSU) began in 2012 when Haak modified the format of a traditional general chemistry sequence for science majors. OSU operates on the quarter system. The regular academic year consists of three 10-week terms, so general chemistry is a sequence of three courses. Historically the first course in the sequence, CH 231, met for three 50-minute lectures per week and one recitation led by a graduate teaching assistant (TA). This was changed to a “semi-studio” format where two class periods remained as traditional lectures but the Friday 40 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


class was reenvisioned. On Fridays students worked together in small groups to solve more challenging problems than usually encountered in a general chemistry course. Both group members and seats were assigned on Fridays and this setup was quickly dubbed “Friday Friends”. This new format was possible largely because of the construction of a new science building at OSU with a classroom designed to facilitate active learning pedagogies. The room seats 180 students and has two rows of seats on each level. The seats in the front of each row swivel, allowing students to face each other when working in groups (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Photograph showing a section of the seating arrangement in the classroom, where students are able to face one another when doing group work.

A major limitation was noted almost immediately—50 minutes was not enough time to conduct in-depth problem-solving activities. In 2013 the third class period was moved to Thursdays and increased to 80 minutes. The move to Thursday was necessary because of classroom availability limitations. Having an 80-minute class period for problem-solving and critical thinking activities allowed sufficient time for students to work through the difficulties they encounterd while solving problems and still allowed 10 to 15 minutes at the end of class for wrap-up activities. Understanding the time needed to allow for effective problem solving was critical in the design of the hybrid course in 2014. OSU began a Hybrid Course Initiative in 2011. The Hybrid Course Development Pilot Program was established as a joint initiative between OSU Extended Campus (Ecampus) in the Division of Outreach and Engagement and the Center for Teaching and Learning in the Office of Academic Affairs. 41 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Haak was a member of the Spring 2013 Hybrid Faculty Learning Community. Members of the Learning Community were chosen through a competitive proposal process and came from a diverse set of departments: Business, Chemistry, New Media Communication, Public Health, and Women’s Studies. The Learning Community operated as a hybrid course, with some face-to-face meetings and other activities completed online using the OSU Learning Management System at that time, Blackboard. This was very helpful, allowing faculty a glimpse into the student experience in a hybrid course. It was also helpful to have discussions with faculty from such a wide array of disciplines. For some departments, such as New Media Communications, making the move to a hybrid format was not nearly such a major logistical and institutional undertaking as it was for Chemistry.

Development of the Hybrid Course In the six months prior to teaching the first completely hybrid CH 231 course, we made over 50 topical videos that students would be assigned to watch outside of class in accordance with the “flipped” classroom structure. Our initial intent was to make videos 3–5 minutes in length, as recommended by OSU Ecampus at the time. Upon beginning the video recording process, however, it quickly became apparent that this length of time was impractical for our videos as it was simply too short. Thus, the majority of our videos were 15 to 20 minutes in length. For the video recordings, we were fortunate to have a room equipped with a large whiteboard, two moveable, high-quality cameras on tracks, a system that allowed us to easily integrate camera shots, a document camera view, and a computer monitor view (8). The videos would typically begin with one of the instructors standing in front of a whiteboard to introduce the topic, then transition to a document camera view as notes were written. Occasionally a view of the computer monitor was also shown so images could be displayed. Some videos also included demonstrations filmed using the second camera. Both instructors were present when the videos were recorded. This was important since oftentimes the instructor watching the video being created noticed speaking or writing errors that were not obvious to the instructor being recorded. The videos were not meant to replicate a typical 50-minute course lecture, but rather were designed to be smaller units to allow students to master one topic before moving on to the next. For example, the videos for the chapter on the quantum-mechanical model of the atom included: The Nature of Light (Electromagnetic Radiation) The Bohr Model The Double Slit Experiment The Wave Nature of Matter The Uncertainty Principle Quantum Mechanics of Atoms Quantum Numbers Electron Transitions Quantum Numbers and Orbitals 42 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Another crucial aspect of the hybrid course was the development of appropriate in-class problem sets. Problem sets must be “group worthy,” meaning that it will take a group effort to solve the problems. If the problems are too simple there is no need for groups to work collaboratively; students can solve them on their own without input from others. The design and optimization of the problem sets is an ongoing process.


Hybrid CH 231 Goes Live – Winter 2014 Course Setup Each class consisted of approximately 160 students, with the two instructors and four TAs present at each class meeting. (There were two sections of the hybrid course offered; although each instructor was listed as the instructor of record for only one course, both instructors were present at all class meetings.) During the first term the courses met twice per week, 80 minutes the first day and 50 minutes the second day. These times were chosen because of OSU rules governing hybrid courses: To officially be considered “hybrid”, a course must have at least 40% less face-to-face meeting time than the traditional course. A traditional CH 231 class would have three 50-minute lectures and one 50-minute recitation per week, so the hybrid course should meet for only 120 minutes each week. To accomplish this the recitation was dropped, and two class meetings of unequal length were set. This was still 10 minutes over the allowed time, but given OSU’s class scheduling constraints—courses can meet for 50 minutes, 80 minutes, or 110 minutes—this slight deviation was allowed. We found, however, that as before in the semi-studio class, 50 minutes was simply too short to encompass dedicated student group work and a “wrap-up” session at the end. Thus, in the second term this was changed and the class met for 80 minutes on both days. Group membership was determined by the course instructors. Efforts were made to ensure that each group had both high- and low-achieving students as well as a mix of majors and a balance of international and domestic students. Determination of student achievement was based on math placement exam scores as well as any previous chemistry experience. Because this course was taught off-sequence, meaning the first course in the sequence was not taught in the first term of the academic year, there were a significant number of students who had taken CH 231 or another general chemistry course the previous term. Pre-Class Preparation Prior to class students were responsible for watching two to five videos and completing a reading assignment from the textbook. There was no system in place, however, to ensure students were watching the videos as instructed. Class Time (during class) Attendance was required and recorded at the start of each class period, and, in some cases, recorded at the end of the class period as well. Since classroom 43 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


seating was assigned, collecting attendance data was a straightforward matter of simply checking names on the seating chart, expedited with the help of the TAs. In addition, attendance was verified after class via the student names included on their submitted problem sets. Students were informed that as their attendance was a crucial part of the course, and it would be counted towards their final course grade. A typical class would start with general announcements (about two minutes), after which students would pick up the day’s problem set. Students would then work on the problems in their group with support from instructors and TAs. With approximately 25 minutes remaining, the full class would reconvene to discuss selected problems. Several different approaches were used for the “wrap-up” session at the end of class. In some cases, student groups were randomly chosen to come to the front of the classroom and explain their solution to a particular problem to the rest of the class. This provided strong motivation for students to solve the problems and to be ready to present their solutions to their classmates; unfortunately, in many cases the chosen students were not good presenters and this led to confusion. Another option explored was the use of Learning Catalytics. Learning Catalytics is “[a] ‘bring your own device’ student engagement, assessment, and classroom intelligence system” (9). A wide variety of Learning Catalytics problem formats was implemented, which included multiple choice, many choice, numerical, matching, and composite sketch items. Students would enter their answers and the instructors would review and discuss them. In cases where a significant number of students submitted an incorrect response, students would be told to discuss the problem within their groups and then re-enter an answer. Learning Catalytics worked well for problems with fairly simple answers, but was found to be impractical in cases where more detailed answers were warranted, such as for short essay-type responses, etc. A final option utilized was simply to have the instructors explain the solutions at the end of the class period. This provided the students with very clear explanations, but did not provide as much impetus for students to solve the problems. We also found that this approach could give students a false sense of their understanding of the concepts. Prior to leaving, students would submit one problem set per group. Submitted problem sets were used to verify student attendance. They were not scored. Problem set solutions were posted online the following day. Quizzes Once per week, students were required to complete an online quiz outside of class. Initially the quizzes had been administered on paper during class, but this was found to be too much of an encumbrance to the class time available, hence the move to online quizzes fairly early in the term. The online quizzes were administered via Blackboard and were accessible to the students Wednesday evenings between 5:00 pm and 11:59 pm. The number of problems per quiz varied from two to five, and students were typically given 10 minutes to complete each quiz. A variety of problem formats were used, including those in which students were required to enter a numerical answer as well as multiple-choice 44 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


and multiple-answer items. To the extent possible, the quizzes were set up such that partial credit was given when applicable. Although the online quizzes could not be proctored nearly as effectively (i.e., although students had a time limit, there was nothing to stop them from using their notes and/or other resources, including assistance from others), this was not of great concern since the quizzes were viewed as a formative assessment. The extra class time and drastic reduction in instructor grading time were considered well worth the trade-off regarding the move to online quizzes. Although 13 quizzes were given throughout the term, only a student’s eight highest quiz scores were used in that student’s final course grade calculation. Students were informed of this policy at the outset of the term.

Homework We administered a weekly homework assignment via the online platform Mastering Chemistry and each assignment was designed to take approximately three hours for a student to complete. There were several unique features to the way we structured the homework. The homework score comprised about 9% of the total points in the class and the full 50 points were awarded to all students who earned 80% or more of the total assigned points for the term. We structured it this way because we view homework as a formative assessment. We expect students to make mistakes as they work to master the concepts and we want them to learn from their mistakes. We feel that putting too high a premium on getting homework problems correct on the first try, every time, increases students’ stress levels and makes them unwilling to risk entering an answer they are not completely sure is correct. It also encourages cheating. Taking risks, making mistakes, and learning from those mistakes are behaviors we strove to encourage. When constructing the homework assignments we used the principles of interleaved practice (10). From the second homework assignment forward about 25% of the problems come from prior chapters, and these problems were scattered randomly throughout the assignment. This served two purposes—it helped students continuously review prior concepts and it helped them develop problem-recognition skills. In our previous experiences it is not uncommon to hear students say things like, “Oh, if I had known that was what the question asked in this problem I could have answered it.” Many students seem to be very dependent on using the previous problem to give them clues on how to solve the next problem, and also on searching in the current chapter in the textbook for a similar example problem to use as a template to solve the homework problem. When some problems are not from the current chapter, at a minimum students must determine what type of question it is before they can go look in the book for an example. Once they have thought deeply enough about the problem to determine what the relevant concepts are, they can solve it without referring to a worked example in the book. Furthermore, these are the skills students need to become better problem solvers, which helps them perform better on exams where they are also asked to read a question and determine the best strategy to answer it without knowing that, for example, “It’s from chapter 6 section 5 because that’s what we covered in class today.” 45 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Exams Two midterm exams were administered, the first in the fourth week of the term and the second in the eighth week of the term. A cumulative final exam was also administered in each course. The exams were comprised exclusively of written response items; there was no multiple choice component to these exams. About 75% of the exam problems were categorized as “C-level”, i.e., problems students had seen in class, in the videos, and on the homework assignments. In other words, a student who was to earn a passing grade in the course should have been able to answer these problems. Approximately 15% to 20% of the problems were “B-level”; these were problems involving concepts the students had seen before, but presented in a different way. The remaining one or two problems were “A-level” problems. These were typically multi-concept problems that required the students to apply their knowledge in a novel way to find the solution.

Course Grading Table 1 shows the course grading scheme used in the winter 2014 hybrid course. The detailed grading policies governing quizzes and online homework have been described (vide supra).

Table 1. Winter 2014 hybrid course grade components Component

Points

Midterm Exam One

100

Midterm Exam Two

100

Final Exam

200

Quizzes (Best Eight)

40

Online Homework

50

Exam Wrappers

10

Participation

50

Total

550

If a student’s percentage on the final exam was higher than that student’s average percentage on the two midterm exams, the final exam percentage replaced the scores for the two midterm exams in the final course grade calculation. Our justification for this policy was that a student’s percentage on the final (cumulative) exam reflects that student’s level of understanding at the end of the term, and the goal for students in the course was to demonstrate knowledge of the material by the end of the term. Accordingly, final exam scores were always included in each student’s final course grade calculation. This exam policy was neither new nor 46 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


unique to the hybrid general chemistry course; it was a longstanding policy in the traditional general chemistry course at OSU. Also factored into a student’s final course grade calculation were two “exam wrappers” (11) assigned during the term, one following each midterm exam. Each exam wrapper was worth a maximum of five points. To complete an exam wrapper, students were tasked to reflect on their exam performance and the effectiveness of their exam preparation by describing what went wrong regarding any points they missed on the exam, as well as what they intended to do differently to prepare for the next exam. The 50 points attributed to “participation” in Table 1 were essentially for class attendance. Students were provided a scheme (Table 2) in the course syllabus showing the correlation between overall percentage in the course and letter grade. The final course grades were derived from this table with only minor deviations, i.e., final grades were based on a slight grading curve.

Table 2. Winter 2014 hybrid course final letter grade scheme A

93.0% and higher

A−

90.0 – 92.9%

B+

87.0 – 89.9%

B

83.0 – 86.9%

B−

80.0 – 82.9%

C+

77.0 – 79.9%

C

73.0 – 76.9%

C−

70.0 – 72.9%

D+

67.0 – 69.9%

D

63.0 – 66.9%

D−

60.0 – 62.9%

F

< 60.0%

Laboratory There was a separate laboratory course associated with the hybrid course. The hybrid course was required as either a pre- or corequisite for the laboratory course. Although a detailed description of the laboratory course setup is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is important to note that the accompanying laboratory was taught in an exclusively guided-inquiry format. The overall philosophy of the laboratory is an active learning model in which students design their own experimental procedures, thus the laboratory complements the lecture pedagogy. Students worked in groups of four, which were not necessarily the same as their lecture groups. 47 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Year One Exam Performance and Student Survey Results Data from the initial term of hybrid CH 231 in the winter of 2014 were analyzed for comparison to previous iterations of the course when it was taught as a traditional lecture. To ensure an accurate comparison as feasible, the two midterm exams from the initial term of the hybrid course were designed to be identical in rigor to those of previous years with changes to the details of the problems only. The final exam was wholly identical to those of previous years, since, unlike the midterm exams, final exams were never returned to students and keys were never posted. The data are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Winter 2014 hybrid course exam scores as compared to previous years’ traditional course exam scores Median Score

Scores below 60%

Midterm Exam One

9% higher than traditional

12% fewer than traditional

Midterm Exam Two

No statistical difference compared to traditional


Final Exam

7% higher than traditional


In addition, the DFW rate for the traditional course was 12% lower than in previous terms. Clearly, these data strongly indicate that student performance did indeed increase as a result of the change to a hybrid course format. At the end of the second term of implementation of this hybrid sequence of courses (spring 2014), we conducted a survey of the students, initially intended for our own internal review and improvement. The survey was handed out in class and 152 students responded. A standard Likert scale was used with the options “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “neither”, “agree”, and “strongly agree”. Figures 2–6 show the distribution of student responses to certain survey statements.

Figure 2. Student responses to the statement, “I feel comfortable working in a group to do in-class problems.” 48 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Figure 3. Student responses to the statement, “I felt my in-class group members worked well together.”

Figure 4. Student responses to the statement, “I participated actively within my in-class group.”

Figure 5. Student responses to the statement, “I feel I learned more under the hybrid model than I would have under a traditional model.” 49 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Figure 6. Student responses to the statement, “I feel I learned a lot in this course.” From the data shown in Figures 2 and 3, it is clear that most students felt comfortable working in a group, and likewise felt that the members of their in-class group worked well together. Most students also felt they were active participants in their in-class group (Figure 4). Regarding responses to the statement, “I feel I learned more under the hybrid model than I would have under a traditional model,” students were clearly split (Figure 5), but more students (52) agreed or strongly agreed than those who disagreed or strongly disagreed (42). Interestingly, in response to the statement, “Given a choice, I would prefer to take a traditional course instead of a hybrid course,” 79 students indicated “yes” whereas 64 indicated “no”. This result, in conjunction with the data shown in Figure 5, appears to show that several of the students who indicated a preference for the traditional model nonetheless acquiesced that they felt they learned as much or more under the hybrid model. When only the responses of the 64 students who indicated “no” (i.e., those students who indicated they would prefer to take a hybrid course) were totaled regarding their responses to the statement, “I feel I learned more under the hybrid model than I would have under a traditional model,” a strong majority (47) agreed or strongly agreed, whereas 13 indicated “neither” and only four disagreed or strongly disagreed. Thus, perhaps unsurprisingly, this provides clear evidence that those students who favored the hybrid model of instruction felt that they learned more under it than they would have under a traditional model. Despite the split in total responses regarding their preference for the course model, a significant majority of students nonetheless indicated that they felt they learned a lot in the course (Figure 6).

Year Two – Winter and Spring 2015 Few significant changes were implemented in the second year of this course. Unlike year one, at the start of the first term of year two a deliberate effort was made to tell students why we decided to teach using the hybrid format. Data from 50 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


year one which showed significantly better exam performance under the hybrid model were also shared with students. Although students were not specifically surveyed about the impact of this, it certainly appeared that students had a greater willingness to accept the hybrid model when they were told of the rationale for implementing it and some of the successful results. During year one we noticed that in-class groups that were (inadvertently) made up of students with the same major appeared to work together quite well within their group. Thus, in year two groups were formed with students from the same major and with less emphasis on distributions of gender and prior chemistry success. Interestingly, this was very successful with certain majors, most notably Chemistry and Food Science & Technology, and less successful with others, such as Biology and Exercise & Sport Science. To foster better participation and engagement of students in the accompanying laboratory course, the group size was changed from four students to three. For laboratory sections whose enrollments precluded the formation of only three-student groups, groups of two were implemented as necessary.

Year Three – Winter 2016 Further refinements to the course in the third year included the addition of pre-class online quizzes, due at 10:00 pm the day before class. (These are in addition to the regular online weekly quizzes.) These pre-class quizzes were “unlockable” such that students would have to view the assigned videos for the upcoming class period in order to access the pre-class quiz. The 10:00 pm due time (as opposed to 11:59 pm for the regular weekly quizzes) was set so that the instructors would have time to review the results before the upcoming class period and adjust the focus accordingly if there were widespread student misconceptions or lack of understanding of a topic. At the time of this writing data have not yet been analyzed to assess the impact of the pre-class quizzes; however, anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that student compliance with watching the assigned videos is indeed much higher under this new model. Another change planned for the second term of year three is to link a portion of a student’s score on selected quizzes with his or her other group members’ performance on that quiz, to foster group cooperation and to incentivize students to help their group members learn. At the time of this writing this has not yet been implemented (it will be put in place in the spring term of 2016), but Institutional Review Board approval has been granted to study the impacts of this change via both student performance analysis and a student survey.

Summary and Lessons Learned Numerous refinements have taken place during the development and implementation of the hybrid course described here. The following points are, we believe, particularly important facets to the successful implementation of a hybrid course. 51 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

• • • •


•

•

•

•

•

•

Videos need to be more than 3–5 minutes long. A length of 15–20 minutes was a more appropriate length of time to cover a single topic. Videos must be custom-made for the hybrid course. Instructors get to know the students far better under the hybrid model. A 50-minute class period is not long enough for students to accomplish a reasonable amount of group problem solving while still allowing for a “wrap-up” discussion of selected problems at the end of class. An 80minute class period works far better. It is important to have a sufficient number of TAs and instructors present during class time so that students can receive timely guidance when needed. Clearly, the number of TAs and instructors needed will vary depending on the course size; we have found that two instructors and four TAs works well for a class of approximately 160 students. TAs need training, as do faculty. It is important to guide students to find the answers to their own questions rather than to simply tell them the answers, and the entire staff needs to be onboard with this. Students are very quick to target any staff member who will give direct answers to their questions, rather than hints and guidance. It is very helpful to discuss beforehand, as a group, some potential hints to give to students when they get stuck on the problems they are solving. Students who have successfully completed and enjoyed the hybrid sequence make excellent undergraduate TAs/Learning Assistants for subsequent years. It is very important to explain to students why we have chosen to teach using the hybrid model and what benefits they can expect from actively engaging with the course material, because a flipped classroom is definitely not what they expect in college. Student attendance and active participation are critical. “Unlockable” pre-class quizzes appear to help motivate students to watch the assigned videos before coming to class. Students may not be amenable to taking a hybrid course, and many students would prefer to simply attend a traditional lecture. Nonetheless, we have seen (and described here) evidence to suggest that students learn more in a hybrid course. In fact, our survey data have shown that a certain number of students who indicated a preference for the traditional model did nonetheless admit that they felt they learned as much or more under the hybrid model.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Jenna Moser for her assistance with survey data collection, Kim Thackray and Raul Burriel for their assistance with video production and editing, and Rich Carter for his support of the implementation of the hybrid courses.

52 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

References


1.

Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111, 8410–8415 and references therein. 2. Froyd, J. E. Evidence for the Efficacy of Student-active Learning Pedagogies; Project Kaleidoscope: Washington, DC, 2008. 3. Bowen, C. W. A Quantitative Literature Review of Cooperative Learning Effects on High School and College Chemistry Achievement. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 116–119. 4. Oliver-Hoyo, M. T.; Allen, D.; Hunt, W. F.; Hutson, J.; Pitts, A. Effects of an Active Learning Environment: Teaching Innovations at a Research I Institution. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 441–448. 5. Bonwell, C. C.; Eison, J. A. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.1; The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development: Washington, DC, 1991. 6. Spencer, J. N. New Directions in Teaching Chemistry: A Philosophical and Pedagogical Basis. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 566–569. 7. Lawson, A. Science Teaching and the Development of Thinking; Wadsworth: Bellmont, CA, 1995. 8. The technically-minded reader may be interested to know that we used Sony pan-tilt-zoom cameras which ran on a Telemetrics robotics system and were controlled via a Crestron touch panel. The cameras fed into a central digital media switch which subsequently fed into a Crestron CAPTURE-HD-PRO recorder that recorded the video presentations to a thumb drive. The recordings were edited with iMovie and uploaded and distributed via Kaltura. 9. Learning Catalytics. https://learningcatalytics.com/ (accessed Feb. 2016). 10. Brown, P. C.; Roediger, H. L., III; McDaniel, M. A. Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning; Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: London, 2014. 11. Ambrose, S. A.; Bridges, M. W.; DiPietro, M.; Lovett, M. C.; Norman, M. K. How Learning Works: 7 Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching; John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco, 2010.

53 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

The Evolution of a Hybrid General Chemistry Course for Science Majors

Recommend Documents