Online approaches to chemical education 9780841232471, 0841232474, 9780841232457

Table of contents :
Content: 1. Online Courses and Online Tools for Chemical Education 2. Improving Preparation and Persistence in Undergraduate STEM: Why an Online Summer Preparatory Chemistry Course Makes Sense 3. Motivational Design in Chemistry MOOCs: Applying the ARCS Model 4. Affecting Student Engagement in an Online Course through Virtual Laboratory Exercises 5. Online Chemistry: The Development and Use of a Custom In-House Laboratory Kit 6. Developing General Chemistry II Online7. Allosteric Motivations for Biochemistry Online at North Carolina Central University 8. Lecture Video: Characteristics and Utilizations as an Online Learning Resource 9. Modern "Homework" in General Chemistry: An Extensive Review of the Cognitive Science Principles, Design, and Impact of Current Online Learning Systems 10. Flipped Textbooks: Student-Created Online Wiki Textbooks for Intermediate and Advanced Chemistry Classes 11. Blurring the Lines Between Online and On-Campus Classrooms12. Flipped Chemistry Courses: Structure, Aligning Learning Outcomes, and Evaluation 13. Serving Rural Northwestern Montana Through Online and Blended Chemistry Courses 14. A Decade of Using Technology for Teaching and Learning: A Personal Perspective from Singapore Editors' Biographies Indexes

Citation preview

Online Approaches to Chemical Education

ACS SYMPOSIUM SERIES 1261

Online Approaches to Chemical Education Pia M. Sörensen, Editor Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dorian A. Canelas, Editor Duke University Durham, North Carolina

Sponsored by the ACS Division of Chemical Education

American Chemical Society, Washington, DC Distributed in print by Oxford University Press

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Sorensen, Pia M., editor. | Canelas, Dorian A., editor. | American Chemical Society. Division of Chemical Education. Title: Online approaches to chemical education / Pia M. Sorensen, editor (Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts), Dorian A. Canelas, editor (Duke University, Durham, North Carolina) ; sponsored by the ACS Division of Chemical Education. Description: Washington, DC : American Chemical Society, [2017] | Series: ACS symposium series ; 1261 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017048993 (print) | LCCN 2017051786 (ebook) | ISBN 9780841232457 | ISBN 9780841232471 Subjects: LCSH: Chemistry--Computer-assisted instruction. | Chemistry--Study and teaching. | Web-based instruction. Classification: LCC QD40 (ebook) | LCC QD40 .O645 2017 (print) | DDC 540.71/1--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017048993

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48n1984. Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society Distributed in print by Oxford University Press All Rights Reserved. Reprographic copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act is allowed for internal use only, provided that a per-chapter fee of $40.25 plus $0.75 per page is paid to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Republication or reproduction for sale of pages in this book is permitted only under license from ACS. Direct these and other permission requests to ACS Copyright Office, Publications Division, 1155 16th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036. The citation of trade names and/or names of manufacturers in this publication is not to be construed as an endorsement or as approval by ACS of the commercial products or services referenced herein; nor should the mere reference herein to any drawing, specification, chemical process, or other data be regarded as a license or as a conveyance of any right or permission to the holder, reader, or any other person or corporation, to manufacture, reproduce, use, or sell any patented invention or copyrighted work that may in any way be related thereto. Registered names, trademarks, etc., used in this publication, even without specific indication thereof, are not to be considered unprotected by law. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Foreword The ACS Symposium Series was first published in 1974 to provide a mechanism for publishing symposia quickly in book form. The purpose of the series is to publish timely, comprehensive books developed from the ACS sponsored symposia based on current scientific research. Occasionally, books are developed from symposia sponsored by other organizations when the topic is of keen interest to the chemistry audience. Before agreeing to publish a book, the proposed table of contents is reviewed for appropriate and comprehensive coverage and for interest to the audience. Some papers may be excluded to better focus the book; others may be added to provide comprehensiveness. When appropriate, overview or introductory chapters are added. Drafts of chapters are peer-reviewed prior to final acceptance or rejection, and manuscripts are prepared in camera-ready format. As a rule, only original research papers and original review papers are included in the volumes. Verbatim reproductions of previous published papers are not accepted.

ACS Books Department

Contents 1.

Online Courses and Online Tools for Chemical Education ................................. 1 Pia M. Sörensen and Dorian A. Canelas

2.

Improving Preparation and Persistence in Undergraduate STEM: Why an Online Summer Preparatory Chemistry Course Makes Sense ........................... 7 Derek Dockter, Catherine Uvarov, Alberto Guzman-Alvarez, and Marco Molinaro

3.

Motivational Design in Chemistry MOOCs: Applying the ARCS Model ........ 35 Kun Li

4.

Affecting Student Engagement in an Online Course through Virtual Laboratory Exercises ............................................................................................. 47 Erland P. Stevens

5.

Online Chemistry: The Development and Use of a Custom In-House Laboratory Kit ....................................................................................................... 57 Shayna Burchett and Jack Lee Hayes

6.

Developing General Chemistry II Online: ........................................................... 71 Alison R. Noble

7.

Allosteric Motivations for Biochemistry Online at North Carolina Central University ................................................................................................................ 81 Tonya Gerald-Goins

8.

Lecture Video: Characteristics and Utilizations as an Online Learning Resource .................................................................................................................. 91 Pamela L. Mosley

9.

Modern “Homework” in General Chemistry: An Extensive Review of the Cognitive Science Principles, Design, and Impact of Current Online Learning Systems ................................................................................................. 101 Erin E. Wilson and Sarah A. Kennedy

10. Flipped Textbooks: Student-Created Online Wiki Textbooks for Intermediate and Advanced Chemistry Classes ............................................... 131 Brian C. Goess and Andrea Tartaro 11. Blurring the Lines Between Online and On-Campus Classrooms: ................. 143 Nanette M. Wachter

vii

12. Flipped Chemistry Courses: Structure, Aligning Learning Outcomes, and Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 151 Alison B. Flynn 13. Serving Rural Northwestern Montana Through Online and Blended Chemistry Courses ............................................................................................... 165 Janice Alexander and Julie Wenz 14. A Decade of Using Technology for Teaching and Learning: A Personal Perspective from Singapore ................................................................................ 179 Roderick W. Bates Editors’ Biographies .................................................................................................... 189

Indexes Author Index ................................................................................................................ 193 Subject Index ................................................................................................................ 195

viii

Chapter 1

Online Courses and Online Tools for Chemical Education Pia M. Sörensen*,1 and Dorian A. Canelas2 1Harvard

John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, United States 2Department of Chemistry, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, United States *E-mail: [email protected]. E-mail: [email protected].

This introductory chapter provides current context for the state of the art and practice in online tools and experiments in chemical education. In addition to providing an overview of the specific work detailed in the chapters of this volume, some important net neutrality trends laffecting world wide access to high quality educational information are briefly discussed. We conclude with a call to action for science educators.

Introduction The world wide web has been in existence for just over twenty-five years, but already its potential for impacting education appears to be infinite. Online platforms provide increasingly sophisticated tools for the mass dissemination of knowledge and sharing of ideas. These platforms can currently be accessed by the more than half of the people on Earth who have access to the internet in 2017 (1), and the infrastructure for the internet continues to expand rapidly into developing global locations. Today, online learning is an important current topic for contemporary educators in diverse fields. The chapters in this book address these topics specifically for the field of chemistry, giving overviews of existing work as well as “snapshot in time” examples of the work being conducted in this area. The purpose of the book is to examine the relevant successes, challenges, research findings, and practical examples in online approaches to chemistry education. © 2017 American Chemical Society

Overview of the Organization of This Volume The chapters in this volume are loosely based on contributions to various symposia in online chemical education which were organized by the editors. The symposia primarily took place at the national meetings for the American Chemical Society in spring 2016 and 2017 — an earlier ACS symposium in 2015 has been summarized in a previous symposium series volume (2). Our efforts to organize these symposia stem from our own work in this rapidly expanding field. In the process of our work teaching and learning with online tools, we recognized that this relatively new, borderless education venue would benefit from the building of a community of scholarship among chemical educators. In response to this need, we began organization efforts at the national level to assemble a forum for exchanging ideas among the faculty who are pioneers in adopting online chemical teaching technology. The community that has since emerged is comprised of a diverse group of educators. Their many insights, informed by the trials and tribulations of early adoption and invention, give life to the contents of this volume. In this book, we bring together authors who are chemistry instructors and course developers currently practicing with online methods in their online or on-campus classrooms. They come from diverse institutions of higher education: international and domestic, liberal arts colleges, research institutions, community colleges, and historically black colleges and universities. The courses described range from introductory general and organic chemistry courses to intermediate and advanced courses in biochemistry, synthesis, spectroscopy, and bio-organic chemistry intended for undergraduate science majors. As a collection, the chapters offer a powerful perspective on the current state of online learning in higher chemistry education. The book is organized to present contributions in two main categories: Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 describe the development of, and research on, online courses as considered in their entirety. Chapters 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 focus on the use of various online tools in either online or on-campus settings. Both categories include carefully researched topics as well as instructors’ and course developers’ general narratives detailing the successes and challenges in their chemical education experiments. Within each of the two categories, we have interspersed reviews of specific areas important to the field of online chemistry learning. These reviews (Chapters 4, 8 and 9) consider and discuss current knowledge about the use of online videos, online homework systems, and motivational strategies in the context of online course development. Throughout the book, authors address important questions such as: •

•

•

What pedagogical opportunities and challenges arise from the current trend toward more online learning? How do these pertain specifically to chemistry education? What online materials and software can be incorporated into online and on-campus classes, and how is this incorporation most successfully done at the college level? How do students interact and learn in these new pedagogical settings? 2

•

•

How can many of the lab exercises that are typically performed in a brickand-mortar classroom be successfully transferred to the homes of online students? How can online courses be used to better prepare students for their future chemistry classes in college?

The chapters are briefly summarized below: In the Chapter 2, immediately following this introductory chapter, Dockter and colleagues present their research on how an online summer course can help prepare incoming freshmen for college level general chemistry. The chapter offers compelling research showing that preparatory summer courses can increase student performance and persistence in general chemistry and other STEM courses during their first year of college at a large institution in the University of California system. In the Chapter 3, Li reviews what is currently known about the use of motivational design strategies in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). A common theme of online course design is how best to address the fact that attrition in online courses is typically high compared to that in on-campus courses. This is true even when full tuition is paid for the course and formal course credit is at stake, and the situation is bleaker when the online offering is available for free or at a reduced rate. Online course developers endeavor to increase retention in a variety of ways, but the effectiveness of the different motivational strategies that are typically used for these purposes are not well understood. Li surveys the current state of this field, while also adding to the current body of knowledge by sharing results on the effect of incorporating motivational strategies into two general chemistry MOOCs. Staying within the general topic of how to increase student motivation in MOOCs, Chapter 4 focuses on student engagement. The author, Stevens, presents convincing data on how the introduction of virtual laboratory exercises in a medicinal chemistry MOOC significantly boosted student engagement on the course’s discussion forum. Interestingly, the effect was primarily seen in students who passed the course, as opposed to in the broader enrolled population, suggesting that there are ways to increase engagement even among students who are part of the “retained” student population. Hands-on and experimental learning are a crucial components of chemistry education in the on-campus classroom, so it is not surprising that chemistry educators have tried hard to find effective ways of incorporating them in online courses as well. Virtual labs, as presented by Stevens and colleagues, is one solution. Other solutions include lab exercises that use materials and ingredients that are common in the typical home, or laboratory kits supplied by vendors or college campuses. Little has been written on this topic. In Chapter 5, Burchett and Hayes, describes the development and use of an in-house laboratory kit for an online general chemistry course at a community college in Missouri. Chapters 6 and 7 offer important instructor perspectives about the successes and challenges that arise when developing online courses. Noble describes the process of developing an online general chemistry course at Messiah College, a primarily undergraduate institution. Gerald-Goins describes the development of 3

an online biochemistry course at North Carolina Central University, one of the first Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). The authors describe how quality instructional design principles were given serious consideration throughout the development of these courses. Campus-based instructors interested in adapting a course to a fully online setting can benefit from their insights. The latter half of this volume describes the second category of contributions: the use of online tools for on-campus and/or blended learning. This begins with Mosley reviewing the current state of content transmission via lecture video in Chapter 8. Lecture video technology is one of the most prevalent tools employed in both completely online courses and campus-based courses which have moved to flipped, hybrid, or blended pedagogies. In 9, Wilson and Kennedy provide an extensive review of commercially-available online homework platforms. Significantly, they analyze the current platforms’ capabilities in the context of cognitive science principles. They detail and discuss the available design options in each platform as well as the impacts of various design choices on student and instructor learning opportunities. Most educators now recognize that peer interaction does not need to be face-to-face in order for it to result in meaningful discourse and learning. An excellent example is the contribution by Tartaro, Goess, and Miller, who describe their innovative work in the realm of “flipped textbooks”, also known as student generated wiki textbooks, in Chapter 10. Their collective experiences on the project over a number of years have led them to generate a series of guidelines for instructors interested in having learners endeavor to create their own learning materials. Importantly, they also present evidence that the language chosen by student writers can lead to improved learning outcomes for subsequent students who read a flipped textbook – a fascinating example of trans-class, multi-year interactive learning. Another innovative cloud-based tool for collaborative learning and peer-to-peer discourse is detailed by Wachter in Chapter 11. Wachter describes her work implementing the Voicethread platform for asynchronous collaborative learning among participants in an organic chemistry course. Finally, Chapters 12, 13, and 14 offer additional instructor insights into tailoring online course components to serve large and diverse audiences in Canada, rural Montana, and Singapore, respectively. Flynn describes comparisons of different types of blended courses in Canada. For example, flipped courses that have substantial online components are compared to courses that have in-class lecture and active learning components. Significantly, lower failure and withdrawal rates were observed in the flipped classes. Alexander and Wenz developed a very large number of video lectures using lightboard technology for their blended and online courses with the aim of reaching a diffuse population of students in a very large area of rural Montana. Their students, many of whom would not have been able to attend daily classes at a brick-and-mortar location, were interested in filling sorely needed rural health care professional positions, and the chemistry courses offered gateways to training for those jobs. An intensive “lab weekend” was offered in order to provide hands-on training and establish a community of scholarship among peers. The students then completed the remaining labs at home with a lab kit. This last group of chapters is rounded out by the insights of Bates, who discusses his experiences in balancing 4

traditional pedagogies with new technology in a variety of courses over many years. He grapples with issues such as adapting good assessments to technology and leading an effective, credit-bearing, blended course with an enrollment of 1700 students (in a single section!).

Global Trends with Implications for the Future of Online Chemical Education Molecules and atoms do not join political parties or vote in elections, and they do not recognize geopolitical boundaries, so chemistry education should not need to be a political topic. Indeed, the many educators who believe that chemical knowledge should not be the exclusive domain of governments and the wealthy elite continue to make efforts to keep access to public science knowledge free and open, rather than blocked entirely or locked behind paywalls. Nonetheless, it is important to always bear in mind that internet access with the full and free flow of scientific information and ideas is not actually available in many regions of the world due to censorship (3). Equally concerning, the current trend in this area is negative: “Internet freedom around the world declined in 2016 for the sixth consecutive year (4).” While the government of the United States, for example, would be considered a leading advocate for internet freedom in many contexts (5, 6), it is important to note that tides can rapidly change because individual viewpoints (7) and societal norms in the arena of censorship evolve over time. Indeed, “people’s attitudes toward Internet freedom and censorship is more complicated and nuanced than assumed (8).” As educators, we must look outward from our ivory towers and remain vigilantly aware of the initiatives in our own countries to either further undermine net neutrality or otherwise censor the flow of new discoveries and basic, fact-based scientific information. Free educational online resources and websites geared at expanding knowledge of, and appreciation for, chemistry appeared early in the history of the internet with the development of websites such as Molecule of the Month (9, 10). The presence of reliable chemistry information on the internet became reinforced over time with the later emergence of sites such as Wikipedia, e-resources such as spectroscopic repositories (11), and platforms for interactive visualizations of chemical phenomena (12). Four important areas continue to grow over time: (1) the sheer volume of accurate scientific information housed online, (2) the availability of user-friendly, open-source tools for hosting and sharing new information such as scientific breakthroughs at minimal cost, (3) technical capabilities for searching, and (4) platforms for developing online learning tools and open courseware. In the chapters comprising this volume, several of the authors describe their own efforts to improve the state of affordable chemical education for large and/or geographically remote audiences using online tools or platforms. In light of the current trends towards more censorship and less internet information freedom, the questions then become: Will free public access to these education resources endure and continue to expand? Or will the future bring erosion to available information and resources due to economic or political pressures? We certainly cannot answer 5

these questions in this volume, but we urge our readers to keep these important education questions in mind when forming and refining opinions about the function and utility of online tools in chemical education.

Acknowledgments We thank Anderson Marsh and Layne Morsch for co-organizing national symposia on this important topic with us, and we acknowledge the ACS Division of Chemical Education for sponsoring these symposia. We also express our gratitude to the Harvard Paulson School of Engineering, HarvardX and Duke University’s Center for Instructional Technology for funding and their ongoing support of the use of technology in educational endeavors. Cover image credit: Miguel Bordo.

References 1. 2.

http://www.internetworldstats.com/, accessed August 31, 2017. Online Course Development and the Effect on the On-Campus Classroom; Sörensen, P. M., Ed.; ACS Symposium Series 1217; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016. 3. https://cpj.org/2015/04/10-most-censored-countries.php, accessed September 7, 2017. 4. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2016, accessed September 7, 2017. 5. Morozov, E. Whither Internet Control? Journal of Democracy 2011, 22 (2), 62–74. 6. Hanson, F. Internet freedom: The role of the U.S. State Department; The Brookings Institution: Washington, DC, 2012. http://www.brookings.edu/ research/reports/2012/10/25-ediplomacy-hanson-Internet-freedo, accessed September 7, 2017. 7. Hense, R.; Wright, C. The Development of the Attitudes Toward Censorship Questionnaire. J. Appl. Soc. Psychology 1992, 22 (21), 1666–1675. 8. Shen, F. Internet Use, Freedom Supply, and Demand for Internet Freedom: A Cross-National Study of 20 Countries. Int. J. Commun. 2017, 11, 2093–2114. 9. http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/motm.htm, accessed September 7, 2017. 10. May, P. W.; Cotton, S. A.; Harrison, K.; Rzepa, H. S. The ‘Molecule of the Month’ website—An extraordinary chemistry educational resource online for over 20 years. Molecules 2017, 22 (4), 549. 11. See for example: http://www.wwpdb.org/ and http://nmrshiftdb.nmr.unikoeln.de/, accessed October 9, 2017. 12. Belford, R.; Moore, E. B. ConfChem Conference on Interactive Visualizations for Chemistry Teaching and Learning: An Introduction. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (6), 1040–1041. 6

Chapter 2

Improving Preparation and Persistence in Undergraduate STEM: Why an Online Summer Preparatory Chemistry Course Makes Sense Derek Dockter,*,1 Catherine Uvarov,2 Alberto Guzman-Alvarez,3 and Marco Molinaro4 1School

of Education, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616, United States 2Department of Chemistry, Fresno City College, 1101 East University Avenue, Fresno, California 93741, United States 3School of Education, University of Pittsburgh, 230 South Bouquet Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, United States 4Center for Educational Effectiveness, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616, United States *E-mail: [email protected]. Additional e-mails: [email protected]. [email protected]. [email protected].

General chemistry is a foundational course that serves as a gateway to many STEM degrees. A high level of preparedness and motivation to succeed in STEM coursework correlates with success in general chemistry courses, and general chemistry is vital to persistence of students in STEM. Studies have indicated that an increasing number of students, especially underrepresented minority populations, placed into preparatory chemistry courses do not advance to general chemistry. This lack of advancement is an indicator that a one-size-fits-all preparatory chemistry course does not sufficiently target students’ cognitive and non-cognitive needs. In order to better support, prepare, and motivate students in STEM at UC Davis, an online, adaptive-responsive summer preparatory © 2017 American Chemical Society

chemistry course (SP-Chem using ALEKS) was piloted as an alternative to placement exams and the fall, classroom-based preparatory chemistry course (WLD-41C) used for placement into general chemistry. Student performance in general chemistry was comparatively evaluated for four placement paths (SP-Chem, WLD-41C, placement exams, and repeating the course). Additionally, indicators of STEM persistence, namely student motivation and STEM identity, were surveyed and comparatively evaluated. Our findings of the effectiveness of an online, adaptive-responsive preparatory chemistry course, using both cognitive and non-cognitive measures, demonstrate the promise that online learning during the summer holds for improving student performance and persistence in general chemistry and STEM coursework.

Introduction Why are so many promising students who are accepted into colleges and universities to study STEM leaving these majors during their freshman years (1–3)? While high student attrition from STEM during freshman year is often attributed to the “weeding out” that occurs during foundational STEM courses, general chemistry, often the first STEM course taken in college, has become a prominent barrier to many freshman students pursuing STEM degrees (3). However, the stark reality is that many freshman STEM students are leaving STEM even before enrolling in a general chemistry course. The literature suggests an intriguing reason: while traditional preparatory or “workload” chemistry courses may be preparing some students for general chemistry, they also appear to be discouraging a significant number of students from continuing in STEM, especially within underrepresented minority populations (3). A tremendous challenge to keeping many undergraduate students on track to graduate in four years is their unpreparedness for college-level work upon entering college (4). For students pursuing STEM degrees, general college chemistry is a gateway course. However, for many students who complete a traditional preparatory chemistry course, the course instead becomes a gate keeper course, and their pursuit of a STEM degree is short-lived. Across various institutions, it is reported that “20-50% of the qualified students that satisfactorily complete a [preparatory] course [in chemistry] do not continue” into general chemistry (1). As a means of understanding student attrition within American institutions, this chapter begins by briefly illuminating the cognitive and non-cognitive barriers to achievement and persistence that likely contribute to the incoming experience gap and staggering student attrition from STEM. After describing these barriers, the discussion turns to the unique role that summer vacation, paired with ever-advancing online learning and social media technology, can play in closing the experience gap and decreasing student attrition. The balance of the chapter is devoted to the discussion of our pilot study of an online summer preparatory 8

chemistry course at the University of California, Davis. Within the discussion of the pilot study, our approach of evaluating the efficacy of the pilot course by measuring both cognitive (academic performance) and non-cognitive (motivation and STEM identity) student-level indicators of persistence is described. The following terms are operationally defined to add clarity to the content of this chapter: Preparatory chemistry is a high-school-level course offered by a university to students who have been deemed unprepared for college-level general chemistry, by either lack of previous chemistry coursework or via placement exam(s), in order to prepare them for undergraduate chemistry coursework. Workload chemistry course is a preparatory chemistry course that counts for units toward full-time student status but not for college credits. The workload chemistry course at UC Davis is WLD-41C. STEM is defined in this paper as majors or coursework in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In this chapter, there is less emphasis on mathematics, since chemistry is unlikely to be a required course for mathematics majors. Persistence is defined as a student’s tendency to progress in a course sequence into higher-level chemistry and/or college-level STEM coursework (towards a STEM degree). A gateway course is defined as a foundational STEM course required for STEM majors. A gatekeeper course is defined as a preparatory or foundational STEM course that often dictates whether a student will advance beyond the course into other required courses in their STEM major. Barriers to Success in Chemistry and Undergraduate STEM Coursework Applying a critical lens to the disproportional number of underrepresented minority students in preparatory chemistry courses, it has been found that “structural inequalities [in the STEM pipeline] due to social stratification [of intervention programs]” impedes learning for many students who enter the university unprepared for college-level coursework (5). Indeed, fall-based preparatory courses run the risk of creating “off-sequence” subpopulations that are distinctly different from the “on-sequence students”, effectively tracking students based on incoming differences in experience (6). While differing levels of student readiness for general STEM coursework can likely be attributed, at least in part, to variation in the quality of students’ K-12 academic preparation, the issue is further complicated by the conflation of “college eligibility” and “college readiness” (7). In reality, student eligibility 9

for college does not always correspond with student readiness for college, a notion that is beginning to manifest itself in the ways that schools prepare their students for college-level work, rather than merely focusing on fulfilling eligibility requirements (7, 8). While admission criteria are important for improving access to colleges, they are merely a first-step to supporting students of differing experience for success in rigorous undergraduate courses (9–12). [It is worth noting that high school chemistry courses in California (the site of the study described later in this chapter) have been redefined as sophomore-level courses in recent years (in comparison to previous years when the courses were predominantly junior-level courses). This redesignation has resulted in a two-year gap between high school chemistry and college chemistry, which may explain some of the unpreparedness of California students for college-level chemistry.] Once students are admitted and attending a university, campus conditions and assumptions about students’ cognitive (academic) ability may present further barriers, especially among underrepresented minority student populations. Students found to be inadequately prepared for college-level science coursework are frequently viewed as not “cut” out for science coursework (3, 13). These pervasive assumptions about students’ cognitive abilities often preclude any consideration of the non-cognitive, student-level features, namely motivation and STEM-identity, found to contribute to student success and persistence in STEM, especially for underrepresented minority students (14–16). While entering students may meet the academic criteria for admissions into a university, students’ past experiences and their expectations about college may be vastly different (17). Without the necessary development of cultural capital and/or social capital prior to undergraduate education, students gain limited access to the educational institution (and support resources) and may feel like perpetual outsiders constantly trying to convince themselves and others that they belong (13, 18). Pierre Bourdieu defined cultural capital as “the knowledge, skills, and behaviors that are transmitted to an individual within their sociocultural context through pedagogic action” (19). Furthermore, Lareau and Weininger describe “culture as a resource”, often transmitted between generations, that provides access to “scarce rewards” (20). Social capital is described as a “resource for action” that is socially constructed through interactions with others (21). These theories draw attention to the importance of understanding students’ non-cognitive features that are socially and culturally situated. Collectively, the research suggests that properly supporting incoming students for undergraduate coursework requires that attention be paid to the nurturing of both cognitive and non-cognitive (22) student-level features that contribute to persistence. The Potential of an Online Summer Chemistry Preparatory Course In addressing this incoming experience gap, summer becomes a strategically important and valuable time. Downey, Von Hippel, and Broh suggest that the achievement gap actually narrows during the school year, but widens during the summer as a result of “inequality…in children’s disparate non-school environments” (23). This “summer slide” during K-12 education and college 10

preparation, attributable to the influence of students’ home and community life, has a lasting impact on student academic performance and tracking (24), likely extending into college and beginning coursework. In addressing the “summer slide”, the research on summer bridge programs reinforces the potential of a summer program for nurturing both cognitive and non-cognitive student-level features (25). Unfortunately, costly summer bridge programs that take place on campuses are limited by the students’ availability and susceptible to institutional budgetary constraints, likely diminishing their reach and impact. Fortunately, advancements in online learning are emerging as feasible alternatives to in-person instruction. In exploring the conditions for student retention, educational theorist Vincent Tinto prescribes a plan for “institutional action” that emphasizes clear expectations, adequate support, and an “environment rich in assessment and feedback about student progress” (17). Since the ground-breaking work on computer-based “cognitive tutors” in the 1990’s (26), advancements in artificial intelligence and adaptive learning technology are increasingly able to fulfill the aforementioned conditions through differentiated instruction based on the specific needs of individual students (27, 28). In tailoring learning to individuals’ unique needs, it is conceivable that these online learning programs will encourage students to shift their focus towards increasing ability (reflective of an incremental or growth mindset), rather than seeking validation from an instructor (reflective of an entity or fixed mindset), a shift that has been found to contribute to academic success and persistence (29, 30). Furthermore, students’ early exposure to chemistry content over the summer may nurture incoming STEM identity, while helping to overcome stereotype threat and/or the “capital deficits [that likely contribute to] the lagging achievement of minority groups” (31). That being said, while interacting with a computer-based learning system may bolster chemistry knowledge and some cultural capital, students must also have the opportunity to interact with others to develop the necessary social capital, as successful in-person programs have shown (18, 21, 25, 32, 33). Advancements in online social media allow us to leverage summer’s strategic potential for the early development of social and cultural capital. As alternatives to in-person methods, students can engage with peers and university faculty/staff through community message boards (i.e. Piazza.com), video chats (via Skype, Facetime, or Google) and email throughout an online course. As Wellman, Haase, Witte, and Hampton suggest, “internet use increases participatory capital”, meaning that online interactions between students and faculty will likely translate to student interaction and participation offline (34). Such findings suggest that the benefits of face-to-face connections made during campus-based courses and programs may be emulated using online social networking, chat, and email. Motivated by the aforementioned research, we posit that an online, summer chemistry preparatory course holds great promise for improving cognitive preparation for general chemistry, while also nurturing non-cognitive, student-level indicators of persistence. In order to test this idea, we piloted an online chemistry preparatory course (SP-Chem) during the summer of 2015. The balance of this chapter is devoted to the design and findings of our pilot study. 11

Pilot Study of an Online Summer Preparatory Chemistry Course Background At the University of California, Davis (UC Davis), approximately 4000 students take general chemistry (CHE 2A) each year. Approximately 800-900 students (with a disproportionately high number of underrepresented students) take the classroom-based workload chemistry course (WLD-41C) each fall (2). Of the 2,853 UC Davis students who placed into workload chemistry from 2009 to 2012, only 59.5% went on to general chemistry (2). More than 40% of UC Davis students who placed into workload chemistry decided not to take this preparatory course or chose not to continue into general chemistry after completing the workload course.

Overview of the Study With the goal of informing policy on placement into and preparation for general chemistry (CHE 2A) at UC Davis, and a desire to decrease attrition in STEM, we conducted a pilot study of an online summer preparatory chemistry course (SP-Chem) for incoming freshman, utilizing the adaptive-responsive ALEKS Chemistry learning system (www.aleks.com) (35). Students participating in the SP-Chem course received targeted online preparation (using ALEKS) with available online mentoring, tutoring, accountability, and social networking. The study was conducted out of the Center for Educational Effectiveness (CEE) at UC Davis.

About the SP-Chem (Using ALEKS) Preparatory Chemistry Course The standard ALEKS Gen Chem Prep (35) course was used as a base for creating the Summer Preparatory Course (SP-Chem). The Gen Chem Prep class is a self-paced course designed to prepare students for college-level general chemistry. Modifications to the existing Gen Chem Prep course were made in creating the summer preparatory course (SP-Chem) at UC Davis. Ten thermochemistry topics were removed from the Gen Chem Prep class, since thermochemistry is not taught in the first quarter of General Chemistry at UC Davis. A few additional “basic reactions” topics were added to mirror topics taught in the in-person preparatory course (WLD-41C). These additions included topics regarding precipitation, acid-base, and oxidation-reduction reactions. The list of selected topics was sent to general chemistry instructors for feedback. In total, there were 61 math and physics topics, 27 measurement topics, 14 matter topics, 7 atoms and ions topics, 16 chemical compound topics, 21 stoichiometry topics, and 7 basic reaction topics selected for a grand total of 153 topics. A mastery level of 95% (or higher) of these topics constituted successful completion 12

of the SP-Chem course and qualified students for general chemistry (CHE 2A). Additionally, the option to enforce significant figure rules, with warnings, was selected. Although the in-person preparatory course (WLD-41C) also covers shapes of molecules and the ideal gas law, no topics regarding those concepts were available in the Gen Chem Prep standard course, so they were excluded from the online preparatory chemistry course. During the course, mentoring and tutoring were made available through social media. These included face-to-face help via skype (Skype.com) and an online peer community (Piazza.com) that were available throughout the SP-Chem course. To provide accountability, we sent out emails periodically with progress updates, reminders, and offers to help with both the learning system and chemistry content.

Hypothesis and Study Objectives We hypothesized that STEM students who complete an online preparatory chemistry course (SP-Chem) during the summer would be more motivated and prepared for success in general chemistry (and subsequent STEM courses) than comparable students who complete the classroom-based preparatory chemistry course (WLD-41C) during fall quarter. To test this hypothesis, we designed the study to accomplish the following specific objectives: 1) Investigate student performance in CHE 2A of freshmen who complete a highly-targeted, online summer preparatory chemistry course (SP-Chem) versus freshman students who enter CHE 2A by the current paths: either by placement exams (direct placement), by completing the classroombased preparatory chemistry course (WLD-41C), or through repeating the course. [At UC Davis, placement via exams requires that students earn passing scores on both the chemistry and mathematics placement exams.] 2) Test the effects of a highly-targeted, online summer preparatory chemistry course (SP-Chem) on student motivation in comparison to students who take the classroom-based preparatory chemistry course (WLD-41C), as measured using the MUSIC® Model of Academic Motivation Inventory survey instrument (36, 37). 3) Test the effects of a highly-targeted, online summer preparatory chemistry course (SP-Chem) on incoming students’ STEM identification, STEM-related ability beliefs, and STEM persistence in comparison to students who take the classroom-based preparatory chemistry (WLD-41C), using additional survey items (15, 38, 39). Our evaluation of the SP-Chem pilot course was intended to determine the efficacy of the online preparatory chemistry course (SP-Chem) for broader implementation at UC Davis. 13

Methodology for Evaluating the Online Summer Preparatory Chemistry Course During spring of 2015, students were randomly sampled from all incoming UC Davis freshmen to participate in the SP-Chem preparatory course. Of the 1099 students invited (via email) to participate in the pilot course, 565 chose to register for the course, and 274 completed the course to the required 95% mastery or above (an arbitrary cutoff defining high mastery). Data collected during this pilot study was used to comparatively assess the impact of the SP-Chem preparatory chemistry course on academic performance, motivation and STEM identity of students who enrolled in general chemistry (CHE 2A). Given that academic preparation/performance is not a sole contributor to persistence, our data collection methodology enabled us to investigate both cognitive and non-cognitive indicators of persistence, the latter of which culminates from the aforementioned sociocultural and identity elements of student persistence (5, 29, 40–42). Williams suggests that “critical examination of pipeline interventions [are necessary] to investigate intervention efficacy in a way that better acknowledges underrepresented students’ experiences within interventions” (5). Hence, there is a need for evaluating student-level features of motivation and STEM identity as they relate to student persistence and the impact of preparatory coursework. In a study by Tracey and Sedlacek comparing the persistence of white and black college students, they found that: For black students, traditional academic ability was related to first semester GPA, but neither GPA nor academic ability was related to persistence. Only the non-cognitive dimensions were predictive of black student persistence. For white students, academic ability was the best predictor of first semester grades, and these grades were the major predictor of subsequent persistence. The non-cognitive dimensions were not important in white student academic success, whereas they were crucial in black student academic success (41). Since cognitive and non-cognitive features contribute differentially to persistence for different student demographic groups, we opted to evaluate the effectiveness of our pilot course by looking at students’ academic performance (cognitive) across the various pathways into CHE 2A, as well as students’ motivation and STEM identity features (non-cognitive), relative to the two preparatory courses. The measures of motivation and STEM identity employed in this study were designed to evaluate the impact of specific courses on these non-cognitive, student-level features. Therefore, no such measurements were collected for students who passed the placement exams or who were repeating the course. A brief overview of our methodology for measuring and evaluating cognitive indicators is described next, followed by a more thorough description of the comprehensive MUSIC Model of motivation (22, 36) and the survey instruments employed to measure non-cognitive indicators of persistence. 14

Measuring Cognitive Indicators of Persistence (Academic Performance) Data on student performance in CHE 2A (the first course in the general chemistry series at UC Davis) was collected during Fall Quarter 2015 for students who completed SP-Chem and during Winter Quarter 2016 for students who completed WLD-41C. Performance data for students who placed into CHE 2A via placement exams or as “repeaters” was also collected during the same two quarters. Multiple linear regression (using IBM SPSS Statistics 23 analytics software (43)) was employed to model and comparatively evaluate student learning gains (post % - pre % on common assessments) and common final exam scores between the comparison groups (SP-Chem, n=209; Direct Placement, n=2350; WLD-41C, n=686; Repeater, n=130). Student’s pre-assessment score, SAT score, underrepresented minority (URM) status, and first-generation status were used as covariates in the final regression model. These covariates allowed us to control for student demographic differences between placement pathways within a robust regression model. Two additional variables, gender and STEM major, were found not to be statistically significant and were omitted from the final regression model.

Measuring Non-Cognitive Indicators of Persistence (Motivation and STEM Identity) Non-cognitive indicators (motivation and STEM identity) of student persistence for both the SP-Chem and WLD-41C students were measured using the MUSIC® Model of Academic Motivation Inventory (37) survey instrument and additional STEM Identity survey items. Surveys were distributed via email (during the second week of general chemistry) to all students who completed the SP-Chem or WLD-41C preparatory courses. To access and complete the online Qualtrics (44) survey, students were required to use their unique campus login, ensuring the security and integrity of the survey. In total, 138 (50.4%) of the students who completed SP-Chem and 394 (51.2%) of the students who passed WLD-41C completed the survey. An overview of the MUSIC® Model of Academic Motivation (22, 45), the associated motivation survey instrument (37), and additional STEM identity survey items are described next.

The MUSIC® Model of Academic Motivation The MUSIC® Model of Academic Motivation, developed over 10 years by educational psychologist Brett Jones in the School of Education at Virginia Tech, encompasses various features of coursework that “engage students in learning” (22, 36, 45). The MUSIC® Model components are derived from constructs and theories that illuminate the importance of empowerment, usefulness, success, 15

interest, and caring on student motivation and engagement (22, 45). Definitions for these five MUSIC® Model components are provided in Table 1. [The related constructs presented in Table 1 will be described further in the MUSIC® Model Inventory and STEM Identity Survey Instruments section of this chapter.] Some of the numerous theories and constructs employed in the development of the MUSIC® Model are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. However, these summaries are merely a sample of the various theories and constructs that inform the robust MUSIC® Model (22, 36, 45). [A construct is a psychological characteristic of a person that cannot be directly observed, but may be measured via indirect measurements (46). For example, in this study, survey instruments were used to measure the five MUSIC® Model constructs and STEM identity constructs (46). A theory explains a phenomenon and may incorporate multiple constructs. In this study, multiple theories, and the constructs that they incorporate, inform the MUSIC® Model (46).] Evaluating the degree to which the MUSIC® Model constructs are perceived by preparatory chemistry students is useful in determining the contribution of the course to student motivation and persistence.

Table 1. The MUSIC® Inventory Constructs and Their Definitions MUSIC Model constructs

Definitions (The degree to which a student perceives that…

Related Constructs

eMpowerment

he or she has control of his or her learning environment in the course.

Autonomy (47, 48)

Usefulness

the coursework is useful to his or her future.

Utility value (49)

Success

he or she can succeed at the coursework.

Expectancy for success (49)

Interest

the instructional methods and coursework are interesting.

Situational interest (50)

Caring

the instructor cares about whether the student succeeds in the coursework and cares about the student’s well-being.

Caring (51)

From the “User Guide for Assessing the Components of the MUSIC® Model of Motivation” (https://www.theMUSICmodel.com), by B. D. Jones, 2015. Copyright 2015 by Brett D. Jones. Reprinted with permission.

16

Table 2. Some Theories Contributing to the MUSIC® Model of Motivation Description

Theory Selfdetermination

Suggests that “inherent growth tendencies and innate psychological needs,” namely the need for competence, relatedness, and autonomy, are what drive peoples’ self-motivation (52).

Future Time Perspective

Suggests that short-term and long-term goal setting plays a major role in motivation, with “future-oriented” people demonstrating greater motivation (53). In a study by Hicks et. al., as a person’s time perspective changes, so does the person’s sense of purpose, goals, and “values that guide one’s behavior,” collectively termed “meaning in life (MIL)” (53, 54).

Self-concept

Suggests that people’s concepts of themselves affect their values, attainment, and their perceived “utility value of academic work” (55). Within the context of ethnic and social class differences, students may “disidentify with academic values in part because…they come to believe that academic outcomes are determined by forces over which they have no control” (55).

Self-efficacy

Suggests that motivation is rooted in a person’s belief in and self-judgment of their capabilities as students, the latter (judgements) arising out of what Bandura refers to as “actual experience, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological arousal” (55).

Self-worth

Suggests that “the tendency to establish and maintain a positive self-image, or sense of self-worth” motivates students to “maximize, or at least protect, their sense of academic competence” (39).

Goal

Suggests that “people engage in the same behavior for different reasons,” and that students’ motivation in school is not always driven by “the goals of learning, mastering, or understanding” (55). Furthermore, goal theorists recognize that to change a student’s “maladaptive behaviors” requires a change in the student’s goals (55).

Expectancy-value

Suggests that students’ expectancies, values, perceptions of competence, and goals “directly influence performance, persistence, and task choice,” while negotiating between the value and costs associated with specific choices in completing each task (39).

Table 2 was created to concisely present some of the various theories cited by the creators of the MUSIC® Model of Motivation (22, 36, 45).

17

Table 3. Some Constructs Contributing to the MUSIC® Model of Motivation Description

Construct Attainment Value

Related to the self-motivation of self-determination theory, attainment value of a task is determined by how consistent it is with a person’s needs and their “real and desired concept of themselves” (55).

Utility Value

Utility value of an immediate task is determined by its value to broader goals, consistent with future time perspective theory that suggests that long-term goals have a positive impact on motivation (55).

Intrinsic Value

Intrinsic value of a task , related to intrinsic motivation, is the “immediate enjoyment one gets from doing a task” (55).

Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivation can be further defined as the “natural inclination toward assimilation, mastery, spontaneous interest, and exploration that is so essential to cognitive and social development and that represents a principal source of enjoyment and vitality throughout life” (52).

Identification with a Domain

Identification with a domain is described as how much a student defines him/herself through their role in a domain (15).

Table 3 was created to concisely present some of the various constructs cited by the creators of the MUSIC® Model of Motivation (22, 36, 45).

STEM Identity The contribution of the various motivation theories and constructs in the MUSIC® Model reflect the complex and dynamic nature of student motivation and students self-perceived identity within a domain. Students’ identification with a STEM domain can be defined as: The extent to which students define themselves through a role or performance in activities related to the domain, such as engineering. That is, domain identification is the degree to which a student values the domain as an important part of his or her “self” (15). STEM identity is impacted both intrinsically and extrinsically, insofar as the course or program facilitates STEM identity development. This “domain identification has been linked to positive outcomes such as classroom participation and achievement, deep cognitive processing of course material and self-regulation, grade point average and academic honors, decreased behavioral referrals and absenteeism, and intention to pursue a career in [the domain]” (15). Therefore, domain identification can be viewed as contributing to persistence. In a study of first year engineering students, Jones, Tendhar, and Paretti found that four of the five aforementioned factors of the MUSIC® Model (empowerment, usefulness, success, and caring) of student motivation, were “statistically related 18

to students’ engineering identification, which then predicted their major and career goals” (38). These findings suggest that motivation and STEM identity are intimately intertwined as key contributors to student persistence in STEM. Therefore, the degree to which courses, curriculum, and educational strategies nurture student motivation and identification with the STEM domain directly impacts student persistence in the domain (15, 16, 38).

The MUSIC® Model Inventory and STEM Identity Survey Instruments The MUSIC® Model of Academic Motivation Inventory (MMAMI) survey instrument was developed by Brett Jones to measure student motivation attributable to a specific course (36, 37). The developers of the MMAMI assert that the instrument is a practical and validated (56) way to measure the constructs that illuminate the importance of empowerment (survey items 2,8,12,17,26), usefulness (items 3,5,19, 21,23), success (survey items 7,10, 14, 18), interest (survey items 1,6,9,11,13,15), and caring (survey items 4,16,20,22,24,25) on student motivation and engagement (22, 37). To measure students’ perception of each of the MUSIC® Model components, the developers of the MMAMI chose to align each component with an existing construct, as shown in the right column of Table 1 (37). Although these constructs were chosen to measure students’ perception with the MMAMI survey, other constructs could also be used to effectively measure student perceptions of the components of the MUSIC® Model (57). The MMAMI survey instrument was designed to measure these factors as they relate to a specific course. Sample MMAMI survey items are shown in Table 4, and a complete list of the MMAMI survey items can be found in the User Guide for Assessing the Components of the MUSIC Model of Motivation (37). For this study, minor alterations to the survey items were made to reflect the courses surveyed. The word “course” was replaced in the survey items with either “SP-Chem” or “WLD-41C”, and “instructor” was replaced with “support person” for the SP-Chem course survey. STEM Identification, STEM-related ability beliefs, and STEM persistence and career-related beliefs were measured using additional survey items adapted from the work of Brett Jones at Virginia Tech, which draws upon the STEM identity work of Jacquelynne Eccles and others (15, 16, 38, 39, 58–60). These additional items, borrowed from various survey studies, measure STEM identification (four items) (15, 16, 38), STEM-related ability beliefs (3 items) (58), and STEM persistence and career-related beliefs (4 items) (59, 60). Unlike the MMAMI survey items, these additional STEM self-identity survey items provide measurements of students’ self-perceived identity that may be attributable to student experiences beyond the course. The STEM self-identity items were interspersed among the 26 MUSIC Inventory® items in the surveys administered to students. Sample STEM identity survey items are shown in Table 4, and a complete list of the STEM identity survey items can be found in Appendix A. 19

In completing the survey comprised of both the MMAMI and STEM selfidentity items, students were asked to respond to each statement on a six-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat disagree, 4 = Somewhat agree, 5 = Agree, 6 = Strongly Agree). Written permission to use both the MUSIC® Model of Academic Motivation Inventory survey items, and the additional STEM survey items was granted by Brett Jones at Virginia Tech (61).

Table 4. Examples of Survey Items for Each of the Five Components of the MUSIC® Model of Academic Motivation Inventory (MMAMI) and the Three Components of STEM Identity Construct

Survey Item

eMpowerment

I had the opportunity to decide for myself how to meet the SP-Chem/WLD-41C goals.

Usefulness

I will be able to use the knowledge I gained in SP-Chem/WLD-41C.

Success

I was capable of getting a passing score/grade in SP-Chem/WLD-41C.

Interest

The instructional methods used in SP-Chem/WLD-41C held my attention.

Caring

A support person/instructor was willing to assist me if I needed help with/in SP-Chem/the WLD-41C course.

STEM Identification

Being good in STEM is an important part of who I am.

STEM-related Ability Beliefs

If you were to order all the students in your science-related courses from the worst to the best in science-related ability, where would you put yourself? (1 = among the worst; 6= among the best).

STEM Persistence and Career-related Items

In the future, I will have a career that requires me to have STEM skills.

Preliminary Results and Findings Employing the aforementioned quantitative (multiple linear regression of learning gains and final exam scores) and qualitative (MUSIC Inventory® and STEM Identity survey instruments) methods, our pilot study produced the following results: 20

Cognitive Indicators of Persistence (Academic Performance) On the post-pre assessment (Figure 1A), evaluating students’ knowledge growth during the first general chemistry course, we found no statistically significant difference between students who directly placed into CHE 2A and students who finished SP-Chem (using ALEKS) (p = 0.177). However, on average, students who finished SP-Chem gained a statistically significant 6.9 percentage points more than WLD-41C students (p < 0.001) and 11.5 percentage points higher than students who were repeating the course (p < 0.001). On the final exam (Figure 1B), measuring students’ knowledge at the end of the first general chemistry course (CHE 2A), we found similar results. There was no statistically significant difference between students who directly placed into CHE 2A and students who completed SP-Chem (p = 0.146). However, on average, students who completed SP-Chem scored a statistically significant 9.9 percentage points higher on the final exam than WLD-41C students (p < 0.001) and 14.4 percentage points higher than students who were repeating the general chemistry course (p