The flipped classroom v2 9780841231436, 0841231435, 9780841231627, 0841231621, 9780841231610

Citation preview

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.fw001

The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice

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

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.fw001

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

ACS SYMPOSIUM SERIES 1228

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.fw001

The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice Jennifer L. Muzyka, Editor Centre College Danville, Kentucky

Christopher S. Luker, Editor Highland Local Schools Medina, Ohio

Sponsored by the ACS Division of Chemical Education

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

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

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.fw001

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Muzyka, Jennifer L., editor. | Luker, Christopher S., editor. | American Chemical Society. Division of Chemical Education. Title: The flipped classroom volume 2: results from practice / Jennifer L. Muzyka, editor, Centre College, Danville, Kentucky, Christopher S. Luker, editor, Highland Local Schools, Medina, Ohio ; sponsored by the ACS Division of Chemical Education. Description: Washington, DC : American Chemical Society, [2016]- | Series: ACS symposium series ; 1223, 1228 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016038824 (print) | LCCN 2016055070 (ebook) | ISBN 9780841231436 (v. 1) | ISBN 9780841231627 (v. 2) | ISBN 9780841231610 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Chemistry--Study and teaching. | Active learning. | Instructional systems--Design. Classification: LCC QD40 .F535 2016 (print) | LCC QD40 (ebook) | DDC 540.71--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016038824

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

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.fw001

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

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

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.pr001

Preface A full introduction to the flipped classroom and its history can be found in Chapter 1 of the first volume of this collection. Below is the description of the content in both Volume 1 and Volume 2 of this book, which also appears in Volume 1. Volume 1 of this collection starts by demonstrating how faculty members generate buy-in for novel pedagogical methods. Swearingen describes how she flipped the syllabus in her general chemistry course at John Brown University, introducing students to the novel approach and generating buy-in among students for the method. Next, the reader is introduced to logistics of implementing the flipped classroom. Storer describes his implementation of the flipped classroom in a general chemistry course at a community college in rural Ohio. An important characteristic of this course is that it served as a dual enrollment course for high school students in the region, many of whom did not have Internet access in their homes. His creative approach demonstrates logistics that make flipping possible even in challenging circumstances. The next few chapters describe different methods used in flipped courses, transitioning into the educational theory behind the flipped course. Although most flipping of chemistry courses happens in general chemistry, the following two chapters both focus on physical chemistry courses. Goss describes the use of Justin-Time Teaching combined with screencast videos that demonstrate the use of a symbolic math program like Mathematica to flip her physical chemistry courses at Idaho State University. Hagen describes the use of team-based learning (TBL) to flip his thermodynamics course. Morsch’s organic chemistry course is atypical, as each student is required to bring his or her own iPad to participate in the course. Morsch’s students access preclass videos on iTunes U and read assigned text on the ChemWiki. Students use a variety of apps on their iPad devices to respond to questions that Morsch poses. Morsch introduces the cognitive load theory to explain and interpret enhanced grades and student responses to surveys about the teaching method. Lekhi’s general chemistry students at the University of British Columbia are being challenged to develop skills that will enable them to productively participate in research projects. She explains how the flipped classroom promotes in these students a more sophisticated epistemology as they develop these research-ready process skills. Of the chemists who are aware of the flipped classroom, many believe that the approach can only work in small classes. Several authors in this collection (Stoltzfus, Link, Soult, and Yestrebsky) dispel that notion, describing their successful implementations in courses that have over two hundred ix Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.pr001

students. Stoltzfus teaches general chemistry at The Ohio State University. Link teaches organic chemistry at University of California, Irvine. Soult teaches general-organic-biochemistry for nurses at the University of Kentucky. Yestrebsky teaches general chemistry at University of Central Florida. Yestrebsky presents data demonstrating that average students benefit from the flipped teaching, with larger percentages of A’s and B’s in the flipped course than in a matched lecture course. The chapters in Volume 2 of this collection provide further data about how flipping influenced their students’ learning. Most authors found enhanced learning (Yestrebsky, Casadonte, Haak, Read, Houseknecht, Esson, and Muth); one reports similar grades (Maloney) in a course that previously included significant amounts of active learning. Casadonte flipped his honors general chemistry course at Texas Tech University. Haak describes a hybrid course with reduced face-to-face time for a general chemistry course at Oregon State University. Read describes partial flipping at University of Southampton. Houseknecht implemented Just-in-Time Teaching in organic chemistry at Wittenberg University, having students generate iPad screencasts in groups. Maloney teaches organic chemistry courses for classes of biology majors with up to 100 students. Esson flipped both general and analytical chemistry at Otterbein University. Finally, Muth describes his flipped biochemistry course at St. Olaf College.

Jennifer L. Muzyka Department of Chemistry, Centre College 600 W. Walnut St. Danville, Kentucky 40422 [email protected] (e-mail)

Christopher S. Luker Highland Local Schools 4150 Ridge Rd. Medina, Ohio 44256 [email protected] (e-mail)

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

Chapter 1

Direct Comparison of Flipping in the Large Lecture Environment Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

Cherie L. Yestrebsky* Chemistry Department, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida 32816, United States *E-mail: [email protected]

Very large lecture-based classes are a commonly used teaching mode at high-population universities. To ascertain the effectiveness of ‘flipping the classroom’ in these classes, a study focused on the change in the presentation mode: in-person lectures versus recorded lectures posted online with problem solving during class time. The study involved two very large classes (320 and 415 students) of second-semester general chemistry students taught by the same instructor. One class was taught in the traditional lecture format normally used within the department with example problems posted online. The other class was taught using a flipped protocol and those students accessed all lectures online with class time devoted to instructor-led examples and small group problem solving. Final grades were compared between the two groups and results showed that students in the flipped class had a greater percentage of high grades (‘A’ and ‘B’ grades) compared to the control group. The control group had more ‘C’ or average grades but the two groups had almost identical percentages of low grades (‘D’ and ‘F’). This suggests that the average performing students were aided by this teaching method compared to the traditional teaching format. Surveys that were administered to each class at the end of the semester revealed that students in the flipped class found the online instruction valuable; 86% watched at least some recorded lectures more than once and 68% responded that they would take another class using this teaching method. The control class expressed a high evaluation of the in-class instruction but did not express © 2016 American Chemical Society Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

a high evaluation of the example problems and slides (without recorded lecture) provided online.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

Introduction The concept of ‘flipping the classroom’ or ‘flipping’ has received considerable interest in recent years (1–4). The basic concept refers to a classroom where students reverse the normal lecture-class routine of listening and observing an instructor during class time with homework and practice outside of class. In a flipped classroom, students listen to and watch the videotaped lecture or other instruction on their own, often via some form of access to the internet, and class time is used for discussion, independent work with teacher guidance, group work, peer instruction, teacher led examples, etc. Much of the published literature on the topic focuses on examples in relatively small classrooms of less than 50 students while far fewer publications focus on college-level, large lecture course studies of this mode of teaching. The passive learning environment of a large science lecture presents fertile ground for testing better methods of engaging students. Motivated instructors can certainly engage many students but the interaction with students in this environment is limited. Therefore, if a student has a question, he/she is likely too intimidated to interrupt the lecture and relatively few will reach out to the instructor during office hours. Flipping is an effort to engage students in active learning, which requires learners to take some responsibility for their own learning experience. College-level studies have shown reductions in DFW grades (5–7) and benefits in final grades of students in courses that involved varying levels of a flipped classroom environment for moderate- and small-sized chemistry courses; however, literature is lacking for flipping the larger classes of over 300 students. Schneider (2015) (8) showed that students liked the flipped classroom environment but there was no improvement in their grades. Other studies have shown little or no benefit as measured in student performance or student opinion of flipping (9) and not all subject areas may benefit from this change in teaching. This study seeks to evaluate the basic concept of flipping in a large chemistry classroom by using a side-by-side comparison of two very large classes, one with 320 students and the other with 415. The intent was to compare the final grades of the two classes, keeping all materials and actions the same with the exception of an in-class lecture versus recorded lectures available through the university’s Webcourses (Learning Management System) site. The goal in this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of flipping to improve the DFW rate for this course.

Methods Description of the Classes This study took place at the University of Central Florida (UCF) Chemistry Department. UCF is a large public institution with over 63,000 students, 86% of whom are undergraduates. Many of our undergraduate students transfer to UCF from regional state colleges. 2 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

Fundamentals of Chemistry II is the second-semester course in a two-semester sequence of the pre-requisite chemistry courses for most science, health, and many engineering majors. The level of college experience of the students in this class varies as shown in Table 1 with sophomore, junior, and senior level students comprising approximately equal populations in the class and with freshman students making up only 8-10% of the class. Fundamentals of Chemistry I is a prerequisite course that introduces students to the theories of chemistry and some simple calculation problems, but is not as mathematics-dependent as the second semester course. Based on past student perception of instruction survey comments, students find the math in Fundamentals of Chemistry II challenging and believe that more examples and help with problem solving would improve their grades. It is not uncommon to have completely full classes with as many as 450 students enrolled at the beginning of the semester. The environment is not ideal for significant interaction with the professor, particularly during lecture. It is taught in a large stadium-seating auditorium using a computer projection onto one or more very large screens, depending on which auditorium is used, with the instructor using a wireless microphone for communication. This does allow for some instructor movement about the classroom, but clarity of voice can diminish due to limited microphone range. There are opportunities for questions from students during class; however, the interaction is limited. Because the auditorium is large, the distance between the instructor and many of the students can cause those students to feel dissociated from interaction with the class. Homework problems are suggested and examples are worked in class by the instructor. Further examples are often uploaded to the class website on the university Webcourses learning management system, as are copies of the lecture slides. The classes are 50 or 75 minutes, depending on the scheduled days (Monday/Wednesday/Friday or Tuesday/ Thursday) that the classes are taught. Grades are determined by four multiple choice exams, the best 10 of 14 quizzes, a final exam (ACS two-semester general chemistry 2011 version), and up to 3% attendance credit. The course is known for having a high DFW rate, so outside the classroom, help is available to students including supplemental instruction, group tutoring through the Student Academic Resource Center, and a department-supported Chemistry Tutoring Center. In order to understand the effect of flipping, the researchers changed only one aspect of the flipped class and kept all other variables constant. Therefore, only the lecture delivery mode was changed for the test class and problem solving periods were used to replace lectures during class time. The specific problems addressed in the flipped class were uploaded to the class website for the traditional class to access so that both classes had the ability to review and study the same worked examples. The traditional and flipped classes had 320 and 415 enrolled students, respectively. Students registered for the classes prior to knowledge of the study and were comprised of overwhelmingly science and engineering majors. The efficacy of using the flipped instructional method was evaluated using two classes of very high enrollment, taught by the same instructor, with only one variable changed, and comparing 1) quiz and exam grades, 2) distribution of final grades, and 3) responses from end-of-semester surveys. Final grades were assigned based on a 3 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

standard 10-point grading scale of 90-100% = A; 80-89.9% = B; 70-79.9% = C; 60-69.9% = D; and below 60% = F. Percentages are calculated based on total points earned divided by total possible class points (800) multiplied by 100. The slides used for the flipped class were identical to those used in the traditional class with the exception of the voice-recording (using a plug-in microphone headset) over PowerPoint slides. One could argue both for and against video recording, but the time and location flexibility provided in preparing slides with voice recording was an important benefit for the instructor. The slides and time periods spent on each chapter were the same. The problems worked out during class time for the flipped class were made available to the students in the control class. The quizzes and exams were of equal difficulty, covering the same topics from the chapters with the same number of applied and conceptual problems. Based on the idea that long modules would lead to bored listeners who might procrastinate listening to lectures, all recorded modules were 18 minutes or less. This equated to one 50-minute lecture for the traditional class and three to four recorded modules for the flipped class for each class period. The recorded modules were then uploaded to the course website. Only the flipped class could access the recorded lectures but both classes could access the slides without the recorded lecture. Each chapter was covered in seven to twelve recorded modules. Dates were assigned for students to complete specific modules and the course calendar was used to communicate these dates. During class time, either the instructor or the students (in small groups or individual) in the flipped class worked on end-of-chapter problems from the course text that corresponded to the material covered in the appropriate lectures. Of the time spent on problem-solving in class, approximately 40% was instructor-led, 40% small-group, and 20% individual work.

Surveys During a two-week period near the end of the semester, both classes completed Student Perception of Instruction (SPOI) surveys, administered online and mandated by the university. The SPOI surveys include general questions regarding professionalism of the instructor, timeliness of assignments and grading, respectfulness of the instructor towards students, and open-ended questions for the students to express their likes and dislikes of various aspects of the course. A second survey was developed specifically for this study and was administered to both classes during class time at the end of the semester. This survey queried students on instructional components that were specific to these courses, including the usage of online materials (both recorded slides for the flipped class and the materials posted for the traditional class), students’ anticipated grade for the class, satisfaction with the course format, and other general likes and dislikes of the course and/or its format. There was no extra credit or incentive offered to students for completing the survey and no penalties for those who did not participate. Participation was voluntary and students’ survey data were aggregated into the data for the study as a whole. 4 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Student demographics and academic ability levels (as indicated by aptitude test scores) for each of the sections were compared from data obtained from the student information system (SIS).

Results

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

Student Demographics Academic experience of the students enrolled in these classes is distributed mostly across the sophomore, junior, and senior level with 8-10 percent at the freshman level. Table 1 illustrates the breakdown of student academic level.

Table 1. Academic level of classes (%) Traditional (N=320)

Flipped (N=415)

Non-degree seeking student

0

2

Freshman

8

10

Sophomore

32

36

Junior

32

28

Senior

27

21

Table 2 illustrates the proportion of males and females in each section. Both sections of chemistry had a higher proportion of females, but were similar overall.

Table 2. Gender distribution of classes (%). Gender

Traditional (N=320)

Flipped (N=415)

Male

46

40

Female

54

60

Table 3 lists the distribution of ethnicity, which varied slightly for each of the courses, with the flipped class enrolling more Asians, while the traditional section had slightly more Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and White/ Caucasian students. 5 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Table 3. Ethnicity distribution of both classes (%).

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

Ethnicity

Traditional (N=320)

Flipped (N=415)

Asian

8

18

Black/African American

12

9

Hispanic/Latino

23

20

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

0

0.2

White/Caucasian

52

48

Multiracial

4

4

Other

1

1

This research did not examine differences in demographics. Students were unaware that they were registering for a flipped or traditional course and it is possible that the disparity in ethnicity is due to day or time of each class and how they fit with the particular student’s schedule. This, however, is outside the scope of this research.

Students’ Prior Academic Ability Measures Table 4 illustrates the differences across the two classes in prior academic ability measures—namely, college entrance exam scores (SAT and ACT) and high school grade point average (GPA). Independent t-test analyses comparing these averages across the two classes found no significant differences (p 90% of students 64 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

typically viewed these recordings, a considerably higher proportion than those who viewed recordings made of scheduled (i.e. non-flipped) lectures. It should be noted that the evaluation methods employed here (and in the second case study) were approved by the University of Southampton’s Ethics and Research Govenance body (ERGO). Students were surveyed at the end of the 2013/ 14 academic year to probe their use of pre-lecture recordings and their perception of the impact they had on their learning. The survey, which was not validated, was designed to probe the student response to partial flipping in terms of the impact on confidence, and perceived impacts on learning. Seventeen students completed the survey, a response rate of over 50% of the 32 students who took the final exam. Data relating to Likert scale response items is illustrated in Table 1. Key points are the fact that students report increased confidence in a range of different contexts, most notably with regard to answering questions orally in class. Of particular importance, bearing in mind the overarching objectives of this work, is the fact that a large portion of students report increased confidence in studying chemistry independently.

Table 1. Students’ views regarding the value of flipped lectures on the Fundamentals of Chemistry module in 2013/14a

a

SA

A

N

D

SD

The flipped lectures meant I spent more time studying chemistry than I otherwise would have.

6

3

2

5

1

The flipped lectures have increased my confidence when solving problems.

5

5

7

0

0

The flipped lectures have increased my confidence when asking questions in class.

6

4

6

1

0

The flipped lectures have increased my confidence when answering questions (verbal) in class.

10

3

3

1

0

The flipped lectures have increased my confidence when discussing chemical concepts with my peers.

4

6

7

0

0

The flipped lectures have increased my confidence when studying chemistry independently.

6

5

5

0

0

SA = strongly agree; A = agree; N = neutral; D = disagree; SD = strongly disagree

Some insightful qualitative data was also collected through open response questions in the survey, pointing to a number of key benefits from the perspective of the students, which are summarized in Table 2 in the form of extracts from students’ comments. These data indicate that students were able to see the value of the partial flipping approach, and it is particularly gratifying that many of the points made refer to benefits which the educator had hoped to achieve. An additional benefit of analyzing such data is that it supports the implementation of refinements 65 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

in future years, and can also be very persuasive in encouraging colleagues to experiment with similar innovations, as evidenced in the second case study. One particularly eloquent student quote sums up the success of this trial, and is included in its entirety below as a compelling piece of evidence that the partial flipping approach used in this case did indeed achieve its objectives. “I have found the flipped lectures implemented into the syllabus to be an incredibly valuable resource over the last several months. “They are an ingenious way to convey the information prior to a main lecture, giving the students relevant background and understanding in order to constructively contribute in class. “Utilising technology for this purpose allows me time to pause, comprehend and think about how the information being conveyed fits into what has been learnt previously."

2. Enhancing the Flip: Adding Interactivity to Pre-Lecture Videos Using Simple Web Software Outline The positive response to the previous case study encouraged other colleagues to consider utilising partial flipping to support their own teaching. In this case study, a research-focussed academic (JW) worked with the corresponding author and a chemistry education research student (TW) to integrate the partial flipping approach into an organic chemistry module. The instructor (JW) was relatively inexperienced in terms of teaching, having only delivered lectures in organic and bioorganic chemistry during the two preceding academic years. These lectures had generally been delivered utilizing a ‘chalk-and-talk’ approach (43), with students annotating gapped handouts and recording additional notes. The instructor was keen to free up time for more interaction with students during the lectures, prompting the adoption of the partial flipping model for the 14/15 academic year. A further motivation was the fact that junior academics in UK universities are encouraged to implement and evaluate innovative approaches as part of the training they undergo at the start of their teaching career. The case study outlined herein formed part of this process, and contributed to the instructor winning a Vice Chancellor’s Teaching Award in 2015. A further innovation was introduced here in that pre-lecture recordings were augmented with interactivity using the web platform Zaption (44), which allowed the placement of multiple choice and open answer questions at appropriate points in the video. These questions were designed to prompt students to think about key aspects of the theory being taught and to provide the educator with valuable learning analytics and information regarding students’ understanding to guide justin-time teaching during timetabled lectures. Additionally, the time freed up by the flipping of content allowed the introduction of activities to enhance learning during the scheduled lectures, including formative assessment tasks based on concepts covered in pre-lectures. 66 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Table 2. Evidence extracted from student responses to the questions “What are the advantages and disadvantages of using the flipped videos at home as opposed to being taught the material in class?” and “Do you have any other comments on flipped teaching and its effectiveness in helping you to learn?”

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

Benefit

Evidence extracted from student comments

Reduced cognitive load

“…you arent as overwhelmed as perhaps you would have been without them.” “…its nice to not feel rushed or get information overload during the lecture.” “I can pause (when my brain has an overload moment)…” “[it is better than] having to continue with no hope of comprehending the material as you have not grasped a central concept of the topic…” “It feels good to come into class and starting off by feeling content instead of puzzled.” “…Id had an insight into the topic so felt more comfortable in the lecture.”

Better preparation for scheduled lectures

“I can rewind [and] look up in textbook for deeper understanding and I feel very well prepared...” “It allows you to put in some extra research into points…” “…it gave us chance to be ready and also study further…”

Confidence

“…flipped lectures have changed my confidence regarding clicker questions and intellectually grasping what is going on…”

More time available in lectures

“The availability of time to ask questions is key I think…” “…gave us more time [to] answer and get immediate feedback on questions relating to the topic.” “Using the time freed up in the lectures to do more [clicker] questions was really helpful…” “…has created more time to explain harder content/work through more examples etc.” “…more actual lecture time to learn the harder bits.” “…more time in chemistry lectures to go into more detail or for better explanations.”

Enjoyment

“…this tool is very useful for me and I really enjoy [it]…” “I have loved it, it was a revelation to me and a huge help.” “I really like the idea of teaching via flipped lectures.”

This innovation involved a first semester course in introductory Organic Chemistry which is compulsory for all first year students (~180 in 2014/15). A number of distinct concepts are covered during the course, all of which are underpinned by the concept of electron flow. Although students encounter curly arrows in their pre-university chemistry studies in the UK, our experience is that many lack confidence in using the concept of electron flow to describe and explain mechanistic processes, and often rely instead on rote-memorization (45). A key aim of this module is to provide students with a common foundation of knowledge and skills from which to progress in their future studies, by developing the skills required to derive mechanisms from first principles rather than attempting to rote-learn mechanistic processes. 67 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

A Role for Learning Analytics in Enhancing Lecture Delivery and Feedback An educator who is able to interact with their students and collect data regarding what they are (and are not) learning can adjust their teaching style and provide improved feedback to students, as discussed by Toto and Nguyen (46). The principle of Just-in-Time Teaching, as defined by Novak et al. (47), can be supported by the use of learning analytics, helping an educator to adjust their teaching to give more attention to areas in which students demonstrate weaker understanding. The key consideration, of utmost relevance for organic chemistry, is that if students misunderstand important pieces of knowledge or earlier learning outcomes, they may fail to progress in grasping higher-order concepts. The use of learning analytics can help to identify misconceptions and gaps in knowledge which can be immediately addressed before progressing to more advanced material, and this was instrumental in informing the design of the interactive pre-lecture videos. The reduction in the amount of feedback students receive when they progress to university has already been discussed as one of the barriers that hinders a smooth transition to university (19). As such an additional aim of this work was to use learning analytics to enhance the feedback provided to students, and this was achieved in a number of ways as outlined in the implementation section below. Improved feedback can empower students to manage their own thought processes (48) and generate feedback for themselves or their peers (49), while meaningful group discussion and reflection may also be encouraged (50). The preceding points were important in ensuring that students were well-prepared to engage with the in-class activities being introduced as part of this project. Enhanced feedback can also help students to become more aware of their own learning, helping them to develop skills of metacognition (51), and supporting the key objective that this work would assist students in becoming the effective independent learners they need to be in order to succeed at university. In the example outlined in this case study, interactive online pre-lectures were created which were based on existing material and did not require extensive preparation time. Usage data and the responses to Zaption questions posed during pre-lectures formed the basis of the analytics which were collected and analyzed by the instructor to support teaching and learning as outlined below.

Methodology Pre-lecture videos were again prepared using Panopto (40) on a tablet PC. The instructor annotated PowerPoint slides using a stylus to add structures and mechanisms while explaining his actions verbally, as illustrated in Figure 3.

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

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

Figure 3. An example of a Zaption pre-lecture video based on annotation of PowerPoint slide. (Zaption images reproduced with permission from reference (44). Copyright 2016 Zaption.)

The videos were uploaded to YouTube for online hosting, after which Zaption (44), a piece of web-based software running in the browser, was used to add interactivity to the videos. Videos augmented with Zaption can be made to pause at any point in order that questions can be posed to the viewer. In these examples, multiple choice questions (MCQs) were used to probe students’ understanding of key concepts, with Zaption providing instant feedback to students on their answers. Open response questions were also employed to gain an understanding of students’ thought processes, while giving them opportunities to reflect on the reasoning behind their responses. This meant students could evaluate and refine their understanding prior to the face-to-face session. In some cases, explanations of answers were included as part of the flipped lecture so as to provide additional feedback. Students’ responses to all questions, along with viewing statistics, were subsequently available for download as .csv files.

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

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

Implementation of Zaption Pre-Lecture Videos in Practice The first pre-lecture video that was shared with students introduced the fundamental concepts that govern the strength of organic acids, which came at the beginning of a four-lecture unit on this particular topic. During the video, students were taught the definitions of acids and bases in the context of organic chemistry, and were also shown the convention for drawing acid-base reaction mechanisms using curly arrows. At the end of the video, students were asked three questions. In the first (Figure 4a), they were shown a curly arrow mechanism and asked if it was correct. In the second question (Figure 4b), they were asked to draw a curly arrow mechanism themselves. Since there was no straightforward way for them to input molecular structures and curly arrows into the online platform, the video was automatically paused at this point so students could draw the mechanism. The students then un-paused the video to view the instructor drawing the mechanism so they could check their work. They could then select a response to a multiple choice question which indicated how close they had been to the correct answer.

Figure 4. a and b: examples of questions presented to students during a Zaption pre-lecture. (Zaption images reproduced with permission from reference (44). Copyright 2016 Zaption.)

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

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

Finally, to assist them in moving to higher-order thinking, students were asked to consider two molecules, ethanol and acetic acid. These are similar molecules chemically, each containing two carbon atoms, one of which is attached to oxygen, but they have different acid-base properties. The information that ethanol is a weaker acid than acetic acid was provided to the students, and they were then asked to consider why this is the case. Students gave their responses to this prompt, which were then reviewed to inform the preparation of the scheduled lecture, with some correct and incorrect example answers incorporated into lecture slides for review purposes. The overall result was that students received immediate feedback on their grasp of basic concepts and skills (curly arrow mechanism), and also then had some time to consider a deep learning level question on the application of this concept to explain a physical phenomenon with which they are all familiar, i.e. the different properties, including taste, of alcohol and vinegar. This was then followed by further feedback in the scheduled lecture slot, which was particularly timely in view of the fact that most students watched pre-lectures videos in the 24 hours preceding the scheduled lecture. The remaining videos were produced in a similar format, with the rich data collected being analyzed by the instructor prior to each scheduled session. Another approach used was to follow up a multiple choice question (e.g. “Which of these compounds will react fastest?”) with an open response question in which students were invited to explain their answer. This helped to ensure that students were thinking on a deep level rather than simply ticking an answer, and also provided insight regarding whether or not they were using the correct reasoning. The process of skimming through the students’ answers could be completed surprisingly quickly, and it soon became clear whether or not students were on the right track and what the predominant points of confusion were among the cohort. Towards the end of the semester, an unexpected outcome illustrated the value of this approach. During one of the pre-lectures, the students were asked three questions. Almost all of the students got the correct answers to the first and last questions, but very few answered the middle question correctly. This was very surprising, since the question was not expected to be more challenging than the others. Moreover, the most popular answer selected was the most incorrect of the options available, indicating a fundamental misunderstanding of the way electrons are shared within molecules. Having access to these learning analytics allowed the adjustment of teaching to address this fundamental misunderstanding during the scheduled lecture. Without analysis of the data, the misconception would have gone undetected, potentially for some time thereafter, with consequences for understanding of more complex concepts. As well as providing further opportunities for feedback, the scrutiny of analytics also allowed the instructor to moderate the pace of delivery to meet the needs of students, with higher-order concepts only being covered once students had grasped the underpinning material. Additionally, the lecture time freed up by partial flipping also allowed the implementation of in-class self- and peer-assessment activities, and clicker quizzes. These activities were designed to build on concepts covered in the pre-lecture videos, and again were adapted to take account of the misconceptions and misunderstandings uncovered through scrutiny of the learning analytics. 71 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

Student Engagement with Flipped Lectures and Zaption Questions Analytics indicated that approximately 50 % of the cohort students made use of the flipped lectures throughout the module, which was perhaps a reflection of the fact that these were short pre-lecture videos which some students evidently felt they were able to miss. This contrasts with case study 1, where engagement was typically > 90%, which is perhaps a result of the smaller class size in that case, meaning that the instructor was better placed to incentivize individuals who may otherwise have attempted to hide in the shadows. Fortunately, the nature of the formative in-class activities meant that students who missed pre-lectures would be able to pick up some of what they missed, even if they didn’t gain as much benefit as their more engaged peers. Interestingly, students who answered all of the open answer questions throughout the sequence tended to provide more detailed responses, marking these out as a more engaged group. Analysis of these students’ responses showed that the quality (in terms of correctness) was variable, indicating that it wasn’t necessarily the highest attaining students who were most engaged. The active approaches employed in-class were evidently well received, with the instructor reporting excellent engagement during scheduled lectures which provided further valuable insight regarding students’ progress.

Enhanced Provision of Feedback As discussed in the introduction, it has been reported previously that one of the impediments to a successful transition to university learning is the reduction in the amount of feedback students receive in comparison to their experience at school (19). The challenges associated with providing such feedback are clear, particularly in the large-class lecture setting, where it is difficult for a single instructor to provide personalized feedback to individual students based on knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses. As described above, the use of interactive pre-lectures of the type outlined above can go some way towards addressing the problem, as students receive instant feedback on their answers to closed-response questions through Zaption, as well as further feedback during the scheduled lecture. It may be the case that such feedback results in more effective metacognitive processes in students, thus helping them to understand what they need to focus on in their private study. This could represent a real breakthrough in terms of supporting students in making a smooth and effective transition from school-to-university, but thorough research would be required to confirm whether or not this is the case. Perhaps the most valuable impact on feedback provision is that fact that data collected regarding student’s responses to Zaption questions (both open and closed) can be viewed by the instructor at any time. As discussed above, the use of such data enabled the pace and structure of individual lectures to be adjusted in a just-in-time manner to suit student needs. Time was explicitly allocated in the 72 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

lectures to provide feedback on students’ responses to Zaption questions, and this information was also used to design clicker questions, providing further feedback opportunities to promote increased metacognition. There were also positive impacts on the instructor, who was in effect receiving feedback from students via the mechanisms outlined above. Importantly, having identified common misconceptions by scrutinizing responses to Zaption questions, he was able to directly address these before moving onto more advanced material. On the other hand, where most students had responded correctly to questions, this resulted in a feeling of security about their level of understanding, allowing the instructor to confidently introduce more stretch and challenge where appropriate.

Evaluation Data

As with the first case study, the evaluation data presented is relatively limited, but does provide valuable insight, and has informed research which is currently being undertaken to ascertain the true impacts of partial flipping with interactive pre-lecture videos on student learning and metacognition. There were some positive outcomes which can be reported here, including a 10% increase in the average mark achieved on a mid-term exam. The prior attainment of students in the two cohorts (2013/14 and 2014/15) was broadly similar, and both tests targeted the same material. The module was taught to both cohorts by the same instructor, and the only material change to delivery was the use of the partial flipping approach, accompanied by enhanced interactivity in the scheduled sessions. This provides evidence that the novel approach was indeed beneficial to student learning, although the usual caveats apply when considering such data as evidence of impact. In order to evaluate student perceptions of the value of the partial flipping approach, an in-class clicker survey, which was not validated, was used in the final lecture of the module to investigate students’ usage of the pre-lecture videos, and also their opinions regarding the value of different elements of the teaching and learning associated with the module, as documented in Table 3. It is particularly noteworthy that students were almost as positive in their view of the impact of pre-lectures on their understanding as they were about the lectures themselves. The data relating to the active learning elements introduced into timetabled lectures are a little less positive, but are still indicative of a favorable response. The same clicker survey also probed students’ attitudes regarding the value of the more traditional teaching resources which supported the module, with interesting results. Large numbers of students didn’t use these resources, with 52% reporting that they didn’t do the recommend reading from the textbook and 72% reporting that they didn’t complete any of the problems from the textbook. Surprisingly, 42% of students did not make use of practice worksheets on Blackboard despite the fact that these represented a good opportunity to become familiar with exam-style questions. 73 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

Table 3. Students’ views regarding the value of pre-lecture and in-class elements of teaching (n = 110)a

a

VH

H

N

NH

DNU

How helpful were pre-lectures in improving your understanding of material?

37%

43%

9%

1%

10%

How helpful were lectures in improving your understanding of material?

47%

34%

9%

1%

9%

How helpful were clicker questions in improving your understanding of material?

28%

40%

18%

7%

7%

How helpful were in-class peer-assessment tasks in improving your understanding of material?

16%

36%

23%

12%

14%

VH = very helpful; H = helpful; N = neutral; NH = not helpful; DNU = did not use

In addition to this, students were surveyed using a Zaption video containing text response questions which probed how they felt the videos had impacted their practice. Although this provided richer data, the response rate (approximately 40 students) was lower than in the case of the clicker survey. Evidence has been extracted from students’ comments and is linked to the benefits of the approach as inferred from analysis of the data (Table 4). These comments provide evidence that, in some cases at least, students’ perceived improvement in understanding is related to reduced cognitive load during the scheduled lecture, in accordance with Seery and Donnelly’s earlier findings (31). The data also show that students felt that they were better prepared for lectures as a result of the approach, and there is evidence that this provided a structure within which students could study more effectively outside class. If the flipped lecture structure is reducing cognitive load, we might also expect students to feel more comfortable with the amount of material covered in a lecture course. Gratifyingly, in the final course evaluation questionnaire for this module, there was a significant jump in the score for responses to the statement “I was comfortable with the amount of material covered” (3.9/5 in the previous year, rising to 4.3/5 when the flipped structure was introduced), despite the fact that there was actually a small increase in the amount of content covered in the module. This effect may be explained by reduced cognitive load, with students comfortably able to assimilate more information when their minds are suitably prepared prior to scheduled lectures. Overall, this data is very encouraging indeed, seems to point to positive impacts similar to those reported by others such as Eichler and Peeples (36).

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

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

Table 4. Evidence extracted from student responses to the questions “What are the advantages and disadvantages of using the flipped videos at home as opposed to being taught the material in class?” and “Do you have any other comments on flipped teaching and its effectiveness in helping you to learn?” Benefit

Evidence extracted from student quotes

Reduced cognitive load

“…undoubtedly aided my understanding of the topics involved.” “It made what was being taught in the lectures easier to understand.” “…I like how I am able to pause when I want and go back on content which I may otherwise miss in the lectures.” “…made me think about the material before the lecture which gave me a greater understanding and allowed me to take more from the lecture.” “…gave me a greater understanding and allowed me to take more from the lecture.”

Better preparation for scheduled lectures

“Really good as I can briefly see whats coming…” “…impacted positively as I was more prepared for the lectures and they provided a good structure for studying the material.” “Meant I had to do work before lectures, but that meant I felt more prepared for the lectures.” “The pre-lectures prepared me for the next lecture and made me think about the material before the lecture…” “Forced me to be more systematic.”

Feedback

“…it was good practice especially the questions when you would give feedback in the lecture.”

Conclusions Both case studies provide evidence that the partial flipping approach has led to beneficial outcomes from the perspectives of students and educators alike. Students have reported that they are better prepared for the face-to-face lecture, and that they are able to get more out of the lecture as a result of their pre-lecture work. Furthermore, some students have indicated that the approach has provided a structure for their independent study, helping them to develop a systematic approach, something which can be difficult when one is first faced with many pages of hastily written notes after attending a lecture as a novice student. This suggests that partial flipping of lecture content can be effective in supporting students who are making the transition from school-to-university, ensuring that they are better prepared for overcoming some of the hurdles that traditionally present themselves to students embarking on study at degree level.

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

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

From the staff perspective, partial flipping represents an achievable first step towards a different way of teaching. The approach outlined in the first case study has been used in each academic year since the trial, and this will continue for the foreseeable future. As indicated previously, the positive student response to the initial implementation was enough to persuade a busy, research-focused academic that there was value in testing the approach in their own teaching, with evidently similar favorable outcomes. This has since resulted in more colleagues at Southampton adopting partial flipping for themselves, potentially leading to impactful, long-term changes to practice. The use of Zaption in the second case study adds another dimension in terms of learning analytics which can provide direction for just-in-time teaching in the following lecture, but this admittedly also adds to workload, with scrutiny of data expanding to fill the time available. However, creative approaches to teaching, perhaps involving more staff sharing teaching of modules and thus shedding some of the extra responsibility, may overcome such issues. Furthermore, the provision of enhanced feedback and the discussion permitted by the freeing-up of face-to-face contact time give students some of the support that is missing in comparison with their days at school. Universities need to be dynamic to respond to the changing experiences and expectations that students bring with them, particularly in the face of challenges such as the MOOC. The key asset that universities have is their people, and the accessibility of those people to students. Cramming students into lecture halls and bombarding them with content in a didactic fashion is certainly outmoded in the view of these authors, but that doesn’t mean the lecture is necessarily dead. By adopting innovations such as the flipped classroom, universities can make better use of the that precious face-to-face contact time to ensure that the students get the experience they are seeking and that their learning is maximized. This will be something that will be difficult to replicate in a MOOC, and since most humans are social animals at heart, real personal interactions would seem to be a very important component of an effective education. However, there is no doubt that MOOCs do have a lot to offer, and are a fantastic resource for those who are unable to attend campus-based courses, and as Zaption shows, an interactive online experience can be highly engaging for those who are amenable. It will be interesting to see how this situation evolves over time. Discussion with colleagues at Southampton and elsewhere indicates that there is a general acceptance of the suggestion that active learning is more effective than traditional lecturing (18), but many are unsure how best to incorporate it into their teaching. In particular, many colleagues indicate that they lack the confidence and expertise needed to make the leap to fully flipped teaching, given that this requires wholesale changes to the planning and delivery of taught sessions. A key benefit of the partial flipping model is that it provides a stepping stone which allows those who wish to experiment with alternative methods to do so while keeping one foot firmly in their comfort zone. Ideally this will lead to improved confidence and will help colleagues to develop their expertise in an iterative fashion as they experiment further. Such a process has the potential to engage greater numbers of teaching staff in the implementation of active learning in otherwise traditional lectures. If nothing else, such activities may challenge seasoned practitioners to reflect on their 76 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

practice and think about what they can do to refresh or even reboot their teaching. These will be exciting times for those who are willing to embrace change.

References 1. 2.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

3.

4. 5.

6.

7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12.

13. 14. 15.

16.

Scott, A. Chemistry Makes A Comeback In U.K. Universities, Schools. Chem. Eng. News 2013 (Mar 18), 79–82. National Foundation for Educational Research. Evaluation of Chemistry for our Future. Extension phase report. https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/ CFF01/CFF01.pdf (accessed 14th May 2016). Grove, M. National HE STEM Programme Final Report. http:// www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-eps/college/stem/additional/ HESTEMFinalReportEmail.pdf (accessed 14th May 2016). Read, D. A UK approach to counter declining enrollment in chemistry and related disciplines at the university level. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 898–900. Shallcross, D. E.; Harrison, T. G. A secondary School Teacher Fellow within a university chemistry department: the answer to problems of recruitment and transition from secondary school to University and subsequent retention? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8, 101–104. Shallcross, D. E.; Harrison, T. G.; Read, D.; Barker, N. On the Impact of School Teacher Fellows in Chemistry Departments within UK Higher Education Institutes, from 2005-2013. Higher Educ. Stud. 2014, 4, 7–17. Tunney, J. A legacy for chemistry education. New Dir. Teach. Phys. Sci. 2009, 5, 7–11. UK National Curriculum. https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/ overview (accessed 14th May 2016). Read, D.; Barnes, S. M. Review of A-level Chemistry Content [Online]. http://www.edshare.soton.ac.uk/14806/ (accessed 14th May 2016). School and college performance tables, Department for Education. http:// www.education.gov.uk/schools/performance/index.html (accessed 14th May 2016). OFSTED. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ofsted/about (ac cessed 14th May 2016). Stotesbury, N.; Dorling, D. Understanding Income Inequality and its Implications: Why Better Statistics Are Needed [Online], 2015. http://stats.cwslive.wiley.com/details/feature/8493411/UnderstandingIncome-Inequality-and-its-Implications-Why-Better-Statistics-are-N.html (accessed 14th May 2016). Vaughn, R. UK is a world leader…in ‘teaching to the test’. Times Education Supplement 2015 (Dec 18), 6–7. Bretz, S. L. Novak’s theory of education: Human constructivism and meaningful learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1107. Higher Education Academy. Review of the Student Learning Experience in Chemistry. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/chemrev_ final.pdf (accessed 14th May 2016). Bligh, D. A. What is the Use of Lectures?; San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000. 77 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

17. Matheson, C. The educational value and effectiveness of lectures. The Clinical Teacher 2008, 5, 218–221. 18. 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. 19. Yorke M.; Longden B. Retention and student success in higher education; McGraw-Hill Education: 2004. 20. Cardellini, L. Deep thinking: What lectures are for. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 90, 1418. 21. Page, E. M.; Read, D. Electronic Voting Systems in Undergraduate Teaching. Educ.Chem. 2010, 47, 183–186. 22. Beatty, I. D. Transforming Student Learning with Classroom Communication Systems. Educause Centre for Applied Research [Online]. https:// net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0403.pdf (accessed 14th May 2016). 23. Turner, K. Teacher Fellowship Report. http://www.hestem.ac.uk/sites/ default/files/teacher_fellowship_final_report_k_turner.pdf (accessed 14th May 2016). 24. Smith, C. School Teacher Fellowship Final Report. http://www.hestem. ac.uk/sites/default/files/csmith_fellowship_report.pdf (accessed 14th May 2016). 25. Boniface, J.; Read, D.; Russell, A. E. Sharing learning outcomes in chemistry teaching at HE level: beneficial or detrimental? New Dir. Teach. Phys. Sci. 2011, 7, 31–35. 26. Bergmann, J.; Sams, A. Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day; International Society for Technology in Education: Washington, DC, 2012. 27. Andrews, C. J.; Brown, R. C.; Harrison, C. K.; Read, D.; Roach, P. L. Lecture capture: Early lessons learned and experiences shared. New Dir. Teach. Phys. Sci. 2010, 6, 56–60. 28. Lancaster, S. J.; Read, D. Flipping lectures and inverting classrooms. Educ. Chem. 2013, 50, 14–17. 29. Paas, F.; Renkl, A.; Sweller, J. Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instr. Sci. 2004, 32, 1–8. 30. Sweller, J.; van Merrienboer, J. J. G.; Paas, F. G. W. C. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 1998, 10, 251–296. 31. Seery, M. K.; Donnelly, R. The implementation of pre‐lecture resources to reduce in‐class cognitive load: A case study for higher education chemistry. Brit. J. Educ. Technol. 2012, 43, 667–677. 32. Sirhan, G.; Reid, N. An Approach in Supporting University Chemistry Teaching. Univ. Chem. Educ. 2002, 3, 65–75. 33. Seery, M. K. Flipped learning in higher education chemistry: emerging trends and potential directions. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 758–768. 34. Christiansen, M. A. Inverted teaching: applying a new pedagogy to a university organic chemistry class. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1845–1850. 78 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

35. Flynn, A. B. Structure and evaluation of flipped chemistry courses: organic & spectroscopy, large and small, first to third year, English and French. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 198–211. 36. Eichler, J. F.; Peeples, J. Flipped classroom modules for large enrollment general chemistry courses: a low barrier approach to increase active learning and improve student grades. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2016, 17, 197–208. 37. Morgan, J. Lecturing for learning. In A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice; Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., Marshall, S., Eds.; London: Routledge, 2003; p 75. 38. Heeren, J. K. Teaching chemistry by the Socratic Method. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, 330. 39. Holme, T. A. Using the Socratic method in large lecture courses: Increasing student interest and involvement by forming instantaneous groups. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 974. 40. Panopto ‘Video for Education’. http://panopto.com/panopto-for-education/ (accessed 14th May 2016). 41. Mazur E. Peer Instruction: a user’s manual; Prentice-Hall: San Francisco, 1997. 42. Crouch, C. H.; Mazur, E. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. Am. J. Phys. 2001, 69, 970–977. 43. Shallcross, D. E; Harrison, T. G. Lectures: electronic presentations versus chalk and talk – a chemist’s view. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8, 73–79. 44. Zaption. https://www.zaption.com/ (accessed 14th May 2016). 45. Brown, R. C. D.; Hinks, J. D.; Read, D. A blended-learning approach to supporting students in organic chemistry: Methodology and outcomes. New Dir. Teach. Phys. Sci. 2012, 8, 33–37. 46. Toto, R.; Nguyen, H. Flipping the work design in an industrial engineering course. Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, TX, Oct 18−21, 2009 [Online]. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber= 5350529 (accessed 14th May 2016). 47. Novak, G. M.; Patterson, E. T.; Gavrin, A. D.; Christian, W.; Forinash, K. Just-In-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology. Am. J. Phys. 1999, 67, 937–938. 48. Keeves, J. P. Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook; Pergamon Press: Oxford, 1988. 49. Zimmerman, B. J. Development and Adaptation of Expertise: The Role of Self-Regulatory Processes and Beliefs. In The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance; Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., Hoffman, R. R., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, 2006; pp 705−722. 50. Anderson, D.; Nashon, S. M.; Thomas, G. P. Evolution of research methods for probing and understanding metacognition. Res. Sci. Educ. 2009, 39, 181–195. 51. Flavell, J. H.; Miller, P. H.; Miller, S. A. Cognitive Development; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001.

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

Chapter 5

Just-in-Time Teaching Organic Chemistry with iPad Tablets Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

Justin B. Houseknecht* Department of Chemistry, Wittenberg University, PO Box 720, Springfield, Ohio 45501 *E-mail: [email protected]

Just-in-Time Teaching has been used to facilitate in-class problem solving with iPad tablets for six semesters at a small, selective midwestern university. Organic chemistry classes of 18-51 students have effectively used this pedagogy to improve both student learning and success rates. Students prepare for class using detailed reading objectives and online homework. They then use a course management system to inform the instructor of the concepts with which they are struggling the most. These comments are then used to design each class session in which the instructor addresses student comments through short lectures and collaborative problem solving. Each group of students records audiovisual solutions to each problem on an iPad; these audiovisual solutions are then used for in-class discussion and post-class review.

Introduction Research supporting the effectiveness of active learning in the sciences is diverse, long-standing, and persuasive. Freeman and colleagues’ 2014 meta-analysis reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showing an average increase of 6% in exam scores and markedly lower DFW rates (1) is among the most persuasive for many. Much of these data, including in chemistry, have been available for years, but the data were not what convinced me to adopt active learning methods in my courses. The linchpin for me was a compelling presentation of specific pedagogies that align well with Bloom’s taxonomy of learning. © 2016 American Chemical Society Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

There are a multitude of models by which to understand ways of knowing. Bloom’s taxonomy of learning (2) and its 2001 revision (3) are popular in large part because of their simplicity and ease of application. The revised Bloom’s taxonomy lists six key learning tasks (bold). These are not verbs commonly used in chemical instruction, so the list below has been augmented with more familiar chemical terms. • • • • • •

Remember – define, identify, describe Understand – explain, describe, classify Apply – solve, calculate, provide, name, predict Analyze – compare, contrast, explain, illustrate, differentiate Evaluate – choose, predict, rank, explain Create – plan, retrosynthesize

The most basic level of learning is to remember facts. Understanding builds upon recollection and application upon understanding. Organic chemistry is difficult for many students because, unlike in most of their prior experience, the majority of the course content is in the upper two-thirds of Bloom’s taxonomy of learning. Even nomenclature, which many consider the easiest component of organic chemistry, is application of rules. Asking students to explain an organic process can be at the level of understanding, but is more likely to be analysis or even evaluation. Retrosynthetic analysis, the heart of organic chemistry, is the very highest order of critical thinking in the revised taxonomy – creation. The students we are asking to operate within these higher domains of critical thinking come from more than a decade of learning, with few exceptions, in the lower half of Bloom’s taxonomy of learning. They often struggle with the problem-solving in General Chemistry because even application is more advanced than the remembering and understanding that they have focused on previously. Most of our students are capable of developing these higher-order ways of knowing, but they often require substantial support to do so. I was finally convinced to abandon lecture when confronted with the reality that students cannot make appreciable progress on higher-order learning objectives while listening to a lecture. Lectures can help students remember facts and understand their context. Brilliant lectures can also model application, analysis, evaluation, and creation in ways that show students how to engage in these critical processes. This modeling is often an essential part of instruction, but it is rarely sufficient to develop new critical thinking skills in our students. Students must actually go through the hard work of application, analysis, evaluation, or creation if they are to develop these abilities. The traditional lecture model assumes that students will be able to do this on their own, between class periods. The best students – such as those that go on to receive PhD’s in chemistry and then teach in the discipline – may be successful at this, but the rest flounder. Active learning pedagogies are successful in large measure because they allow higher-order learning goals to be addressed in class, where students are surrounded by their peers and an instructor is available to help. There are many proven active learning pedagogies described in the educational research literature. The pedagogy described in this chapter uses 82 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

the framework of Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT) (4–6) to guide both students’ and the instructor’s preparation for class. Physicists developed JiTT in the mid-1990’s to better support and structure students’ pre-class reading. They used the then-newly developed Internet to ask their students 2-4 questions before each class session. Open-ended questions that address common misconceptions were the most effective. Many JiTT instructors have also found it useful to ask muddiest point questions that ask students to comment upon the topic they find most challenging. Students direct their reading to answer these questions and instructors use student answers to structure the subsequent class session. The class sessions necessarily focus upon addressing student misconceptions. This can be accomplished through a series of mini-lectures, but many JiTT instructors have incorporated problem-solving and other active-learning approaches. The pedagogy described in this chapter structures pre-class work with detailed reading guides, publisher-supplied online homework, and a single muddiest-point question completed 6-8 hours before each class session. The instructor then uses these reflections to develop in-class mini-lectures and activities that address student misconceptions and difficulties. The in-class problem solving activities place students in teams of 3-4 to collaboratively create audio-visual solutions on iPad tablets. These solutions are reviewed both collectively in class and individually after class. Students consolidate their learning further after class with individual problem solving. This pedagogy builds upon decades of education research showing that collaborative learning and metacognition can promote students’ ability to construct and retain understanding (7). It also develops skills essential for success in the 21st century through both scaffolding and daily repetition. Reading assignments from the textbook improve students’ ability to read informational text. Well-structured team problem solving builds the skills most sought-after by employers: leadership, ability to work in a team, written communication skills, problem-solving skills, and oral communication skills (8). These themes will be further delineated once the pedagogy has been more thoroughly described.

Methods Effective implementation of active learning pedagogies requires more than replacing lectures with activities. Providing appropriate incentive and assistance for students to address learning objectives outside of class is also essential. This pedagogy uses three primary resources to effect student learning: the textbook, Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT), and collaborative learning. The pedagogy described in this chapter has been used to teach Organic Chemistry at a Midwestern liberal arts university with class sizes ranging from 18 - 51 students. The textbook is an essential resource for students with the pedagogy described in this chapter. Students are expected to read relevant sections and attain lowerorder learning objectives before coming to class. Many, if not most, students enter Organic Chemistry completely unprepared to effectively read the textbook, so a guide for reading the textbook and detailed lists of learning objectives are provided for each class period (Figure 1). These lists are arranged by section of 83 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

the textbook and contain only the learning objectives that students are expected to make progress on before class.These lists also direct students to 5-10 minute mini-lectures on challenging or important topics that they are to watch before class (underlined text). These pre-class lists of learning objectives don’t contain some of the more challenging learning objectives, such as stereoselectivity and synthesis for the material in Figure 1, so a separate list of learning objectives is provided for each exam (Figure 2). Students find it helpful to have this second list broken down into reactions that they can just memorize (Reactivity), reactions they need to know the mechanisms for (Mechanism), and reactions they need to be able to use in synthesis (Synthesis). Organization of material is a substantial challenge for many students in active learning classrooms. This difficulty is at least partially ameliorated by continual referral to relevant sections of the textbook and the detailed study guides.

Figure 1. Lists of learning objectives provided to prepare for a 90-minute class session.

An online homework system (9, 10) (currently OWLv2) associated with the textbook is also essential both in student preparation for class and consolidation of material after class. Explanatory / tutorial assignments are due prior to each class period. These assignments assess lower-order learning objectives and, sometimes, introduce higher-order learning objectives. They are graded primarily for completion, typically requiring less than 30 minutes. Online post-class homework is also assigned weekly to help students review and consolidate their understanding of the material. The homework assignments are mastery-oriented in that the emphasis is upon whether students can answer items correctly within ten attempts.

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

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

Figure 2. Lists of learning objectives provided to prepare for an exam.

Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT) provides the course structure. Students’ preparation for class culminates in their electronic response to a JiTT prompt by 12:30 am before each class session. This is occasionally a topic-specific prompt, but is more often simply a muddiest point question. Topic-specific prompts ask students to explain an observation in complete sentences whereas muddiest point questions ask them to specify clearly what material from the reading they struggled to understand. The strength of the muddiest point questions is that they force students to reflect upon their own learning, an important metacognitive task. The necessary effort is incentivized in two ways. First, JiTT responses, worth 5% of the course grade, are graded on a 0-5 scale with fairly high criteria (Table 1). Students receive prompt feedback (within 8 hours) on the quality of their JiTT responses. Second, clear and concise responses are more likely to be used in class where the heading of most PowerPoint slides is a JiTT response. Students often comment that they value seeing their own responses shaping in-class activities.

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

Table 1. Rubric used to assess JiTT responses. 5 – Clear articulation of which content was challenging and demonstration of a serious attempt to grapple with it 3 – Explanation of which content was challenging, but little explanation of how or why

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

1 – Response demonstrates little effort

Each 90-minute class period is organized around the JiTT responses that students submit before 12:30 am. There are typically 3-4 response clusters addressed in a given class period (Figure 3). Several student responses are displayed via PowerPoint. Some questions are addressed directly with short (3-5 minute) mini-lectures and others are addressed via collaborative problem solving. The audio-visual solutions created by two or three of the teams are then reviewed as a class before the next cluster of JiTT responses is addressed. This structure ensures that class time is used to address the material that students are actually finding difficult and helps students to establish ownership of their learning.

Figure 3. The classroom learning cycle is repeated 3-4 times per 90-minute meeting.

Collaborative learning is the central component of this pedagogy. The textbook and JiTT are valuable, but only in-as-much as they enable students to engage in collaborative learning. Approximately two-thirds of each class period is spent with students working in teams of three or four. Teams of two tend to have difficulty gaining the collective understanding to solve problems and teams larger than four have difficulty keeping all members engaged. This is consistent with observations in other disciplines (11). Students organize their teams on the first day of the semester and then reorganize after each exam. Students are required to form teams containing at least one person that have not previously been grouped with. This periodic, forced reorganization helps the class become a 86 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

single community of learning rather than several isolated teams. It also increases the likelihood that each student will have the experience of being in at least one high functioning team and one that requires effort. Class time is spent throughout the semester discussing expectations and characteristics of good teamwork. Students are directed to: • •

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

• • • •

Work individually on their assigned problem for 1-2 minutes, Work as a team on their assigned problem until a solution is understood by all, Ask one another questions and offer explanations to ensure mutual understanding, Discuss challenges within their teams or with the instructor, Take turns recording audio-visual solutions on the iPad tablets with no student recording a second solution before each has recorded one, Work on additional questions as time allows.

During problem solving periods the instructor circulates through the teams to ensure that they are working well together and arriving at reasonable understandings of the material. Students evaluate themselves and their teammates at the conclusion of each unit of material for 15% of their course grade. Initially students completed a table on each exam using the rubric shown in Table 2.

Table 2. The teamwork grading rubric is used by students to assess their own and their teammates’ contributions. Every Day

Typically

Rarely

Prepared for class and engaged in activities

5

3

1

Asks helpful questions and answers others’ clearly

5

3

1

Both contributes to solutions and allows others to do so

5

3

1

Descriptor

More recently this function has been completed electronically using the CATME website (12, 13). The CATME domains used are: Contributing to the Team’s Work; Interacting with Teammates; Having Related Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities. The training / calibration, prompts, and analysis offered by CATME have led to better student comments and results more consistent with instructor observations. CATME has many additional functions which have not yet been exploited. Students’ JiTT responses determine the problems that teams are assigned during class. Each cluster of responses typically generates 3-4 problems that are assigned based upon the randomly distributed iPad tablets (one iPad per team, 5-8 teams per class, Figure 4). Students work individually for 1-2 minutes before discussing the problem in their teams and recording an audio-visual solution on 87 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

an iPad using the Explain Everything app (14). It is important for both learning and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance that the audio and visual portions of the solutions be comprehensible in isolation from one another. Solutions are placed in a Dropbox folder (as .xpl files) to which each iPad is linked. Students are encouraged to work on one of the other team’s problems as time allows once their own is uploaded to Dropbox. Each cycle of teamwork lasts five to fifteen minutes.

Figure 4. A typical PowerPoint slide that assigns problems for teamwork. The bracketed numbers indicate the corresponding sections of the textbook. The text in the lower right corner indicates the Dropbox folder in which solutions are to be saved. The red/grey bar is a ten-minute countdown timer. The uploaded audio-visual solutions are reviewed as a class once time has expired and at least half of the teams have uploaded their solution. The class is then prompted to comment upon both strengths and weaknesses of the solution before another is viewed. Typically two or three of the solutions are reviewed before the next learning cycle is initiated with new JiTT responses (Figure 3). The .xpl audio-visual solutions are converted to .mp4 files using the Explain Everything Compressor and uploaded to the course management system (15) after class so that they can be reviewed by students on a variety of platforms. It is technically possible for this step to be completed by students during class, but it introduces too much delay (Explain Everything on an iPad takes 1-3 times longer to compress a .xpl file than the recording). It has also been necessary for the instructor to review each solution and briefly comment upon their accuracy to increase student perception of their value. 88 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

Results This pedagogy has improved student performance relative to the teacher-centered instruction previously employed. This improvement has been most readily observed in the population most difficult to reach – the weaker students. Seven years of trying every teacher-centered intervention possible had failed to alter a persistent 26% (± 3%) DFW rate (the percent of students receiving a D, F, or withdrawing from the course) in Organic 1. The first year using this active-learning approach saw the DFW rate decrease to 6%. The average DFW rate over the first three years of this approach was 12% (± 8%). Exam scores have, likewise, improved by 1-3%, with the largest increase on the cumulative final exam. Exam scores in Organic 2 have also increased, but are not considered statistically significant due to a high number of confounding variables. These gains have occurred within the context of falling performance in General Chemistry where final exam scores have fallen by 2-8% (depending upon instructor) over the same time frame. Student response to this pedagogy has been largely positive. There are certainly students that state their desire to “be taught” the material rather than having to “teach it to themselves.” This is increasingly a minority of students, but they have occasionally been quite vocal. There have also, however, been a significant number of students that emphatically express their appreciation for this student-centered approach. The majority of comments on the course evaluations are now strongly in favor of the pedagogy. More gratifying, and important, are the personal messages former students have begun sending to express their gratitude for the experience.

Distinctive Characteristics Development of technical reading skills is necessary in undergraduate education. Success in the sciences requires the ability to read informational text, yet students entering college appear to have little experience doing so. This pedagogy supports student development of reading skills by requiring that they read and providing instruction on how to do so. The key learning objectives for each section of the textbook are provided so students know what they should learn from their reading. Finally, the pre-class online homework helps students assess whether their reading was effective. Metacognition, thinking about thinking, has been shown to greatly enhance student learning (7, 16). Students that frequently assess whether they understand a passage of text, whether their problem-solving strategy is working, whether they are ready for an exam, etc. have higher learning outcomes. The pedagogy described in this chapter promotes metacognitive development from the first day of class when the rationale for an active learning approach is presented. This includes improvement in student outcomes, but also a mapping of course learning objectives to Bloom’s taxonomy of learning. This type of approach has been shown to promote metacognition and improved outcomes in general chemistry and more broadly (7, 16). 89 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

A 2012 report of the National Research Council lists “defining learning objectives, demanding more student responsibility in mastering content, and using class time for problem solving” as additional means to develop metacognition (7). The pedagogy described in this chapter provides learning objectives for which students are responsible each day of class. The muddiest point JiTT question that students answer before each class provides further opportunity for them to engage in metacognitive thought. Brief, frequent opportunities for reflection have been shown to be the type of writing-to-learn exercise most strongly correlated with increased student performance (17). Likewise, collaborative problem solving encourages students to reflect upon their own understanding as they work toward a common solution. Collaborative problem solving is a powerful component of many active-learning pedagogies because it can be highly effective (7). It has already been mentioned that collaborative problem solving develops metacognitive skills. It also places students in the active role of co-constructors of knowledge rather than that of passive recipients (18). Collaborative problem solving is more effective when care is taken to ensure that metacognition and co-construction occur. This pedagogy does so in several ways. First, the emphasis during problem solving is on effective teamwork, not obtaining the “right” answer. The ability of teams to work toward a shared understanding is 15% of the course grade. The actual solutions are reviewed and commented upon, but not graded. Second, students spend the first few minutes of each activity working individually so that they each bring something to the collaborative effort. Third, the product of this collaboration is an explanation, not just an answer. Decades of talk-to-learn and writing-to-learn research have shown that students who write and/or talk out their rationale develop stronger metacognitive skills and learn better (18–20). This pedagogy requires each team to provide both a complete visual explanation and a complete audio explanation of their solution. Teams have chosen to divide the responsibilities for this differently, but the requirement that each team member contribute once before anyone contributes twice keeps all team members engaged. Finally, when audio-visual solutions are reviewed in class particular attention is paid to elicit student feedback on strengths and weaknesses. Leadership, the ability to work in teams, problem solving, and communication skills are consistently among the top skills employers seek in college graduates (8). Collaborative problem solving with electronic whiteboards provides an excellent opportunity for students to develop and demonstrate each of these skills. As students work in four different teams over the course of a semester they are presented with a variety of interpersonal challenges. Some challenges they overcome easily, others require assistance from the instructor. Regardless, this experience strengthens their ability to work in a team and be an effective leader. Problem solving and communication skills are, likewise, strengthened by practice. Students often resist public speaking, but the use of electronic whiteboards has been well received. Students take recording their audio-visual solutions seriously, but without much of the anxiety and flippancy often seen with live presentations in front of the class. 90 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Future Directions The basic structure of this pedagogy seems to be working quite well. There is, however, at least one area in which improvement should be possible - the problems assigned for collaborative work. It may be valuable to introduce more real-world problems such as those used in problem-based learning (PBL) (21, 22). Alternatively, students may be more engaged with the existing problems (both in class and afterward) if some of them begin appearing on exams. A synthesis of these options may also further promote student engagement and learning.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

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. 2. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.); Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain; David McKay Company: New York, 1956. 3. Anderson, L. W. (Ed.); Krathwohl, D. R. (Ed.); Airasian, P. W.; Cruikshank, K. A.; Mayer, R. E.; Pintrich, P. R.; Raths, J.; Wittrock, M. C. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete edition); Longman: New York, 2001. 4. Novak, G. M.; Patterson, E, T.; Gavrin, A. D.; Christian, W. Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999. 5. Lage, M. J.; Platt, G. J.; Treglia, M. Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment. J. Econ. Educ. 2000, 31, 30–43. 6. Simkins, S.; Maier, M., Eds. Just in Time Teaching: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy; Stylus Pub: Sterling, VA, 2009. 7. Singer, S. R.; Nielson, N. R.; Schweingruber, H. A. Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012. 8. National Association of Colleges and Employers. Job Outlook 2016: Attributes Employers Want to See on New College Graduates’ Resumes; Bethlehem, PA, 2015. 9. OWL, version 1.0; Cengage Learning: Florence, KY, 2001. http:// www.cengage.com (accessed May 3, 2013). 10. OWLv2, version 7.517.1; Cengage Learning: Florence, KY, 2014. http:// www.cengage.com (accessed December 6, 2015). 11. Heller, P.; Hollabaugh, M. Teaching problem-solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. Am. J. Phys. 1992, 60, 637–644. 91 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

12. Ohland, M. W.; Loughry, M. L.; Woehr, D. J.; Finelli, C. J.; Bullard, L. G.; Felder, R. M.; Layton, R. A.; Pomeranz, H. R.; Schmucker, D. G. The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: Development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self and peer evaluation. Acad. Manage. Learn. Educ. 2012, 11, 609–630. 13. Loughry, M. L.; Ohland, M. W.; Moore, D. D. Development of a theorybased assessment of team member effectiveness. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2007, 67, 505–524. 14. Explain Everything, version 2.66; MorrisCooke: New York, 2015. Mobile application software retrieved from http://itunes.apple.com (accessed December 6, 2015). 15. Moodle, version 2.5; Moodle Pty Ltd: Perth, 2014. http://www.moodle.org (accessed December 6, 2015). 16. Cook, E.; Kennedy, E.; McGuire, S. Y. Effect of Teaching Metacognitive Learning Strategies on Performance in General Chemistry Courses. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 961–967. 17. Bangert-Drowns, R. L.; Hurley, M. H.; Wilkinson, B. The Effects of SchoolBased Writing-to-Learn Interventions on Academic Achievement: A MetaAnalysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 2004, 74, 29–58. 18. Rivard, L. P.; Straw, S. B. The Effect of Talk and Writing on Learning Science: An Exploratory Study. Sci. Educ. 2000, 84, 566–593. 19. Reynolds, J. A.; Thaiss, C.; Katkin, W.; Thompson, R. J., Jr. Writingto-Learn in Undergraduate Science Education: A Community-Based, Conceptually Driven Approach. CBE – Life Sci. Educ. 2012, 11, 17–25. 20. Bruffee, K. A. Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence and the authority of knowledge; John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, 1993. 21. Herreid, C. F. ConfChem Conference on Case-Based Studies in Chemical Education: The Future of Case Study Teaching in Science. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 256–257. 22. Dochy, F.; Segers, M.; Van den Bossche, P.; Gijbels, D. Effects of problembased learning: a meta-analysis. Learn. Instr. 2003, 13, 5633–568.

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

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

Chapter 6

Conversion of a Lecture Based Organic Chemistry Course Sequence to Fully Flipped Classes with Pertinent Observations from Other Flipped Chemistry Courses Vincent Maloney* Chemistry Department, Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805 *E-mail: [email protected]

A largely lecture-based organic chemistry sequence with a significant active learning component for 80 – 100 biology majors and pre-professional students was transformed to a completely flipped classroom format. All traditional lecture was placed online as video recordings for students to view prior to the face-to-face class. Students were asked to complete online homework assignments to demonstrate familiarity with video topics. In the face-to-face class, the entire period was devoted to group problem solving. Otherwise, quizzes, exams, and grading were nearly the same. A student survey was conducted at the end of each semester to examine attitudes towards the new format. The responses showed that the students preferred the flipped classroom. The quiz, exam grades, and performance on the American Chemical Society Form 2004 Organic Chemistry Exam were used for assessment. Scores were compared to the previous two academic years where the course was taught with a more traditional format. No improvement in learning was observed. Observations made during these courses and later in other non-organic flipped courses suggested how learning gains could be achieved. Based on these observations, adjustments were made in later flipped courses where there was improved performance by the students. Recent pedagogical literature has indicated to what extent learning gains could be expected.

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

The lessons learned from them can be applied to future organic chemistry courses.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

Introduction The following is a chronicle of the conversion of an organic chemistry course sequence that had already incorporated a significant component of active learning to one that completely embraces what is often referred to as a flipped classroom pedagogy (1, 2). The rationale for the change, a description of the structure of the flipped classes, observations of what happened in them and the lessons learned will be provided. Student attitudes were examined and the effect on learning was assessed within the limitations described later. After transforming organic chemistry, the flipped pedagogy was applied to two consecutive sections of a one semester general chemistry survey course. Although the student populations between general and organic chemistry were very different, the flipped general chemistry classes provided insight into what seemed to work and not work in organic chemistry. The subsequent application of formative classroom assessment techniques to the lecture portion of the organic chemistry laboratory also aided in understanding observations from the flipped organic classes. Before describing the course flip, a few qualifications must be stated. As with nanotechnology, the term flipping the classroom has obtained a rather elastic definition. Use of any sort of classroom assessment techniques (CATs) (3, 4), group problem solving, or methods such as Just-in-Time Teaching (5) could justifiably be called to a greater or lesser degree a flipped classroom. In this case, the course flip refers to placing the entire lecture component outside of the face-to-face class in online videos. The entire face-to-face meetings were devoted to group problem solving. The problems chosen were those that had previously been homework and review session questions normally done outside of class. The observations presented here are inherently anecdotal. Although further rigorous studies of the impact of the flipped classroom are required, I hope that the observations and conclusions drawn from the flipped organic chemistry sequence will be an aid to those considering a flipped classroom for their courses. Several conclusions could be drawn from the four flipped courses and the applications of CATs to laboratory lectures. A significant majority of the organic chemistry students preferred the flipped format. Although evidence of learning gains was elusive, there was no evidence of adverse effects on the class as a whole. Observations from the flipped classes and evidence in the literature shed light onto the apparent lack of learning gains and point to where improvements can be achieved. As noted by Freeman et al., if a significant component of active learning is present in a course, then gains may not be observed by adding more (6). That may be the case for the courses reported here. Some improvement was finally seen in the last general chemistry course after making adjustments based on observations from the organic courses. Organic Chemistry I and II (CHM 25500 and CHM 25600) at Indiana U. Purdue U. Fort Wayne (IPFW) were transformed to completely flipped classes. 94 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

The courses were predominantly populated by biology majors and pre-professional students. The courses cover all of the material found in the American Chemical Society (ACS) Form 2004 Organic Chemistry Exam along with additional topics. At IPFW, the organic chemistry laboratory component is provided as a completely separate course sequence (CHM 25400 and CHM 25800) that runs concurrently with the lecture courses. In fall 2013, Organic I had 98 students enrolled while the following spring 88 students were enrolled in Organic II. The face-to-face class periods were conducted in a lecture hall holding 126 students. The room was tiered and seating consisted of rows of fixed tables and seats. The classroom was not designed for peer learning. Nonetheless, the students managed. IPFW was at the time a regional campus of the Indiana-Purdue system with an enrollment of 12,840 students. In 2013, the average SAT score of beginning students was 1478. The university conferred mostly B.A. and B.S. degrees with a few M.S. programs.

Rationale for the Course Flip The main impetus for introducing active learning was the mounting evidence that it improves student learning and enhances their performance. Recently, Freeman et al. confirmed such gains with a meta-analysis of 225 studies of active learning versus traditional lecture (5). Performance on exams, concept inventories and course failure rates were compared. In their conclusion that active learning should be preferred over traditional lecture, the authors questioned the use of solely traditional lecture in the classroom even as a control in research. It should be noted that courses “with at least some active learning” (6) were compared to traditional lectures where presumably there was no active learning of any sort. It is difficult to read such statements and continue to rely on the traditional lecture. Active learning has been used in IPFW organic chemistry courses since 2000 based on the peer instruction methods developed by Eric Mazur (7). Although the meta-analysis of Freeman et al. was not available when the courses were transformed, compelling evidence from Hake (8) and Deslauriers (9) was. These reports show that students in physics courses with active learning (referred to as interactive engagement) scored higher on force concept inventories than students in traditional lectures (8). The performance of the highest scoring traditional lecture classes was comparable to that of the worst performing active learning classes. The question then became whether the amount of active learning should be increased so that it filled the entire face-to-face class meetings for the organic chemistry courses described here. Although the primary rationale for attempting an alternative pedagogical method is improved learning, there are other reasons to do so. Like many other institutions, retention of students in classes and at the university has become an issue of concern at IPFW. Improving graduation rates has also become a consideration. It is imperative to avoid loss of rigor while improving retention. Learning activities that increase interactions between faculty and students and among students tend to increase retention (10). Active learning that involves peer instruction can possibly achieve these ends and enhance learning. The flipped 95 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

pedagogy extends these activities to the entire face-to-face class meeting and potentially maximizes these interactions. The media hype surrounding massive open online courses (MOOCs) (11) may have passed, but they and their providers such as Coursera, Edx, and Udacity have not. Offering inexpensive courses based on the MOOC format can be imagined. It could be argued that such courses would not be as effective as one where an expert in the field is fully engaged with the course and students. However, could they be good enough so that the cost of an expensive face-to-face course could not be justified for students of low and moderate incomes? Whether true or not, it does pose the question of what is the most effective way to spend precious time in the face-to-face classroom. The evidence indicates that a live lecture with homework and problem solving done outside of class is not as effective as recorded lectures (or other forms of course content) viewed before class and problem solving in the form of active learning done in the classroom. Recorded lectures have existed practically since the technology has made it possible, but current technology has improved access. Cell phones and tablet computers make it possible for students to download course content almost anywhere and anytime. With learning management systems, all course materials such as the text, notes, other supplemental materials, and the lectures themselves can be accessed with a portable device. It has always been possible to flip the course by requiring students to come to class prepared by reading the text and then doing problem solving. Now it is possible to do the same, but still provide lectures in the form of online videos. The current state of technology has made it easier to flip the course. The potential of improving student learning was the primary motive for transforming the organic courses. Retention, the challenge of MOOCs, and the ease of student access to course materials were all important secondary motivations.

Structure of the Course Flip To put this implementation of the flipped course in perspective, it will be necessary to describe the organic chemistry courses at IPFW before fall 2013. A traditional lecture course may be considered to consist of the following sequence of events before, during, and after class. The students are assigned a reading from the text to complete before the class meeting. In class, the instructor lectures on the topics and assigns homework questions afterwards. Students alone or in groups work on the homework and may ask the instructor questions about the material before the next meeting. If some type of CAT is not used during lecture, student problems with the material are not recognized until a quiz or exam. In practice many faculty conduct classes that are not just traditional lecture. They incorporate active learning to greater or lesser degrees. Active learning was used in the organic sequence at IPFW prior to fall 2013. 96 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

The impact of the flipped organic sequence was examined by comparing it to the same sequence over the previous 2 academic years. The course topics were essentially the same. The final exam for the 2nd semester courses was the ACS Form 2004 Organic Chemistry Exam. The class sizes were similar. In each course, the class met three times a week for 50 min. For the two years prior to the complete flip, the course was not a simple traditional lecture. Students were given assigned readings. In the face-to-face class, the same topics were described in a lecture format. The lecture notes were provided as PowerPoint files for the students to print beforehand. In nearly each face-to-face meeting, questions were posed for all students to answer to assess their understanding of concepts just presented. A classroom response system (clickers) was used so that all students would answer. Best practices suggested for clicker use were employed (12). With each question, the students were given time to discuss their answers in informal groups before entering a response. On average, 3 questions were posed each day. The number and length of the questions varied with the material. All class meetings were recorded with a lecture capture program for subsequent review by the students online. Beyond that, optional review sessions were offered to the students twice weekly. IPFW doesn’t provide for recitation sections. Although rarely more than half the class attended these optional review sessions, significant numbers of students did show up regularly. These sessions involved an hour of group problem solving. Online homework was assigned after the lecture. Besides the extensive use of CATs, the flipped pedagogy had been piloted in both courses with nomenclature topics. At appropriate points, students were asked to watch lecture capture videos covering nomenclature. Upon arrival, they took a short quiz to demonstrate that they had learned the basics from the videos. Once the quizzes were handed in, more challenging nomenclature problems were covered as group problem solving clicker questions. These pilots of the flipped pedagogy were positive indicators that the flipping could be extended to the entire course. Beginning in fall 2013, the sequence was completely flipped. All lecture content was placed online as videos to be viewed outside of the class. A substantial portion of the problems covered in the homework and review sessions were moved into the class periods for group problem solving. In preparation for the courses, videos of the lectures were recorded. These videos were created with the same lecture capture program which recorded both the instructor and whatever was on the computer screen such as PowerPoint slides. Instead of 50 minute lectures, nearly all of the videos were less than 20 minutes. Some were as short as 1.5 min. The length of the video was dictated by the time it took to explain a single topic or concept. This choice was based on the method known as chunking (13). Reducing the material into manageable pieces helps students process the material. The lecture content was otherwise largely the same as those given over the previous two years. The same PowerPoint notes were used. They were merely broken up into smaller files to match the online video content. For the entire sequence, 295 videos were prepared: 130 for the Organic I semester and 165 for Organic II. Despite the difference in number, approximately 17 h of lecture was recorded for each semester. This low total was surprising. With each class having a length of 50 minutes, 17 h corresponds to 20.4 classes. Each semester is 15 weeks long with 3 classes per week giving a total of 45 classes. 97 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

Subtracting 5 class meetings for exams and quizzes, there should have been 40 classes. Yet the videos amounted to only 20.4. Although some time would have been taken up with announcements and student questions, it wouldn’t account for 23.6 classes. The bulk of this missing class time time had been spent in group problem solving instead of lecture. The organic courses prior to fall 2013 already involved a significant amount of active learning rather than lecture. An important component to flipping the course was to prepare the students for the new format. A complete description of the format, student expectations, and rationale was placed in the syllabus. In particular, it was stated that there was a significant amount of evidence supporting the use of active learning and that it should benefit them in increased learning and improved grades. The first class began with a review of general chemistry. The students were asked clicker questions to determine what they had retained. They were expected to watch videos after that. For a typical class, the students were asked to watch a number of videos and read the corresponding material in the text. The assigned videos corresponded to the topics planned for the upcoming class. The PowerPoint slides used in each video were made available to the students online for subsequent study. To ensure that they had prepared, the students were asked to complete an online homework assignment before class. These questions were relatively simple and used to assess their readiness for more complex problems. For Organic I, 162 homework questions were written while 98 were prepared for Organic II. These question types were those commonly available in learning management systems rather than chemistry-specific questions that involve students drawing structures. Commercial online homework products were not found to be suitable since the questions needed to be directed at specific planned activities in the face-to-face meeting. The software and site for the recorded videos does allow the instructor to view whether students had accessed the videos and how many times. A range of activity was observed. Some accessed the videos numerous times; some didn’t view the videos at all. During class, the entire time was devoted to group problem solving using questions modified from the text and review sessions from previous years. Initially a review of the assigned topics was provided at the beginning of that day before the planned CATs. It rapidly became apparent that the students didn’t need or want it. They wanted to get to answering questions and solving problems. Many of the questions were short and it was possible to work through 10 to 12 clicker questions per class meeting. The time spent per question varied with their content and type. Ruder has provided a useful resource for clicker questions to use in organic (14). The individual questions used for Organic I and Organic II at IPFW can be accessed at http://organicers.org (15). Typically, the questions were displayed on a PowerPoint slide to the students. After students took time to briefly discuss the problem, they entered their answers using their clickers. Multiple choice, numerical, and text question formats were used. The entire PowerPoint file without answers was provided online at least one day before class. The students were allowed to use any resource such as the text, notes and any device to access information. Some students printed out the questions while others accessed them with their cellphones and tablets. 98 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

Although most questions were answered quickly, more in depth problems were given. For example, for spectroscopy, the students were given the molecular formula and IR, 1H NMR, and 13C NMR spectra for a compound. They were asked to draw the structure for the compound. The correct structure and the four most common incorrect structures were placed on the board. The students then voted on the one they thought was correct. Such polling could be used after students are asked to draw transition states, conformations, and reactive intermediates in a mechanism. For synthesis, the students were given a table of 10 to 15 reagents. Each reagent was given a number. They were then asked to propose a synthesis for a compound from a given starting material. Once they had finished, they entered the correct order of reagents in the synthesis as a sequence of numbers. Such problems could take 10 to 20 minutes of class time. Flipped courses were designed to be time neutral. The time that the students were expected to spend on a traditional course or a flipped course per week was to be the same. The amount of time that should have been spent on attending lectures, reading the text, completing homework, studying notes, etc. was estimated for the previous courses. Then the flipped class activities were designed so that the same amount of time would be spent in the new course format. In effect the time and location of course activities were shifted and not increased or decreased for the flipped courses. The students were expected to spend 12 h on organic chemistry per week: 3 in the classroom and 9 outside. As in the past, it appeared that some did more and some less. Grading for the organic sequence was kept largely the same. The same schedule of exams and quizzes was used. The pace of the courses were similar so that much of the same material was covered on each exam. For all three years the ACS Form 2004 Organic Chemistry Exam was used as the final for the 2nd semester. The grading between the flipped and previous courses was nearly the same. See Tables 1 and 2 which outline the grading for Organic 1 and 2 courses. They show the total number of points a student could achieve in a semester and what each assessment was worth. For each course, two 50 min. exams worth 100 pt. (200 pt. total) and four 25 pt. quizzes (100 pt. total) counted towards their final grade. The students actually took three exams and five quizzes with the lowest grade of each being dropped. The online homework was worth 50 points whether it was post class before the transformation or pre-class after the complete flip. Two assessments, clicker questions and nomenclature quizzes require further explanation. In all three years, students were assigned points for participating in group problem solving and individually answering with their clickers. Points were only assigned for answering and not for being correct. One concern that could be raised is that students were potentially given points for random answers without any attempt to actually work the problems. Although there was no apparent evidence of this behavior, the more plausible scenario is that students would answer whatever the “A” student nearby chose. Assigning points for correct answers would not have prevented students from answering in this manner. With the policy, group problem solving became formative assessments for the students and instructor where misconceptions could be addressed without the pressure of these activities affecting their grades adversely. 99 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Table 1. Grading for the Organic Chemistry I Courses Year

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

a

Exams

Quizzes

Nomenclature Quizzes

2013 (flipped)

100a

0

200

150

50

50

550

2012

100

25

200

150

25

50

550

2011

100

25

200

150

25

50

550

Final Exam

Clicker

Homework

Total

All numbers besides those for years represent points towards the course total.

Table 2. Grading for the Organic Chemistry II Courses Year

a

Exams

Quizzes

Nomenclature Quizzes

2014 (flipped)

100a

0

200

200

50

50

600

2013

100

25

200

200

25

50

600

2012

100

25

200

200

25

50

600

Final Exam

Clicker

Homework

Total

All numbers besides those for years represent points towards the course total.

The nomenclature quizzes previously mentioned for the courses prior to fall 2013 were worth a total of 25 points. Upon transforming the course, it was more consistent to treat the nomenclature topics in the same manner as the rest of the course. Also, it was deemed better to use the class time for more active learning instead of short quizzes. The nomenclature quizzes were no longer given and 25 more points were added to clicker total. It may seem that these points should have been added to the homework total. Instead they were added to the clicker total since the students were doing significantly more group work. Assigning a significant amount of points to these activities helps to convince students of their importance. Somewhat surprisingly, the nomenclature plus clicker point total scores were comparable to the clicker point score of the flipped classes.

Assessment Student attitudes about the flipped courses were assessed by conducting surveys in the penultimate class of the semester. The survey consisted of 22 statements using a Likert scale where students could respond from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree. Of the 22 questions, 7 referred to how well the software and technology worked for the students. Overall the majority of students had positive attitudes about the course flip. The majorities were larger in Organic 100 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

I than Organic II. A small percentage of students did strongly disagree. A majority of students agreed with a statement suggesting that they could be building the type of relationships that aid in retention in a course and at the institution (10). Since the primary motivation of transforming the organic sequence to the flipped format was improved student learning, the grades within the course and the score on the ACS exam were compared. Comparing quiz, exam, and course total scores and grade distributions is problematic. Efforts were made to use the same or sufficiently similar course materials, exams, quizzes, etc. Unfortunately, ensuring that they are sufficiently alike is difficult. Some decisions were made to make changes to accommodate the flip or improve an observed deficiency. For example, a switch from commercial online homework to one specifically designed for the transformed courses was made. Since exams and quizzes from the previous year were always made available to the students, they could not be reused. Efforts were made to make them similar, but equivalency between exams and quizzes in different years could not be ensured. Despite these complicating factors, it was hoped that some improvement in performance would be observed after the complete flip. A better instrument for assessment was the ACS organic exam. It was the same exam for all three years and given under similar conditions. In examining the overall course and the ACS exam scores, there was not a significant increase or decrease in performance over the 2 semester sequence. Given the possible variability affecting scores, it could be said that the three groups performed comparably. In the ACS exam the flipped class mean score fell between the means of the 2013 and 2012 classes. Although it was important that student performance did not decline, it was discouraging to observe no consistent or reliable indication of improved learning. It could be said that since there was no decrease in performance and the students preferred the flipped classes, this outcome would be sufficient reason to continue with the new format. This result was unsatisfactory however considering the main goal. It remained then to examine why improvement wasn’t observed. Although the evidence supports active learning, there certainly would be limits to its benefits. There are two aspects of this particular course flip that might come up against potential limits. Freeman et al. did report that the impact does decrease with increasing class size (6). Active learning had the largest effect for classes with less than 50 students. However medium (50 – 110) and large classes (>110) still benefit from active learning, just less so. It was also reported in their analysis that they were not able to determine what relationship between the intensity of active learning and student performance existed. Recently Jensen et al. reported that student achievement in and student attitudes towards a course with some active learning versus a fully flipped classroom were similar (16). It is then not clear to what extent more is better. Given the uncontrolled variables, the somewhat diminished impact of active learning as class size increases, and the high degree to which active learning was already incorporated in previous years, it may not be surprising that in the first attempt at a completely flipped classroom at IPFW, significant gains were not observed. Observations made during the transformed organic courses, two subsequent flipped general chemistry courses and the addition of CATs to the lecture portion of an organic laboratory course provide insight to where adjustments could be made to enhance learning. 101 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

Subsequent Adjustments to the Course Flip Several potential areas for improvement were noted for the organic courses. First the nature and quality of the pre-class homework needed to be reconsidered. Gross et al. have reported that this is an important consideration in how the flipped classroom can improve student performance (17). Although it may be valuable to evaluate whether students have grasped the most basic information, more challenging questions indicating what could be expected in class should be included. It also became apparent that post-class homework that reinforced the activities in the face-to-face meetings should be added. Since not all aspects of a topic could be covered in class through active learning, some follow up questions that stretched the students also seemed worthwhile. These changes were subsequently incorporated into one semester survey courses in general chemistry. Questions of this type will be developed for future organic chemistry classes. The second adjustment involved the ordering of the concepts chosen and complexity of the questions. Initially, questions were asked in a semi random order similar to what is done in an exam or quiz. Realizing that this approach did not seem to have the expected impact, the choice and order of questions were modified. The in class questions were initially simple, but each succeeding question involved concepts that built upon one another and increased in complexity until students had reached the course goal for a topic. The recognition that this order would be preferable developed over time and was not fully implemented for the organic chemistry courses. When it was employed, it was relatively easy to follow the progression of the video lectures and narrative in the text. Table 3 gives an example of a progression of question topics on electrophilic addition. For their first question, the students were asked to predict the product for the reaction of HX with a symmetrical alkene. For the second they would be asked about the mechanism and so on. In the text used for the course, electrophilic addition was split between 2 chapters. The topics in Table 3 represent those in the first chapter. It could be covered in as little as two 50 min. class periods. Although changing the homework and in class questions was valuable, two other problems were recognized and addressing them had a greater impact on potentially improving the courses. With the report that class size affected the efficacy of active learning, consideration was given to how to mitigate the effects of the large class size (6). The other problem was that more interactions between the instructor and the students was desired in the classroom. Too much time was spent by the instructor running the clicker software and placing explanations on the board and not enough time talking with students about their answers. Due to staffing needs within the IPFW chemistry department, I was scheduled to teach general chemistry. Consequently, in fall 2014 and spring 2015, CHM 11100 general chemistry was flipped. Although many aspects of teaching general chemistry and organic chemistry are different, there are some are commonalities. Those observations and adjustments that are applicable to the flipped organic chemistry courses will be presented here. CHM 11100 is a survey course that fulfills a general education requirement for the state of Indiana. For the fall, there were 96 students while in the spring semester, the population was 76. Both semesters the students consisted of dental hygiene, engineering technology, 102 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

elementary education majors. The instructor had not taught this course previously and had not taught general chemistry since 1993. There was no equivalent course for a comparison for the flipped format. From the fall to the spring, two changes were made. The instructor took steps to spend more time with the students. On most questions, the instructor spoke with two or more students (or groups) and discussed answers that were incorrect. A supplemental instructor (SI) was attached to the course. Undergraduate students with high GPA’s who have performed well in the same course or higher can become supplemental instructors. Normally they attend each class and lead two review sessions a week. For this course, the SI was asked to engage with the students in the same manner as the instructor. Increased engagement with the students mitigated the class size. Simply, two people could reach more students than one. Improvement was found from the fall to the spring general chemistry courses. All quiz and exam averages were higher in the spring to a greater or lesser degree. Although the rate of D grades, F grades, and course withdrawals was slightly higher in the spring, among the A, B, and C grades, there was a higher percentage of A’s and B’ relative to C grades. Unfortunately there is some contradictory evidence and complicating factors that make such a conclusion difficult to verify. Both the clicker and homework grades were lower in the spring semester. Clicker grades are based on the number of responses and students who stop attending will have very low scores. These are counted into the average and will skew the overall average lower. In the fall, a commercial online homework product was used while in the spring the online homework was developed by the instructor. The latter had more fill in the blank and less multiple choice which may have been more challenging for the students. For the same reasons as the clicker average, a higher percentage of students who stopped attending would make the homework average appear lower. The SI did conduct review sessions which were not available to the fall students. The attendance was low, but those who did attend should have benefited in their quiz, exam, and final grades. The instructor taught two sections of lab to the students unlike the fall. More time spent this way with the students would have certainly improved engagement. Finally the observed differences in the grades were not large and could be attributed to unidentified factors and normal variability. There was another potential problem to consider. Perhaps the active learning introduced was conducted in a completely ineffective manner. In fall 2015 CATs were introduced into the lecture portion of the organic laboratory course to some topics where it hadn’t been done previously. It was observed that the quiz averages were higher than they had been in the previous year. Apparently active learning was implemented properly and improvements could be observed. For those who are considering flipping their class, there are some final aspects to contemplate. Compared to a traditional lecture class, a flipped class solely devoted to peer to peer learning will certainly appear chaotic. The instructor should be comfortable with the prospect. In all of the flipped classes, informal groups were used for problem solving. It has been suggested that formal groups are preferable (18). Finally in the author’s experience, placing all lectures online provided more flexibility in the classroom. Easier topics can be completely left to the video lectures and homework. More difficult topics can be addressed as needed 103 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

in class. Student answers to questions readily indicate where more time needs to spent. It also provided more time to address specific student difficulties.

Table 3. An Example of Increasing the Complexity of Topics for Group Problem Solving Questions in the Flipped Classroom for Electrophilic Addition to Alkenes

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

Question Topics and Their Order 1. Product of the addition of HX to a symmetrical alkene

11. Carbocation stability: hyperconjugation, polarizability and alkyl groups

2. Mechanism of addition

12. Carbocation stability: Resonance effects and addition to vinyl halides and vinyl ethers

3. HOMO and LUMO in each step of mechanism

13. Stereochemistry of addition: Formation of both enantiomers

4. Acid catalyzed hydration of a symmetrical alkene

14. Carbocationic polymerization

5. Mechanism of acid catalyzed hydration

15. Carbocationic polymerization: Lewis acids and initiation

6. Role of the acid catalyst

16. Carbocationic polymerization: Suitable alkenes

7. Addition of HX to an unsymmetrical alkene: 2-methylpropene

17. Carbocation rearrangements and addition

8. Regiochemistry and Markovnikov’s rule

18. Carbocation rearrangements: Preference for more stable carbocation

9. Carbocation stability

19. Carbocation rearrangements: ring expansion and contraction

10. Carbocation stability: Inductive effects

Conclusion Based on the 2013-2014 course sequence, it can be said at the very least that flipping organic chemistry courses can be achieved without adverse effects to performance while increasing student satisfaction with their experience. Jensen et al. have indicated that a full flip may not be necessary to achieve learning gains (16). Their report may explain the comparable scores between the organic classes with a significant amount of active learning and the fully flipped courses. Beyond that there are indications that proper choice of pre- and post-class activities, appropriate question order and complexity, increased levels of engagement by the instructor and teaching assistant(s) can potentially lead to improvements in learning. 104 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Freeman et al. were strong in their statements about the value of active learning over traditional lecture (6). It is clear that a significant component of active learning should be present in any class. A complete flip may not be necessary, but to those who prefer the classroom environment and engagement with students that it provides, it will work.

Acknowledgments

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

The author would like to thank Gail Rathbun, Director of the Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching and the Department of Chemistry at IPFW for their support.

References Bergmann, J.; Sams, A. Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day; International Society for Technology in Education: Washington, DC, 2012. 2. Morgan, R. K.; Mitchell, N. G.; Chapman, N. To Flip or Not to Flip; Is That My Only Choice. In It Works for Me, Flipping the Classroom: Shared Tips for Effective Teaching; Blythe, H., Sweet C., Carpenter, R., Eds.; New Forums Press: Stillwater, OK, 2015; p 2. 3. D’Angelo, T.; Cross, K. P. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 1993. 4. Nilson, L. B. Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors, 3rd ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2010; pp 273−280. 5. Novak, G. M.; Gavrin, A.; Christian, W.; Patterson, E. Just-in-Time Teaching : Blending Active Learning with Web Technology; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999. 6. 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. 7. Mazur, E. Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997. 8. Hake, R. R. Interactive Engagement versus Traditional Methods: A SixThousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses. Am. J. Phys. 1998, 66, 64–74. 9. Deslauriers, L.; Schelew, E.; Wieman, C. Improved Learning in a LargeEnrollment Physics Class. Science 2011, 332, 862–864. 10. Smith, K. A.; Sheppard, S. R.; Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T. Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom Based Practices. J. Eng. Educ. 2005, 94, 87–101. 11. Leontyev, A.; Baranov, D. Massive Open Online Courses in Chemistry: A Comparative Overview of Platforms and Features. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1533–1539. 12. Bruff, D. Teaching with Classroom Response Systems: Creating Active Learning Environments; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2009. 1.

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

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

13. Nilson, L. B. Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors, 3rd ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2010; p 8. 14. Ruder, S. M. Clickers in Action: Active Learning in Organic Chemistry; W.W. Norton and Company: New York, NY, 2013. 15. Organic Education Resources: A cCWCS Community of Scholars. http:// www.organicers.org (accessed Jan. 18, 2016). 16. Jensen, L. J.; Kummer, T. A.; Gody, P. D. d. M. Improvements from a Flipped Classroom May Simply Be the Fruits of Active Learning. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2015, 14, ar5. 17. Gross, D.; Pietri, E. S.; Anderson, G.; Moyano-Camihort, K.; Graham, M. J. Increased PreClass Preparation Underlies Student Outcome Improvement in the Flipped Classroom. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2015, 14, ar36. 18. Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T.; Smith, K. A. Cooperative learning Returns to College: What Evidence is There That It Works? Change 1998 (July/ August), 27–35.

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

Chapter 7

Flipping General and Analytical Chemistry at a Primarily Undergraduate Institution Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Joan M. Esson* Chemistry Department, Otterbein University, 1 South Grove Street, Westerville, Ohio 43081 *E-mail: [email protected]

This paper describes the development and assessment of flipped courses in Analytical Chemistry, General Chemistry I, and General Chemistry II at a primarily undergraduate institution. The backwards design process that guided the course redevelopment is described, along with specific pedagogical strategies and examples of pre-class, in-class, and post-class activities. Classroom observations, student self-direction in learning, student learning, and student attitudes in the flipped design were compared with courses taught in a traditional format. Classroom observations indicated that the flipped classroom had greater levels of active student engagement and more individualized learning within the in-class group-learning space. Student self-direction in learning, as measured by differences in pre- and post-scores on the Professional Responsibility Orientation to Self-Direction in Learning Scale and responses on student evaluations, increased in select areas, including student self-efficacy in learning. Student learning in the flipped environment was as good as or better than that in the traditional classroom, as assessed by course grades and standardized American Chemical Society (ACS) exams. Lastly, student attitudes were found to be more positive for the flipped course than the traditional classroom design, and for Analytical Chemistry compared to General Chemistry.

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

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Introduction Flipped classrooms are becoming more widely used in higher education, with several examples available of their incorporation into chemistry (1–8). Flipped learning is defined by the Flipped Learning Network as a “pedagogical approach in which direct instruction moves from the group learning space to the individual learning space, and the resulting group space is transformed into a dynamic, interactive learning environment, where the educator guides students as they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter” (9). Although flipped classrooms are becoming more prevalent, limited examples exist of this pedagogical approach’s application to Analytical Chemistry. He and co-workers described the use of video tutorial supplements in Analytical Chemistry, but not within the flipped environment (1). Fitzgerald detailed the development of a flipped classroom in which Prezi was used to deliver content outside of the traditional classroom and class time involved using clickers to assess understanding and group work on online homework (2). Fitzgerald reported that student performance in terms of grade point average for the course showed no change. Scores on a standardized American Chemical Society Analytical Chemistry Exam showed improvement from previous years, but with no statistically significant difference given the small number of students in the course (n=11). Thus, few studies have examined how Analytical Chemistry can be flipped and how student learning is subsequently impacted. Though more research has explored flipped General Chemistry courses, findings have been mixed. Some studies have documented improved student attitudes (3), improved student performance on standardized American Chemical Society exams (4) and semester exams (5), as well as favorable reviews as recorded in student surveys or teaching evaluations (4–7). Other studies have demonstrated differential improvement: in some cases, noting a greater positive effect of the flipped environment on average-performing students (8), and in others, seeing more pronounced results for students with higher high school class rank and math preparedness (6). However, other studies have shown no difference in performance between students in flipped and traditional courses (6, 7). Although the impacts of a flipped course with respect to student attitudes and learning outcomes have been previously described (3–8), limited descriptions of lesson plans, in-class activities, and how they were chosen exist in the literature. Examples of using Just-in-Time Teaching before class to inform mini-lectures during class time have been described (7, 10, 11). In-class activities have been more widely reported and are dominated by problem-solving, either instructor-led or in groups, along with the use of clickers (3, 5, 7), although the implementation of SCALE-UP has also been reported (4). Examples of post-class activities are rare in the literature (7) despite the fact that this phase is essential for students to evaluate and solidify their understanding. Further, to the author’s knowledge, no literature exists that describes the development of flipped lower-level and upperlevel courses simultaneously. This chapter describes the development and assessment of flipped courses in both Analytical Chemistry and General Chemistry at a predominantly undergraduate institution. There were three factors motivating the change in 108 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

course design. First, a flipped environment has the potential to have increased student engagement during face-to-face meetings. Second, flipped classrooms provide an opportunity to spend more class time at higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (applying, analyzing, and evaluating) (12). Lastly, flipped classrooms can reduce the cognitive load of the learner. Underlying the cognitive load theory is the premise that we have a limited amount of working memory, and overloading working memory impedes learning (13). If videos are used to deliver content outside of class, students can pause or rewind the video as needed. This student self-pacing may reduce cognitive load and aid learning. This, combined with the ability of the instructor to work one-on-one or with small groups of students during class time, creates the possibility of individualized differentiated learning. Further, the course re-design was grounded in a generative learning theory in which students integrate new ideas with prior knowledge by emphasizing student construction of meaning (14).

Course Redesign Both General Chemistry and Analytical Chemistry were redesigned in Summer 2013 following the author’s attendance at a Course Transformation Institute run by the Center for Teaching and Learning at Otterbein University. This two-week course was designed in a hybrid environment so the attendees could both learn about hybrid course design, and experience it first-hand. Best practices for hybrid course design were introduced, as well as a variety of technologies that could be used in a flipped course. Attendees were asked to use McTighe and Wiggins’s backwards design approach in reimagining a course (15). Unlike traditional course development, which relies on examining textbook content and developing lectures to convey this information, backwards design emphasizes the identification of learning goals first, followed by development of assessment methods and, finally, design of learning activities. Learning goals for both courses were created by thoughtful examination of the anchoring concepts identified by the American Chemical Society (ACS) Exam Institute (16), ACS standardized exams, a review of topics taught in quantitative analysis (17), and of various textbooks. Learning goals for each course and a sample lesson with an associated assessment plan were shared with other participants in the course design workshop for feedback, and additional redesign continued throughout 2013. In the design stage, the WHERE approach was used (Figure 1). WHERE is an acronym that focuses on: helping the students know where a unit is going and what is expected (W); hooking the students on the topic and holding their interest (H); equipping the students, helping them to experience key ideas and explore concepts (E); providing opportunities to rehearse, revise, rethink, and refine their work (R); and allowing students to exhibit and evaluate their understanding (E). 109 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Figure 1. The WHERE approach to curriculum design. The WHERE approach was introduced by McTighe and Wiggins (15).

Course redevelopment also relied on the consideration of what would occur in the individual learning space before class, the group learning space during class, and the individual learning space after class. The purposes of the pre-class activities were to introduce students to content they could explore at their own pace, and to strengthen their prior knowledge before students explored the content more deeply during class. The in-class activities were selected to engage students in higher-order cognitive skills including application, analysis and evaluation, as well as transfer of their knowledge to new contexts. The post-class activities were designed to allow students to evaluate their understanding, encouraging self-directed learning. For both courses, Blackboard was used as a learning management system to organize content for the students. Each class meeting was associated with a folder within Blackboard that contained learning goals for that day, links to materials for the individual learning space, description of in-class activities, and homework directions. Starting each new day with learning goals helped the 110 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

students to know where the unit was going and what was expected (the W in the WHERE approach). Students were hooked (the H in the WHERE approach) by a real-world example or question given by the instructor, followed by content information provided either in a reading or in a video created in-house using Camtasia software. Although many of the activities were developed in-house, other materials for both the individual learning space and the group learning space included (or were informed by and adapted from) available resources, such as the Analytical Science Digital Library (18), PhET Interactive Simulations (19), the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (20), Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and On-Line Teaching (MERLOT II) (21), Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) (22), and Analytical POGIL (ANA-POGIL) (23). To ensure students watched the videos, completed readings and other individual learning space assignments, Warm Ups were used in which students answered three to five questions related to the content of the learning activities, including an open-ended prompt addressing questions they had about the content (24). During class time, students were encouraged to explore concepts and refine their thinking (the E and R of the WHERE approach) through a variety of methods including clickers, Peer Instruction (PI), simulations, case studies, Team-Based Learning, Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), and individual work. Both formative and summative assessments were completed to evaluate student understanding (the final E in the WHERE approach). Formative assessments consisted of activities such as the Muddiest Point, Minute Paper, and worksheets completed either individually or in groups (25). Summative assessments consisted of quizzes, instructor-written exams or American Chemical Society (ACS) standardized exams, and, in the case of General Chemistry, on-line homework. Although a discussion of the entire course design is outside the scope of this chapter, two modules are discussed in detail below, one from Analytical Chemistry and one from General Chemistry. Moreover, additional examples of learning modules for Analytical Chemistry and General Chemistry are described in Tables 1-4.

Module from Analytical Chemistry The sample learning module in Analytical Chemistry addressed Inferential Statistics (Table 1) (26–29). Here, the learning goals were first clearly articulated in the Blackboard folder for the module to help the students know where (W) the unit was going. Specifically the learning goals from this module were to: (1) explain why both visually and quantitatively examining data is important and (2) describe the purpose of each type of significance test, determining when and how to use each. The pre-class information also included examples from popular media that lack proper statistical interpretation, and part of a TED talk by mathematician Peter Donnelly describing the misuse of statistics in the criminal trial of a woman, which contributed to her wrongful conviction in the deaths of her two children (30). These examples provided the hook (H) to get students interested in statistical 111 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

analysis. The other pre-class material that students examined were three videos to introduce each type of statistical test: one 11-minute video introducing different types of t-tests; one 3-min video introducing the f-test; and one 3-min video introducing the Grubbs test to examine outlying data points. A link with an accompanying worksheet was then provided to the Introduction to Data Analysis Tutorial (26), which is a resource from the Analytical Sciences Digital Library (18) that guides students through: (i) a visual analysis of data regarding the mass of pennies as a function of the year they were minted; (ii) a comparison of the data using t-tests to determine if there are statistical differences; and (iii) an examination of possible outliers. This provided the opportunity for students to explore (E) the statistical tests. The in-class session utilized a cooperative learning strategy in which students worked in small groups on two in-house written case studies; the first examined two possible methods for determining calcium in the context of the effect of parathyroidism on calcium levels; and the second investigated fabricated experimental data linked to an invented forensic case. Both the clinical and forensic applications appealed to student interest, providing an additional hook, as well as the opportunity to rehearse and rethink (R) through the use of the various statistical tests. Case studies were chosen because they provide a realistic and contextually rich situation that students must navigate through, while cooperative learning was used so that students could learn from each other in a way that promotes deeper understanding. To complete the WHERE cycle, post-class activities required students to post in a discussion board about an additional case so that they could exhibit and evaluate (E) their understanding. Another example module on infrared spectroscopy for Analytical Chemistry is described in Table 1.

Module in General Chemistry In General Chemistry a learning module on factors affecting solubility was designed in a similar fashion. The learning goals, specified in Table 2, were clearly posted in the course Blackboard page to aid the students in understanding where (W) the unit was going. In their individual learning spaces before class, students viewed a short video giving a real-world example. Specifically, the implications of amino acid substitutions associated with mutated DNA on the solubility of hemoglobin and its relationship to sickle cell anemia was described. This provided the hook needed to hold (H) student interest, especially considering that many students taking General Chemistry have an interest in clinical fields.

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

Table 1. Select examples of learning modules in Analytical Chemistry. WHERE Designation

Activity

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Example 1. Inferential Statistics W: Help the students know Where the unit is going (Individual learning space)

Identification of learning goals (1) Explain why visually and quantitatively examining data is important (2) Describe the purpose of each type of significance test, and determine when and how to use each

H: Hook the students on the topic (Individual learning space)

Examples from popular media lacking proper statistics

E: Help students Explore concepts (Individual learning space)

In-house video, Introduction to Data Analysis Tutorial (26)

R: Opportunities to Rehearse (Group learning space)

Cooperative learning using in-house created cases

E: Exhibit and Evaluate understanding (Individual and group learning spaces)

Responses in discussion board about a select case in the media In-class exam

Example 2. Infrared Spectroscopy Unit W: Help the students know Where the unit is going (Individual learning space)

Identification of learning goals (1) Describe instrument components used in infrared (IR) spectroscopy (2) Explain the similarities and differences between UV/VIS and IR spectroscopies (3) Interpret simple IR spectra

H: Hook the students on the topic (Individual learning space)

Examples of importance of IR spectroscopy

E: Help students Explore concepts (Individual learning space)

Royal Society of Chemistry Infrared Spectroscopy video (27), Infrared Spectroscopy Tutorial (28)

R: Opportunities to Rehearse (Group learning space)

In-house-created collaborative worksheet

E: Exhibit and Evaluate understanding (Individual and group learning spaces)

Interpretation practice with the IRHelper (29) In-class exam

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

Table 2. Select example of a learning module on solubility in General Chemistry.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

WHERE Designation

Activity

W: Help the students know Where the unit is going (Individual learning space)

Identification of learning goals (1) Explain what is occurring at the particulate level when two substances are mixed together (2) Explain the relationship between intermolecular forces and solubility and what is meant by ‘like dissolves like’

H: Hook the students on the topic

Real-world examples of solubility (individual learning space)

E: Help students Explore concepts

In-house-made video followed by questions related to the content (individual learning space)

R: Opportunities to Rehearse (Group learning space)

Learning stations that students rotate through, such as a paper chromatography experiment, and another assessing structures of vitamins (i.e. if they are wateror fat-soluble and implications of this)

E: Exhibit and Evaluate understanding (Individual and group learning spaces)

Dear Mr. Scientist column (31) (similar in concept/format to a Dear Abby advice column); on-line homework In-house exam

The pre-class activities also required students to watch a video discussing factors that affect solubility, including intermolecular forces, pressure and temperature. This provides an initial introduction to the topic and time for students to explore (E) the content. Students also completed an activity before class that asked them first to predict if a particular substance would dissolve in another and explain why, and also to state any question(s) they had about the content in the video. This strategy helped the instructor frame the class meeting to suit the students’ needs. Depending on the student responses, the in-class activities included a mini-lecture to clarify ideas, followed by the rotation of small groups of students through learning stations that provided opportunities for students to rehearse and refine (R) their thinking about factors affecting solubility. The learning stations were chosen so that the students could examine and transfer the material to a variety of different contexts, and also to provide some physical movement to help keep the students awake during their 8 a.m. course. The learning stations included: separation of inks using paper chromatography and subsequent explorations of the relationship between the ink and solvent structures; assessment of the structures of select vitamins to determine if they are fat- or water-soluble and exploration of how this affected warnings used on products containing olestra (the infamous WOW chips from the late 1990s); and examination of the reasons for the packaging and storage conditions for carbonated beverages. The post-class activity for this learning module included the opportunity for students to exhibit (E) their understanding by responding to a letter in a “Dear Abby” style to Mr. Scientist, the fabricated question-and-answer 114 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

person for a popular science magazine (31). The initial letter to Mr. Scientist introduced a fictitious and humorous conflict between the letter writer and a parent or friend that Mr. Scientist could settle. This method was chosen so that students could demonstrate the transfer of their knowledge to a new context in an engaging way. Previous letters have required students to describe how soap works to remove stains and how scuba divers develop the bends. Two additional learning modules for General Chemistry are described in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. Acid-base learning module 1 for General Chemistry.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

WHERE Designation

Activity

W: Help the students know Where the unit is going

Individual learning space: Identification of learning goals (1) Define and identify acids, bases, and conjugate acid-base pairs (2) Explain the difference between and identify a strong acid (or base) and a weak acid (or base) (3) Describe structural factors that influence acid strength

H: Hook the students on the topic

Individual learning space: Real-world examples of the importance of acid-base chemistry

E: Help students Explore concepts

Individual learning space: in-house made video followed by Warm Up questions

R: Opportunities to Rehearse

Group learning space: Team Based Learning using in-house created worksheet and IF-AT sheets (33)

E: Exhibit and Evaluate understanding

Individual learning space: on-line homework Group learning space: Exam

As evidenced from these examples and others shown in Tables 1-4, the pedagogical strategy and content delivery for both courses were similar, even though the two classes have different student profiles. The students in Analytical Chemistry are a more homogenous group consisting of chemistry majors and minors who are typically second or third year students, while the students in General Chemistry are mainly pursuing other science majors and are mostly in their first or second year. Additionally, the Analytical Chemistry course is smaller than General Chemistry (~10 students versus ~35 students, respectively). The pre-class individual learning space in both courses utilized mainly in-house videos, which were slightly longer for Analytical Chemistry than for General Chemistry (9 min versus 7 min, respectively). With videos from other sources that were used in Analytical Chemistry, students emphasized that it was helpful to have an accompanying handout, as the main ideas of these videos were not as immediately apparent to them as those in the in-house videos, since with the latter, they could listen for the instructor’s voice inflections to key into important ideas.

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

Table 4. Acid-base learning module 2 for General Chemistry.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

WHERE Designation

Activity

W: Help the students know Where the unit is going

Individual learning space: Identification of learning goals (1) Explain how pH is affected by acid (or base) strength and concentration (2) Calculate the pH of various acidic and basic solutions

H: Hook the students on the topic

Individual learning space: Which student is right? Evaluation of two possible answers

E: Help students Explore concepts

Individual learning space: PhET simulation: Acid-Base Solutions (19)

R: Opportunities to Rehearse

Group learning space: Collaborative in-house written worksheet

E: Exhibit and Evaluate understanding

Individual learning space: annotated problem (25) and on-line homework Group learning space: Exam

During the in-class meetings, both courses used a mix of individual and collaborative group learning. However, the specific practices that were used for group work varied between the courses in some cases. In General Chemistry, students were more apt to move at different rates from others in the same class. Since individualized or small group feedback from the instructor was more difficult given the greater number of students, the students required methods with more immediate feedback. Peer Instruction (PI) (32) and Team-Based Learning (TBL) using immediate feedback assessment technique (IF-AT) sheets (33) are two methods that meet this need that were used in General Chemistry. Students in the teams in the TBL-inspired method were required to complete individual readiness assurance tests, team readiness assurance tests, an application exercise, and peer review. Although the teams worked together multiple times throughout the term, these teams were not used every class period when other pedagogical methods were employed. The pedagogical method that was chosen depended in part on whether the topic for the day focused more on conceptual understanding or problems involving mathematical manipulation. It should be noted, however, that the choice of specific group pedagogy is not reflective of the difference between a lower level and upper level course, but rather of class size. There were some differences between the courses in terms of the types of materials used. Since flipping a course requires a significant investment of time in course redesign, initially using materials that are readily available can reduce the overall planning time. PhET Interactive Simulations (19) are free, interactive, research-based simulations for a variety of science fields. However, of the over 30 chemistry-related simulations, only a handful are readily applicable to Analytical Chemistry. Thus, PhET simulations were more widely used in General Chemistry. However, the Analytical Sciences Digital Library (18) provides a compilation of resources for more advanced topics, such as the HPLC Simulator 116 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

(34). Additionally, Analytical Chemistry employed more case studies that were either designed in-house or adapted from the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (20). These case studies required students to apply their knowledge of analytical methods and integrate multiple ideas.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Implementation Beginning in Fall 2013, Analytical Chemistry was taught in a flipped format once per academic year. Although students were surveyed about their experiences, little comparative data is available for the same course taught in a traditional format. The number of students per year varied between 5 and 21 students. General Chemistry II was taught in a flipped format in Spring 2014 and Spring 2015. During Spring 2014, the author taught two sections of the course: one in a traditional style and the other in a flipped format. This allowed direct comparison of student surveys and student performance without confounding the data due to effect of the instructor. In the traditional course, students were first exposed to ideas during the class meeting whereas students’ first exposure to content occurred before class in the flipped format. Although the traditional course used in-class lecture, active learning strategies, such as Think-Pair-Share and collaborative group work, were also employed. Other instructors also taught General Chemistry II in Spring 2014 and Spring 2015 in a traditional style, and these comparative data are also available. The class sizes varied between 24 and 30 students. In addition to student surveys about their experiences that utilized a Likert scale and open-ended questions, the validated Professional Responsibility Orientation to Self-Direction in Learning Scale (PRO-SDLS) was also used to evaluate student learning (35). The PRO-SDLS is a 25-question five-point Likert scale survey that consists of four sub-scales: initiative, control, self-efficacy, and motivation. Additionally, a minimum of three classroom observations were completed for each course using the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) (36). In COPUS, codes for both instructor behavior and student behavior are recorded in two-minute intervals throughout the class. In Fall 2015, General Chemistry I was taught by the author as a flipped class (n = 39), and comparisons were made to students in a traditional section (n = 34) taught by another instructor. Performance on exams and results for the PRO-SDLS were compared. Statistical analyses were completed using SPSS software.

Results and Discussion Classroom Observations Classroom observations are a useful tool to understand what is occurring in the group learning space. During Spring 2014 and Spring 2015, all sections of General Chemistry II were observed using COPUS, in which classroom actions of both the instructor and the students were observed and coded (36). In the flipped classroom, one-on-one extended discussions by the instructor with one 117 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

or a few individuals was found to be significantly greater than in the traditional course regardless of if the same instructor was teaching the traditional course or other instructors were (33% of two-minute intervals sampled in the flipped classroom versus 3% for traditional, p = 0.036 for the same instructor, p = 0.021 for all instructors). These classroom observations support the stated advantage of personalized learning within the flipped classroom (37, 38).

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Student Learning – Summative Assessment For Analytical Chemistry, limited comparative analysis is available of the effect of the flipped classroom on student learning. While the exams were similar in both the traditional and flipped classrooms, different exams were given in different years, so direct side-by-side comparison is difficult. Students in the course pre- and post-flip had similar characteristics with no statistically significant difference in math ACT scores. Student performance on course exams also showed no statistically significant difference between the two class formats. The ACS 2013 Analytical Chemistry Exam was administered during the past two years in the flipped classroom, and students placed in the 87th percentile, on average. However, this exam was not adopted until the year of the course re-design, making comparison impossible. Thus, at a minimum, the conclusion can be made that students in the flipped Analytical Chemistry classroom are performing well on national assessments and are learning equally as well as students in the traditional classroom. To probe if student learning is different in the flipped classroom in an upper level course compared to that at the introductory level, student performance was also examined for General Chemistry I and General Chemistry II. In both of these courses, direct side-by-side comparisons can be made between the flipped and traditional formats since both designs were taught in the same term. Since ACT scores have been previously shown to correlate to chemistry performance (39), the average ACT score and distribution of scores for students taught using each style were compared and no significant difference was found. The average course grade was also not statistically different, suggesting a limited impact of the flipped format on student learning. However, the distribution of grades in General Chemistry I varies between the traditional and flipped classrooms when two different instructors taught each course (Figure 2). The percent of As was greater for the flipped course (39% versus 21%), and the number of DFWs was slightly reduced (16% versus 18%). This suggests that the flipped approach may preferentially help average students. It also agrees with the shift to higher grade distributions that has been previously found for some flipped chemistry courses (7, 8, 40). Some studies have also suggested that flipped learning may have differential effects for men and women (4); however, no differences were observed based on gender. Additionally, students in the flipped section of General Chemistry I were found to perform better on the ACS General Chemistry First Term Exam 2015 than those in the traditional course (score of 45 versus 36, respectively, p = 0.001). However, no comparisons can be made to national norms since none were yet available at the time of this writing. 118 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Figure 2. Comparison of Course Grades in General Chemistry I for Flipped and Traditional Classes. Unlike General Chemistry I, no differences in student performance were observed on the ACS 2007 General Chemistry 2nd Term Paired Question exam between the flipped and traditional courses of General Chemistry II. Students placed in the 60th percentile on average, which is lower than that found for the standardized Analytical Chemistry exam. Additionally, to examine learning gains in General Chemistry II throughout the term, the conceptual questions from the ACS exam were given at the start of the term and compared to performance at the end of the semester. The ratio of actual gain to maximum possible gain, known as the Hake gain (41), was determined for each student. When comparing formats taught by the same instructor, the average Hake gain was not statistically different (0.32 and 0.31 for the flipped and traditional, respectively). However, when comparing formats taught by different instructors, the average Hake gain was greater for the flipped design (0.32 for flipped versus 0.23 for traditional). This difference, though, was not statistically significant, given the limited number of students in the flipped course who completed both the pre- and post- exam (n = 19, p = 0.089). Taken together, these results suggest a limited impact of a flipped classroom design on student academic performance, with the exception of the significantly increased performance on the standardized ACS exam in General Chemistry I and the strong performance of students on the ACS exam in Analytical Chemistry. This may in part be due to the small class sizes examined in this study. Seery’s review of publications on flipped learning found that half were shown to improve student academic performance, while the other half saw no differences (7). Additionally, Jensen concluded that a flipped design does not result in higher learning gains when both the flipped and traditional courses use an active-learning approach (42). The data herein support these earlier findings; smaller average differences in student 119 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

performance were observed between the flipped and traditional courses taught by the author than between the author’s flipped course and traditional courses taught by other instructors, who have been documented via COPUS to use fewer activelearning techniques.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Self-Directed Student Learning In a flipped classroom, students are expected to move away from being passive participants and take responsibility for their own learning (38, 43). However, few studies have explored if students are actually doing so. Fautch probed student ownership of learning by giving students a pre- and post- Likert scale survey that included the statement, “I feel autonomous in my learning.” However, no changes were found as the term proceeded (37). In a psychobiology course, van Vliet used the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire and found that students in the flipped course increased their scores with respect to critical thinking, task value (students’ perception of course material in terms of interest, importance, and utility), and peer learning (44). This study examined self-direction in student learning using a pre- and postdesign employing the PRO-SDLS survey (35). In General Chemistry I the average PRO-SDLS score increased during the semester in the flipped classroom (90.3 to 90.6) and decreased for the traditional classroom (89.4 to 89.2). However, neither the average scores nor the changes in scores were statistically different between the two course formats. Similar findings were seen for General Chemistry II. However, significant differences were found on specific questions within the survey, which suggests that students in the flipped classroom experienced an increase in select areas of self-directed learning. For example, the gain for General Chemistry I students was larger in the flipped course on the statement exploring initiative in learning: “I frequently do extra work in this course just because I am interested” (0.58 flipped versus -0.14 traditional, p = 0.006). A greater increase in self-efficacy of learning was also observed in the flipped course, demonstrated by decreased agreement to the statement: “I am really uncertain about my capacity to take primary responsibility for my learning” (-0.62 flipped versus 0.25 traditional, p = 0.012). Student Attitudes The teaching evaluations of students in both Analytical Chemistry and General Chemistry II were examined to better understand student attitudes toward the flipped classroom. Students in Analytical Chemistry gave more favorable responses than those in General Chemistry (Table 5). Previous studies have shown that there is often an adjustment period for students when changing to a flipped learning environment (45, 46). Because students in Analytical Chemistry are typically second or third year chemistry majors or minors while those in General Chemistry are typically first or second year students from a variety of science majors, students in Analytical Chemistry are likely more comfortable learning chemistry in a different format and have a shorter adjustment period to the new learning style compared to General Chemistry students. 120 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Table 5. Select results of teaching evaluations for both flipped and traditional course designs when taught by the same instructor. Statementa

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Average number of hours spent on course per week Under 4 4–8 8-12 12-16 More than 16

General Chemistry II Flippedb

General Chemistry II Traditionalb

Analytical Chemistry Flippedb

Analytical Chemistry Traditionalb

0% 30% 41% 18% 11%

16% 49% 22% 10% 3%

18% 36% 18% 23% 9%

4% 52% 28% 12% 4%

Course assignments help me understand course content.

4.28

4.19

4.45

4.07

This course improves my ability to think critically and independently.

4.33

4.01

4.55

4.18

a

With the exception of the first statement, answers are on a five-point Likert scale with 5 being strongly agree. b Two years of weighted averages are listed, with the exception of the Analytical Chemistry Flipped that had three. Since limited data was provided about the teaching evaluations, no statistical tests were performed.

Table 5 also demonstrates that students rated the flipped course similarly to or more highly than the traditional course for both Analytical Chemistry and General Chemistry II. Specifically, students in the flipped course agreed to a greater extent that the course assignments helped them understand course content, and that the course improved their ability to think critically and independently. This suggests that the time spent in the course redesign was worthwhile and effective from the students’ perspective of their own learning. Additionally, this further supports the notion that students take more responsibility for their own learning in a flipped environment (38, 43). It is also interesting that the students self-report spending more time in the individual learning space of the course (“Average number of hours spent on course per week”) when taught in the flipped design compared to the traditional class, for both General Chemistry II and Analytical Chemistry. In open-ended questions on surveys about the flipped courses, students reported several drawbacks and benefits that are consistent with those reported in other studies (4, 7, 40). Three of these drawbacks were mentioned only by students in General Chemistry, including: limited attention span and focus when watching videos; difficulty self-motivating to do work outside of the group learning environment; and time-consuming nature of the course. Students in both Analytical Chemistry and General Chemistry mentioned not being able to ask questions immediately while watching videos, and difficulty adjusting to a 121 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

new way of learning. Unlike the traditional-course responses, in which several students mentioned the fast pace of the class, no students in the flipped classroom discussed the speed of the course as a difficulty. Positive comments were mentioned more often and several themes emerged. These included the ability to individualize learning and listen to lectures at the student’s optimum pace and multiple times if desired; increased time for active learning and problem-solving in the classroom; ability to ask questions of the instructor more readily during class; earlier exposure to key concepts in the individual learning space to enhance understanding; use of constructivist learning; and use of low-stakes assignments.

Conclusions This chapter summarized the redesign of three different chemistry courses (Analytical Chemistry, General Chemistry I, and General Chemistry II) to flipped classrooms using a backwards design approach. In the flipped classroom, content delivery is moved to the individual learning space, leaving the group learning space for further exploration and application of material. Classroom observations confirmed that the group learning space is transformed to a more active environment, with decreased time in which students passively listen. Student academic performance in the flipped course, as measured by course grade and standardized exam score, was found to be equal to or better than that in the traditional design. Additionally, select aspects of student self-direction in learning were also found to increase, as documented by the PRO-SDLS and teaching evaluations. The attitudes of students in the flipped classrooms expressed in surveys and student evaluations were found to be equal to or more positive than those in the traditional course design. Finally, students in Analytical Chemistry were more apt to agree that the design of the flipped course helped them understand the course content and think critically. Future work will seek to understand the relationship between specific lesson designs and student learning. Specifically, a more detailed analysis of the ACS standardized exam results will be undertaken. Exam questions will be grouped by topic to determine which specific lessons and types of activities are leading to significant improvements in student learning. Further, student scores and attitudinal information will be separated out by different demographics, such as by low and high achieving students and by first generation college students, to determine if the flipped classroom impacts student groups differently.

Acknowledgments The author wishes to acknowledge the staff of the Center for Teaching and Learning at Otterbein University for leading the 2013 Course Transformation Institute. Additionally, the author would like to recognize the National Science Foundation (#1347243), which funded the COPUS-based classroom observations. 122 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

References 1.

2. 3.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

9. 10.

11. 12. 13.

14.

15. 16.

17.

He, Y.; Swenson, S.; Lents, N. Online Video Tutorials Increase Learning of Difficult Concepts in an Undergraduate Analytical Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1128–1132. Fitzgerald, N.; Li, L. Using Presentation Software to Flip an Undergraduate Analytical Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1559–1563. Smith, J. D. Students Attitudes toward Flipping the General Chemistry Classroom. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14, 607–614. Weaver, G. C.; Sturtevant, H. G. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Flipped Format General Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1437–1448. Amaral, K. E.; Shank, J. D.; Shibley, I. A.; Shibley, L. R. Web-Enhanced General Chemistry Increases Student Completion Rates, Success, and Satisfaction. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 296–302. Butzler, K. B. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Flipping at an Open-Enrollment College. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1574–1576. Seery, M. K. Flipped Learning in Higher Education Chemistry: Emerging Trends and Potential Directions. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 758–768. Yestrebsky, C. L. Flipping the Classroom in a Large Chemistry Class-Research University Environment. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 191, 1113–1118. Flipped Learning Network. Definition of Flipped Learning. www. flippedlearning.org/definition (accessed January 8, 2016). Muzyka, J. L. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Just-in-Time Teaching in Chemistry Courses with Moodle. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1580–1581. Haile, J. D. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Using a Blog to Flip a Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1572–1573. Krathwohl, D. R. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theor. Pract. 2002, 41, 212–218. Abeysekera, L.; Dawson, P. Motivation and Cognitive Load in the Flipped Classroom: Definition, Rationale and a Call for Research. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2015, 34, 1–14. Fiorella, L.; Mayer, R. E. Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning Strategies that Promote Understanding; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, 2015. McTighe, J.; Wiggins, G. Understanding by Design, 2nd ed.; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA, 2005. Holme, T.; Murphy, K. The ACS Exams Institute Undergraduate Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map I: General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 721–723. Griffiths, P. R. Whither “quant”? An Examination of the Curriculum and Testing Methods for Quantitative Analysis Courses Taught in Universities and Colleges in the Western USA. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2008, 391, 875–880. 123 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

18. Analytical Sciences Digital Library (ASDL). http://home.asdlib.org/ (accessed January 11, 2016). 19. PhET Interactive Simulations. https://phet.colorado.edu/ (accessed January 11, 2016). 20. National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. http:// sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/ (accessed January 11, 2016). 21. Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and On-Line Teaching (MERLOT II). https://www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm (accessed January 11, 2016). 22. Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). https://pogil.org/ (accessed January 11, 2016). 23. Analytical Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (ANA-POGIL). https:/ /pogil.org/post-secondary/ana-pogil (accessed January 11, 2016). 24. Novak, G.; Patterson, E.; Gavrin, A; Christian, W. Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999. 25. Angelo, T. A.; Cross, K. P. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers, 2nd ed.; Josey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 1993; pp 222–225. 26. Harvey, D.; Otto, W. Introduction to Data Analysis. http://asdlib.org/ onlineArticles/ecourseware/Harvey/DataAnalysisHome.html (accessed January 11, 2016). 27. Royal Society of Chemistry. Infrared Spectroscopy (IR). https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=DDTIJgIh86E (accessed January 11, 2016). 28. Nilsson, G.; Fok, E.; Ng, J.; Cooke, J. Infrared Spectroscopy. http:// www.chem.ualberta.ca/~inorglab/spectut/IRpg1.html (accessed January 11, 2016). 29. Colby College Chemistry. IRHelper Spectral Interpretation. http:// www.colby.edu/chemistry/JCAMP/IRHelper.html (accessed January 11, 2016). 30. Donnelly, P. July 2005. How Juries Are Fooled by Statistics [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_donnelly_shows_how_ stats_fool_juries (accessed January 11, 2016). 31. Bean, J. C. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom; Jossey-Bass: San Franciso, CA, 2001. 32. Mazur, E. Peer Instruction; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997. 33. Epstein Educational Enterprises. Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IFAT). http://www.epsteineducation.com/home/ (accessed January 11, 2016). 34. Carr, P.; Boswell, P.; Stoll, D. HPLC Simulator. http://www. hplcsimulator.org/ (accessed March 11, 2016). 35. Stockdale, S. L.; Brockett, R. G. Development of the PRO-SDLS: A Measure of Self-Direction in Learning Based on the Personal Responsibility Orientation Model. Adult Educ. Quart. 2011, 61, 161–180. 36. Smith, M. K.; Jones, F. H. M.; Gilbert, S. L.; Wieman, C. E. The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A 124 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

37. 38.

39.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45. 46.

New Instrument to Characterize University STEM Classroom Practices. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2013, 12, 618–627. Fautch, J. M. The Flipped Classroom for Teaching Organic Chemistry in Small Classes: Is It Effective? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 179–186. Davies, R. S.; Dean, D. L.; Ball, N. Flipping the Classroom and Instructional Technology Integration in a College-Level Information Systems Spreadsheet Course. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2013, 61, 563–580. House, J. D. Noncognitive Predictors of Achievement in Introductory College Chemistry. Res. High. Educ. 1995, 36, 473–490. Trogden, B. G. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Reclaiming Face Time – How an Organic Chemistry Flipped Classroom Provided Access to Increased Guided Engagement. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1570–1571. Hake, R. R. Interactive-Engagement versus Traditional Methods: A SixThousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses. Am. J. Phys. 1998, 64, 64–74. Jensen, J. L.; Kummer, T. A.; Godoy, P. D. D. M. Improvements from a Flipped Classroom May Simply Be the Fruits of Active Learning. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2015, 14, 1–12. Wallace, M. L.; Walker, J. D.; Braseby, A. M.; Sweet, M. S. “Now, What Happens During Class? Using Team-Based Learning to Optimize the Role of Expertise within the Flipped Classroom. JECT 2014, 25, 253–273. Van Vliet, E. A.; Winnips, J. C.; Brouwer, N. Flipped-Class Pedagogy Enhances Student Metacognition and Collaborative-Learning Strategies in Higher Education But Effect Does Not Persist. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2015, 14, 1–10. Christiansen, M. A. Inverted Teaching: Applying a New Pedagogy to a University Organic Chemistry Class. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1845–1850. Talbert, R. Inverted Classroom. Colleagues [Online] 2012, 9, 1−2 http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1183&context= colleagues (accessed January 11, 2016).

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

Chapter 8

Biochemistry and the Liberal Arts: Content and Communication in a Flipped Classroom Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

Gregory W. Muth* Department of Chemistry, St. Olaf College, 1520 St. Olaf Ave., Northfield, Minnesota 55057 *E-mail: [email protected]

This chapter reflects on seven semesters of teaching a one-semester majors biochemistry course in a liberal arts setting before flipping the classroom and six semesters of teaching the same course after flipping the classroom. The median exam score prior to flipping was 82% and after flipping was 79% (p = 0.009). Analysis of the level of difficulty of the exam questions revealed that after flipping, the exams contained 23% more points at higher cognitive levels as assessed by Bloom’s taxonomy. This indicated that even though the students performed the same, the exams required higher order thinking skills for success. Students also reported gains in proficiency working in groups, communication skills and problem solving abilities.

Introduction Teaching pedagogy has evolved with changing technology. In years gone by we taught with chalk on slate, acetate sheets on overhead projectors, white boards, using Powerpoint and now with video supplements. In each instance there was a period of adjustment and/or pushback from the faculty and a period of adjustment and pushback from the students. Despite the struggles during the transition, the change was good and ended with a better, more progressive learning environment. The age of video instruction has complemented the active learning classroom (1–4). While both video instruction and active learning each have merit, the combination of the two can provide an excellent balance between delivering content and promoting meaningful reflection and learning (3, 5–7). The style © 2016 American Chemical Society Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

and content of videos for teaching are as wide and varied as the methods for making them (8). Background, special topics, guest lectures, problem solutions and responses to questions all have been the subjects of videos to enhance student learning and create time in-class for high-impact, active learning strategies. With class time liberated for active learning strategies, faculty are employing a vast array of proven techniques in the classroom (9, 10). Personal response systems (clickers), paper and pencil problems, skits, student presentations, workshops, demonstrations and a class-lab hybrid all are more accessible with the lecture portion being moved outside of the class. But beyond content, the flipped classroom provides students an opportunity to improve interpersonal skills (11, 12). The current generation of college students has been raised in a device-centric (phone, iPad etc.) social structure while many of the older generations and even current students from less privileged backgrounds have not had this opportunity. This disparity can create a challenge for quality and effective interpersonal communication. To this end, students need coaching and practice in the art of both speaking and listening. Even for those who are proficient, there is always room to refine communication skills in a technical area. In this chapter the journey of creating and implementing a flipped classroom using video lectures for a one-semester 300-level biochemistry course will be presented. Comparisons of exams and exam scores are made between the same course taught in traditional lecture format and in the flipped format. Additional self-reported student data are given to support the claim that they are gaining skills valued by the liberal arts community.

Methodology The process for creating a video lecture supplement for viewing outside of class can begin with PowerPoint slides and lecture notes that already exist for a given course. There is no requirement to rewrite lectures or modify slides that have proven effective for student learning and previous experiences. In conversations with faculty who are interested in trying to create video lectures they often become overwhelmed with the number of choices in software available to capture video voice and screen simultaneously. While there are dozens to choose from they all do about the same thing. In this respect the choices therefore become very personal. This author recommends several features that have proven effective for the past several years. First is convenience. It is very convenient to be able to record, edit and publish a lecture video in the privacy and comfort of your own office. Some may argue for the need for a professional quality recording studio and yes, that will give the highest quality production product in the end but there is a trade-off for the convenience of simply being able to close your door record a lecture and publish it to the web. To this end this author has used Telescreen’s ScreenFlow software for all of his video lecture production (13). ScreenFlow allows the simultaneous capture of voice, a headshot (optional) and the events that are happening on the screen whether it is an animation or simply the mouse pointer being used to illustrate different features on the slide (Figure 1). 128 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

Figure 1. Representative screen shot of a typical video lecture containing the PowerPoint slide, talking head of the professor and the mouse pointer to highlight text.

The second feature that is critical in screen capture software is the ability to conveniently edit the file. Editing the file can be extremely complex and timeconsuming, relatively straightforward, or not employed at all. We know that in our classrooms not every lecture is perfect. Often times we pause, we may stumble on words, shuffle our notes or even lose our train of thought. The students are accepting of these small idiosyncrasies therefore we should feel no different when producing a video lecture. A slight pause to check where you are in your notes, a moment to collect your thoughts or an invitation for students to pause the video to work a problem does not distract from the content of the video lecture itself. This “good enough” philosophy can lower a barrier and facilitate creation of a valuable teaching tool. If one does desire to edit out large gaffes or create a video masterpiece, the software should be easy and convenient to use. With ScreenFlow, large and/or small sections of audio and video can be cut and spliced back together to create a relatively seamless flow of information from start to finish. It is also possible to add voice overs or additional material later on if desired. Finally, all software packages must have the ability to export the file from an editable screen capture file or similar to a .MOV, .mp4 or .m4v file (or similar) that can be viewed on nearly any device whether it is phone, tablet PC or Mac. Note that the editable files created in ScreenFlow are rather large and potentially cumbersome, so having an external hard drive is a nice way to store them safely without having to burden a device with these large files. A sixteen-minute video as an editable Screenflow file is 8.3GB. Once converted to .MOV or .m4v the final file is only 170MB. Once exported, storing the files on Google Drive or on an internal server allows for easy access via links on course websites or your institution’s learning management system (LMS). To complement the online lectures, students can be given access to all the PowerPoint slides used in the lectures. They can choose between viewing them electronically, downloading and printing them themselves, or purchasing the printed version from the bookstore/campus copy center in a bound volume. 129 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

Anecdotal evidence suggests that students listen more actively (as if they were in class) and are more successful when they have the printed slides in front of them while watching the video lectures. The in-class portion of the course can be based on a variety of proven highimpact practice strategies. Whether it is unique applications of the basic concepts presented in literature-centered case studies, POGIL activities or simply working problems from the back of the chapter in groups, the idea is to engage students in activities that reinforce key concepts and allow them to practice problem solving in an atmosphere of “social constructivism (14–16).” The activities should follow the central dogma of the high impact classroom where activities are effortful, build relationships, allow the instructor to provide immediate feedback/coaching and apply/reinforce the knowledge gained from outside of class efforts (17). Small groups of 3 to 4 established at random and shuffled after each exam has been the methodology to date based on previous reports (18). This author uses a 50-50 split between end of chapter or exam-style questions to engage students with the material and case study assignments either self-authored or published (19–21). Regardless of the activity the students are given the material ahead of time and encouraged to work through the material on their own before class, bringing to class questions that might have come up during the process of working on the problems or cases. The ideal scenario is for a student to truly engage in the material outside of class and bring specific roadblock questions to class to discuss with classmates and the instructor. This scenario rarely plays out, yet class-time can be fruitful without much pre-class preparation. Usually students spend more time in-class focusing on background information and orienting themselves to the problems rather than delving deeply into the nuances of the biochemical concepts. The key to successful in-class activities is to make sure the students have a product to be graded to turn in at the end of class even if it is just the answer to one problem completed by the group. This ensures that the groups remain focused on the material rather than on side conversations or current events. The “hand-in” at the end of class also provides the instructor a vehicle to provide feedback on their written work prior to an exam. Because of the structure of the flipped classroom there is no limit on the creativity of the instructor for in-class activities. Games, skits and even serious discussions about current research articles and ethical dilemmas can be brought before the class without having to worry about sacrificing precious lecture time needed to cover content.

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

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

Results Observations and data collected for this chapter are from a typical semester at St. Olaf College with 12 weeks of instruction covering the content for a 300 level biochemistry class targeted at junior and senior undergraduates who have completed two semesters of 200-level organic chemistry. In the 12 weeks the students were assigned 51 video lectures to be viewed outside of class to support their reading of the textbook. The lectures ranged in length from five minutes to 30 minutes with an average video length of 16 minutes. The tone of the video lectures could be described more as a one-on-on tutorial during office-hours rather than a lecture-hall style presentation. During a given week the average time students were assigned to spend outside of class listening to lectures was a little over 60 minutes provided they did a single viewing. By flipping the classroom all students were guaranteed at least 165 minutes per week of active, guided engagement in material related to problem solving and critical thinking. With an average class size of 32, dividing the students into eight groups of 4 allowed for personal interactions with each group during the scheduled meeting time and a manageable grading load for the in-class assignments. In the seven semesters prior to flipping the classroom, 34 exams were administered to 325 students. The typical exam format consisted of 7-8 short answer questions where the students had to complete a calculation, draw a figure, interpret data or write a response in their own words within the 1-hour time limit. The median score on these exams was 82%. In the six semesters following flipping the classroom 24 exams were administered to 196 students. Exam format and time restriction was comparable to those administered before flipping the classroom. The median score on these exams was 79%. A two-tail distribution analysis gave a P level of 0.009 that suggests that there was no difference in the median score between the two data sets. While there was no significant difference between the median scores before and after flipping the classroom, a detailed analysis of the exams themselves showed a difference in the difficulty of the exams. Each question on each exam was evaluated and ranked according to Bloom’s taxonomy (22). Table 1 below shows the criteria for ranking each test question and Table 2 shows the average percentage of exam points assigned at each level before-and-after flipping the class.

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

Table 1. Exam question levels and corresponding Bloom’s taxonomy

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

Level

Type

Rationale

Key Words

1

Knowledge

Requires the student to recognize or recall information

list, label, define, describe

2

Comprehension When students can reproduce and communicate ideas and information without verbatim repetition

arrange, identify, explain, sort, classify

3

Application

The ability to use this information in particular, concrete, situations

choose, solve, draw demonstrate, prepare

4

Analysis

Breaking down ideas into constituent parts in order to make the organization clear

analyze, contrast, examine, test, compare

5

Synthesis

The ability to integrate ideas into a unified whole

create, design, propose, modify

6

Evaluation

The ability to judge the value of an idea, model, procedure etc. using appropriate criteria

judge, predict, defend, support, assess

Table 2. Aggregate percentages of exam points at each level before and after flipping the classroom. Level

Before

After

1-2

49%

26%

3-4

42%

51%

5-6

9%

23%

Each semester following flipping the classroom, students were given an assessment worksheet and asked to respond to a series of prompts on a five point Likert scale where the highest response was “strongly agree” and the lowest response was “strongly disagree”. Questions could be divided into two categories one having to do with the structure of the class (Table 3) and one having to do with personal growth during class (Table 4).

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

Table 3. End of course survey questions used to measure student opinion of the structure of the course Structure I feel the book was valuable to learning biochemistry I feel working problems in groups during class time was valuable to learning biochemistry I feel the On Line Lectures (OLL) were a suitable replacement for in-class lectures

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

I feel the instructor created a supportive, encouraging environment for learning

Student responses over five semesters are summarized in aggregate form in figure 2.

Figure 2. Results summarized from Table 3 questions. The solid point is the average percentage of students who responded, “agree” or “strongly agree” to the corresponding question. The vertical bar spans the range of responses over five semesters.

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

Table 4. End of course survey questions used to measure student opinion of personal gains during the course Growth I feel I improved my ability to think beyond the basics I feel I improved my ability to work with others I feel I improved my ability to solve problems

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

I feel I improved in my ability to be a more independent learner

Student responses over five semesters are summarized in aggregate form in figure 3.

Figure 3. Results summarized from Table 4 questions. The solid point is the average percentage of students who responded, “agree” or “strongly agree” to the corresponding question. The vertical bar spans the range of responses over five semesters.

Discussion Despite the growing evidence that the flipped classroom is an excellent method for delivering both content and building lifelong learning skills, student feedback can be negative as they adapt to this new environment (3, 5, 6, 15, 23–25). This is likely true in many situations where students are asked to switch from the low energy-passive classroom to an active high-energy learning environment. An important aspect in course design for the flipped classroom is to provide students with the opportunity to understand the methodology and pedagogy being employed in the flipped classroom. This initial buy-in allows them to understand the rationale and embrace that the changes are being done 134 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

in their best interest. One simple technique is to always refer to the videos as “lectures” whether it is “online lectures” or “video lectures” or other vernacular. Keeping the term “lecture” in the title insures students that they are not missing out on an all too familiar teaching strategy. Another technique that alleviates some of the pushback from students is to share with them some examples from the growing body of scientific evidence that their grades will be better and that their learning will be deeper and last longer in the active learning, flipped classroom model (26). These small things can help prevent misunderstandings and provide motivation down the road. Additionally simply stating, “we learn by doing” helps launch activities on a positive note. With the growing number of responsibilities that students take on during the course of a semester, it is important to respect the amount of time students work on each of their courses. The flipped classroom model with online lectures ensures that the students will be exposed to 165 minutes every week (3 x 55 minute class periods) of quality, active, efficient learning that once was used to deliver lecture. In this model, questions that do arise can be addressed immediately either by asking a classmate or the instructor. This immediacy helps to maintain focus during a problem solving session and prevents wasted time in frustration (27). In addition to this efficiency it also creates an environment for informal discussions, allowing students to conjecture and imagine and bring things together from other classes or research that might be important to their studies as a whole. One of things that struggling students fail to do is to regularly attend office hours. The flipped classroom model creates office hours within the classroom, allowing a vehicle for communication between student and instructor. Additionally the more informal style allows the instructor to get to know students more personally and lowers the potential intimidation factor for dropping in during office hours. This personal interaction also allows for deeper, more meaningful content in letters of recommendation requested by the students. As faculty, we know that exam writing is both an art and a science. In good faith, we write exams that are at the appropriate level for our students; our goal is to be challenging and creative, but fair. It was under this assumption that the initial analysis of the aggregate exam-score analysis before and after flipping the classroom was so disappointing. The students should have done better according to the research (24, 26, 28–33). It was honestly unintentional that the exams became more challenging after flipping the class. Each exam was crafted knowing the student’s skills and abilities with the perception that the students were prepared and had practiced (with coaching) answering the more difficult questions. Only after the fact were the exams analyzed and determined to contain a higher percentage of the Bloom’s level 3 questions. This serendipitous result speaks to addressing two of the essential learning outcomes as outlined by the Association of American Colleges and Universities in their LEAP campaign (34). The presence of questions at all three levels allows a student to demonstrate their knowledge of the physical and natural world. This content assessment is an essential portion of the course and is not sacrificed by having an active learning environment. What perhaps is more significant and speaks to the measurement of the second essential learning outcome where the demonstrated success on the more difficult exams shows how the students are 135 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

able to leverage their gains in an active learning environment giving them the confidence and opportunity to be successful. What we see are students developing and working towards mastery of their intellectual skills honing and refining them, particularly with respect to inquiry and analysis and critical and creative thinking. Despite the growing use of technology in society, the most valued interactions for learning as perceived by the students were due to direct human interactions. The percentage of students agreeing to statements about working in groups and the instructor’s interventions during class were greater than those agreeing to the efficacy of video lectures or even reading the textbook to their learning. This is continued evidence that the flipped classroom strategy optimizes interactions the students find most favorable for their learning. Finally, a large part of the active learning classroom centers on working in teams and teamwork falls under the AAC&U’s practical skills essential learning outcomes. The key feature for a successful team is quality and effective oral communication. Regardless of a student’s vocation, speaking clearly and listening to understand are skills that are needed and need to be practiced. This tenet of the liberal arts curriculum is accomplished in the flipped classroom without sacrificing the course content. The self-reported data speak to the efficacy of the course design. While many of the St. Olaf students need little coaching on how to be a team player or effective communicator, an overwhelming majority admitted to improving critical thinking, teamwork and problem solving as part of their experience in the flipped classroom.

Conclusion This chapter has illustrated the efficacy of the flipped classroom in the context of an upper-level liberal arts biochemistry course. Following the “good enough” philosophy allowed video lectures to be created and disseminated easily and efficiently with a low activation energy. Pairing video lectures with high impact practices in the classroom preserved content and allowed for students to thrive in an environment where the expectation was to work at a higher cognitive level as measured by exam data. Finally, the flipped classroom promoted outcomes that are in-line with the essential learning outcomes of a liberal arts education specifically, inquiry, critical thinking, oral communication and teamwork supported by student self-report data.

References 1. 2.

3.

Prud’homme-Généreux, A. Student-Produced Videos for the Flipped Classroom. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2016, 45, 58–62. Morgan, H.; McLean, K.; Chapman, C.; Fitzgerald, J.; Yousuf, A.; Hammoud, M. The flipped classroom for medical students. Clin. Teach. 2015, 12, 155–160. Mortensen, C. J.; Nicholson, A. M. The flipped classroom stimulates greater learning and is a modern 21st century approach to teaching today’s undergraduates. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 3722–3731. 136 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16.

17. 18.

19. 20. 21. 22.

Kay, R. H. Exploring the use of video podcasts in education: A comprehensive review of the literature. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 820–831. Love, B.; Hodge, A.; Grandgenett, N.; Swift, A. W. Student learning and perceptions in a flipped linear algebra course. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 45, 317–324. McLean, S.; Attardi, S. M.; Faden, L.; Goldszmidt, M. Flipped classrooms and student learning: not just surface gains. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2016, 40, 47–55. Westermann, E. B. A Half-Flipped Classroom or an Alternative Approach?: Primary Sources and Blended Learning. Educ. Res. Q. 2014, 38, 43–57. Drouin, M.; Hile, R. E.; Vartanian, L. R.; Webb, J. Student Preferences For Online Lecture Formats. Q. Rev. Distance Educ. 2013, 14, 151–162. Lau, W. M.; Chong, D. W. Combining Team-Based Learning with a Flipped Classroom Approach: Is This Possible. Med. Educ. 2014, 48, 8–8. Waltz, C. F.; Jenkins, L. S.; Han, N. The Use and Effectiveness of Active Learning Methods in Nursing and Health Professions Education: A Literature Review. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 2014, 35, 392–400. Ferreri, S. P.; O’Connor, S. K. Redesign of a Large Lecture Course Into a Small-Group Learning Course. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2013, 77, 1–9. Schwartzstein, R. M. Getting the Right Medical Students -- Nature versus Nurture. New Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 1586–1587. Screencasting and Video Editing Software http://www.telestream.net/ screenflow (accessed Mar 1, 2016) Herreid, C. F.; Schiller, N. A. Case Studies and the Flipped Classroom. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2013, 42, 62–66. Pierce, R.; Fox, J. Vodcasts and Active-Learning Exercises in a "Flipped Classroom" Model of a Renal Pharmacotherapy Module. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2012, 76, 1–5. Powell, K. C.; Kalina, C. J. Cognitive and Social Constructivism: Developing Tools for an Effective Classroom. Education 2009, 130, 241–250. Kuh, G. D. High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Peer Review 2012, 14, 29–29. Eberlein, T.; Kampmeier, J.; Minderhout, V.; Moog, R. S.; Platt, T.; VarmaNelson, P.; White, H. B. Pedagogies of engagement in science. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2008, 36, 262–273. National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. http:// sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/ (accessed Mar 1, 2016). Cornely, K., Cases in Biochemistry. John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1999. Jenny Loertscher, V. M., Foundations of Biochemistry. 3rd ed.; Pacific Crest: Lisle, Il, 2011. Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., Krathwohl, D., Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. Longmans, Green: New York, Toronto, 1956.

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

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

23. Khanova, J.; McLaughlin, J. E.; Rhoney, D. H.; Roth, M. T.; Harris, S. Student Perceptions of a Flipped Pharmacotherapy Course. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2015, 79, 1–8. 24. Peterson, D. J. The Flipped Classroom Improves Student Achievement and Course Satisfaction in a Statistics Course. Teach. Psychol. 2016, 43, 10–15. 25. Rossi, R. D. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Improving Student Engagement in Organic Chemistry Using the Inverted Classroom Model. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1577–1579. 26. 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. 27. Baepler, P.; Walker, J. D.; Driessen, M. It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Comput. Educ. 2014, 78, 227–236. 28. Haughton, J.; Kelly, A. Student Performance in an Introductory Business Statistics Course: Does Delivery Mode Matter. J. Educ. Bus. 2015, 90, 31–43. 29. Mason, G. S.; Shuman, T. R.; Cook, K. E. Comparing the Effectiveness of an Inverted Classroom to a Traditional Classroom in an Upper-Division Engineering Course. IEEE Trans. Educ. 2013, 56, 430–435. 30. Ryan, M. D.; Reid, S. A. Impact of the Flipped Classroom on Student Performance and Retention: A Parallel Controlled Study in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 13–23. 31. Talley, C. P.; Scherer, S. The Enhanced Flipped Classroom: Increasing Academic Performance with Student-recorded Lectures and Practice Testing in a "Flipped" STEM Course. J. Negro Educ. 2013, 82, 339–347. 32. Tune, J. D.; Sturek, M.; Basile, D. P. Flipped classroom model improves graduate student performance in cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal physiology. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2013, 37, 316–320. 33. Weaver, G. C.; Sturtevant, H. G. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Flipped Format General Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1437–1448. 34. The LEAP Challenge: Education for a World of Unscripted Problems; American Association of Colleges and Universites: 2015.

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

Editors’ Biographies

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ot001

Jennifer L. Muzyka Jennifer L. Muzyka received her B.S. from University of Dallas and her Ph.D. in organic chemistry from University of Texas, Austin. She began her college teaching career at Roanoke College. Later she moved to Centre College in Kentucky, where she is currently H.W. Stodghill Jr. and Adele H. Stodghill Professor of Chemistry. Muzyka leads workshops on Active Learning in Organic Chemistry and serves on the leadership board for OrganicERs, an online community for organic chemistry educators (http://organicers.org). She also serves on the ACS Division of Chemical Education’s Committee on Computers for Chemical Education, currently as committee co-chair.

Christopher S. Luker Christopher Luker received his B.S. in chemistry from Allegheny College and his M.A. in Education from The University of Akron. He currently teaches college-preparatory and Advanced Placement chemistry at Highland High School in Medina, Ohio. He has been involved in flipped classroom pedagogy since 2008 and has been involved in numerous local, regional, and national events on the flipped classroom. Even though he was not the originator of the concept, Luker was part of a very small group that introduced the flipped concept to the Biennial Conference on Chemical Education in 2012. Luker is currently a doctoral student at Kent State University, where his research interests are related to the metacognitive aspects of the flipped classroom experience.

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

Subject Index

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ix002

B Biochemistry and the liberal arts conclusion, 136 discussion, 134 LEAP campaign, 135 introduction, 127 methodology, 128 course, in-class portion, 130 typical video lecture containing the PowerPoint slide, representative screen shot, 129f results, 131 course survey questions, end, 133t course survey questions used to measure student opinion, end, 134t exam points at each level, aggregate percentages, 132t exam question levels and corresponding Bloom's taxonomy, 132t Table 3 questions, results summarized, 133f Table 4 questions, results summarized, 134f

C Course flipping in general chemistry, effectiveness, 19 conclusions, 34 introduction advantages and disadvantages, 20 course flipping, concept, 20 course flipping, definition, 23 flipping components, 22 for the instructor, 21 for the student, 20 study 2008 and 2015 ACS EOT I exam, percentile differentials, 30f 2010 and 2015 ACS EOT II exam, percentile differentials, 30f CHEM 1307, 2005 ACS first term general chemistry exam comparisons, 29t CHEM 1307, fall, 2011 - 2015, exam score comparisons, 27t CHEM 1308, 2006 ACS end-of-term II exam comparisons, 29t

CHEM 1308, spring, 2012-2015, exam score comparisons, 28t free-response questionnaire, 31 instruction, course, 23 lecture characteristics, 24t methods of assessment, model evaluation, 25 results and outcomes, model evaluation, 26 study group, demographics, 26t

F Flipping in the large lecture environment, 1 conclusions, 17 introduction, 2 methods classes, description, 2 flipping, effect, 3 surveys, 4 results both classes, assessment tools used, 7t both classes, ethnicity distribution, 6t challenges, benefits, and helpful hints, 16 classes, academic level, 5t classes, gender distribution, 5t class-specific surveys, 12 course, students' expected grade, 13t courses, grading rubric, 7t discussion and conclusion, 9 final grades for both classes, comparison without points for attendance, 10f final grades for both classes, comparison with points for attendance, 11f flipped vs. traditional exam scores, analyses, 9t flipped vs. traditional quiz scores, analyses, 8t format that helped them learn more, 13t grades, 6 overall course quality, students' perceptions, 13t SAT, ACT, HS GPA, 7t selected survey results, 12t student demographics, 5 student opinion, 16t

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

Student Perception of Instruction (SPOI), 12 students, homework completed, 15t students' prior academic ability measures, 6 student surveys, 11 videos in flipped course, students' interaction, 14t

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ix002

H Hybrid general chemistry course, 39 background, 40 hybrid course, development, 42 section of the seating arrangement, photograph, 41f introduction, 40 summary and lessons learned, 51 winter 2014, hybrid CH 231 goes live class time (during class), 43 course grading, 46 course setup, 43 exams, 46 homework, 45 laboratory, 47 pre-class preparation, 43 quizzes, 44 statement, student responses, 48f traditional course exam scores, winter 2014 hybrid course exam scores, 48t winter 2014 hybrid course final letter grade scheme, 47t winter 2014 hybrid course grade components, 46t year one exam performance, 48 winter 2016, year three, 51 winter and spring 2015, year two, 50

J Just-in-Time Teaching distinctive characteristics, 89 collaborative problem solving, 90 future directions, 91 introduction, 81 methods, 83 classroom learning cycle, 86f JiTT responses, rubric used to assess, 86t learning objectives provided to prepare for a 90-minute class session, lists, 84f

learning objectives provided to prepare for an exam, lists, 85f teamwork grading rubric, 87t typical PowerPoint slide, 88f results, 89

L Lecture based organic chemistry course sequence, conversion, 93 assessment, 100 transforming the organic sequence, primary motivation, 101 conclusion, 104 course flip, rationale, 95 course flip, structure, 96 organic chemistry I courses, grading, 100t organic chemistry II courses, grading, 100t course flip, subsequent adjustments, 102 increasing the complexity of topics, example, 104t introduction, 94

P Partial flipping case studies, partial flipping in practice annotated slide from a partially flipped lecture, example, 63f evaluation data, 73 feedback, enhanced provision, 72 foundation year chemistry course, supporting the teaching, 61 fundamentals of chemistry module, students' views, 65t higher-order thinking, 71 learning analytics, role, 68 lecture slot, freeing up time, 62f simple web software, enhancing the flip, 66 student engagement and evaluation, 64 student responses, evidence extracted, 67t student responses to the questions, evidence extracted, 75t value of pre-lecture and in-class elements of teaching, students' views, 74t Zaption pre-lecture, examples of questions presented to students, 70f

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

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ix002

Zaption pre-lecture video, example, 69f conclusions, 75 overview, 56 prologue, 55 UK context, introduction, 56 lecture content, rationale for partial flipping, 60 testing and school accountability, impact, 57 university-level teaching and learning, transition, 58 Primarily undergraduate institution, flipping general and analytical chemistry, 107 conclusions, 122 course redesign, 109 analytical chemistry, module, 111 curriculum design, WHERE approach, 110f general chemistry, acid-base learning module 1, 115t

general chemistry, acid-base learning module 2, 116t general chemistry, module, 112 learning modules in analytical chemistry, select examples, 113t solubility in general chemistry, select example of a learning module, 114t implementation, 117 introduction, 108 results and discussion classroom observations, 117 course grades in general chemistry I, comparison, 119f flipped and traditional course designs, select results of teaching evaluations, 121t self-directed student learning, 120 student attitudes, 120 summative assessment, student learning, 118

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