(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.
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).
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
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 2ndTerm Paired Question exam between the flipped and traditional courses of General Chemistry II. Students placed in the 60thpercentile 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
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007
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 active- learning techniques.
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 post- design 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
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007
Table 5. Select results of teaching evaluations for both flipped and traditional course designs when taught by the same instructor.
Statementa General Chemistry II
Flippedb
General Chemistry II
Traditionalb
Analytical Chemistry Flippedb
Analytical Chemistry Traditionalb Average number of
hours spent on course per week
Under 4 4 – 8 8-12 12-16 More than 16
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
aWith the exception of the first statement, answers are on a five-point Likert scale with 5 being strongly agree. bTwo 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
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
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007
References
1. 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.
2. Fitzgerald, N.; Li, L. Using Presentation Software to Flip an Undergraduate Analytical Chemistry Course.J. Chem. Educ. 2015,92, 1559–1563.
3. Smith, J. D. Students Attitudes toward Flipping the General Chemistry Classroom.Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013,14, 607–614.
4. Weaver, G. C.; Sturtevant, H. G. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Flipped Format General Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015,92, 1437–1448.
5. 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.
6. Butzler, K. B. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Flipping at an Open-Enrollment College.J. Chem. Educ.2015,92, 1574–1576.
7. Seery, M. K. Flipped Learning in Higher Education Chemistry: Emerging Trends and Potential Directions. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 758–768.
8. Yestrebsky, C. L. Flipping the Classroom in a Large Chemistry Class-Research University Environment. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 191, 1113–1118.
9. Flipped Learning Network. Definition of Flipped Learning. www.
flippedlearning.org/definition (accessed January 8, 2016).
10. Muzyka, J. L. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Just-in-Time Teaching in Chemistry Courses with Moodle. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1580–1581.
11. Haile, J. D. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Using a Blog to Flip a Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2015,92, 1572–1573.
12. Krathwohl, D. R. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theor.
Pract. 2002,41, 212–218.
13. 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.
14. Fiorella, L.; Mayer, R. E.Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning Strategies that Promote Understanding; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, 2015.
15. McTighe, J.; Wiggins, G.Understanding by Design, 2nd ed.; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA, 2005.
16. Holme, T.; Murphy, K. The ACS Exams Institute Undergraduate Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map I: General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ.
2012,89, 721–723.
17. 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
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
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007
New Instrument to Characterize University STEM Classroom Practices.
CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2013,12, 618–627.
37. Fautch, J. M. The Flipped Classroom for Teaching Organic Chemistry in Small Classes: Is It Effective?Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.2015,16, 179–186.
38. 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.
39. House, J. D. Noncognitive Predictors of Achievement in Introductory College Chemistry. Res. High. Educ.1995,36, 473–490.
40. 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.
41. Hake, R. R. Interactive-Engagement versus Traditional Methods: A Six- Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses. Am. J. Phys. 1998,64, 64–74.
42. 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.
43. 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.JECT2014,25, 253–273.
44. 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.
45. Christiansen, M. A. Inverted Teaching: Applying a New Pedagogy to a University Organic Chemistry Class.J. Chem. Educ.2014,91, 1845–1850.
46. 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
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007