1340

BUFFET OF EFFECTIVE ACTIVE
LEARNING METHODS
Active learning methods can provide significant advantages over traditional
instructional practices, including improving student engagement and
increasing student learning. This volume focuses on evidence-based active
learning methods that offer larger gains in engagement and/or learning
in general chemistry. This work serves as a selection of techniques that
can inspire chemistry instructors and a comprehensive survey of effective
active learning approaches in general chemistry. Chemistry faculty and
administrations will find inspiration for improved teaching within this volume.

E D U C A T I O N

VOLUME 1340

ACTIVE LEARNING IN GENERAL CHEMISTRY
SPECIFIC INTERVENTIONS

ACS
SYMPOSIUM
SERIES

ACS SYMPOSIUM SERIES

ACTIVE LEARNING
IN GENERAL
CHEMISTRY
SPECIFIC INTERVENTIONS

PUBLISHED BY THE

American Chemical Society
SPONSORED BY THE

ACS Division of Chemical Education

BLASER
et al.

BLASER, CLARK,
LAMONT & STEWART


Active Learning in General Chemistry:
Specific Interventions

www.pdfgrip.com


www.pdfgrip.com


ACS SYMPOSIUM SERIES 1340

Active Learning in General Chemistry:
Specific Interventions
Mark Blaser, Editor
Chemistry Department, Shasta College
Redding, California, United States


Ted Clark, Editor
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio, United States

Liana Lamont, Editor
Chemistry Department, University of Wisconsin−Madison
Madison, Wisconsin, United States

Jaclyn J. Stewart, Editor
Department of Chemistry, The University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Sponsored by the
ACS Division of Chemical Education

American Chemical Society, Washington, DC
www.pdfgrip.com


Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Control Number: 2019050264

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 © 2019 American Chemical Society
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

www.pdfgrip.com


Foreword
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 a book proposal is accepted, 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.
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

www.pdfgrip.com


www.pdfgrip.com



Contents
Preface .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

ix

1. Survey of Tools and Techniques Used in Large Lecture Preparatory Chemistry at
Ohio University .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Corey A. Beck

1

2. An Iterative Approach to Active Learning Improves Student Outcomes in a First Year
Chemistry Course .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
Bhavani Balasubramanian
3. Facilitating the Development of Students’ Problem-Solving Skills via Active
Learning in General Chemistry .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
Matt S. Queen and Mark S. Cracolice
4. Blended Guided-Inquiry General Chemistry Laboratory Course: An Introduction to
Chemical Research .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
Sophia Nussbaum, Jaclyn J. Stewart, Priyanka Lekhi, and Anne Thomas
5. Enhancing the General Chemistry Laboratory Using Integrated Projects Based on
Real-World Questions .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  63
Kevin L. Braun
6. Oral Exams: A Deeply Neglected Tool for Formative Assessment in Chemistry .  . . . . . . . . . .  81
Daniele Ramella
7. Effectiveness of Handout Notes to Group Discussion in a General Chemistry Course
at a Two-Year College.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  93
Eliud K. Mushibe

8. Building a Chemistry Community through the Leland Scholars Program .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  101
Jennifer Schwartz Poehlmann, Charles T. Cox, and Brandi Pretlow
9. Using Active Learning Methods for Development of Teaching Assistants in High
Enrollment General Chemistry Courses .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  121
Lindy K. Stoll, Liana B. Lamont, Stephen B. Block, and Theresa M. Pesavento
10. Learn Smart: Success Strategies for First-Year Students .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  153
Breanne Molnar, Cindy A. Bourne, and Tamara K. Freeman
Editors’ Biographies .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  163

vii
www.pdfgrip.com


Indexes
Author Index .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  167
Subject Index .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  169

viii
www.pdfgrip.com


Preface
It is an exciting time to be a general chemistry instructor. Based on education research, many
chemistry instructors now reject the long-standing transmission model of instruction, with
information flowing from instructors to passive students. Some instructors are now implementing
student-centered approaches involving active learning to engage students, have them share ideas, ask
and answer questions, and actively generate their own understanding. “Active learning” is a catch-all
term that varies widely in implementation. We consider many activities as active learning, including
using personal response systems (“clickers”) with or without peer instruction, group problemsolving, worksheets or tutorials completed during class, interactive demonstrations, and use of
computer simulations. A recent meta-analysis provides compelling evidence that active learning

increases student performance in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
courses (1). To generate time in class for activities, some instructors move content delivery outside of
the classroom by fully or partially flipping the classroom. This book brings together instructors who
have been inspired to reimagine their general chemistry courses to be aligned with evidence-based
practice.
Why are interventions to improve student success in general chemistry especially important?
The answer to this question requires an understanding of who takes a general chemistry course and
why. General chemistry courses often enroll first-year STEM students who are not chemistry majors.
That is, many students take general chemistry as a prerequisite to pursuing other careers, such as prehealth professions, engineering, and non-chemistry STEM fields. These students are usually new to
higher education, have varied backgrounds, and are learning what it takes to succeed in college. For
many of these students, success or failure in general chemistry can affect their academic pathways.
Their ability to remain in a STEM field will depend on their performance in, and knowledge of,
general chemistry. Many general chemistry instructors are realizing that traditional lecture is often
ill-suited for supporting the learning of such a diverse group of students, and that active learning
pedagogies (ALP) are a better alternative. Evidence suggests that students are more likely to fail in
general chemistry classes with traditional lecturing than in classes with active learning (1). There is
also emerging evidence that ALP disproportionately benefits under-represented minorities and leads
to an increase in the sense of belonging (2). Enhancing students’ social belonging through active
learning has the potential to create a more inclusive STEM pipeline.
Are chemistry courses, or STEM courses in general, inclusive of active learning? Despite
increasing evidence for the benefits of ALP, a recent large-scale observational study found a mixed
landscape in which active learning classes and traditional lecturing co-exist, with lecturing still
dominating STEM post-secondary instruction (3). These researchers characterized more than 2,000
STEM classes taught by nearly 550 individual faculty members and identified three broad categories
of instruction: didactic (55% of the observations), interactive (27%), and student-centered (18%).
In didactic classrooms, more than 80% of class time consisted of lecturing and minimal student
involvement. With interactive lectures, the instructor supplemented lecture with more studentcentered strategies. Finally, student-centered classrooms used an even greater emphasis on active
learning. Individual instructors varied their teaching styles from day to day, with approximately oneix
www.pdfgrip.com



half classified solely into one of these three broad instructional styles and the others falling into
two or all three categories. One way to interpret these findings is to conclude that STEM courses
use active learning techniques, but traditional lecture endures as a dominant instructional approach.
Looked at another way, it is remarkable how many instructors try something other than didactic
instruction, at least occasionally. As instructors become more capable and confident using active
learning approaches, the shift away from traditional lecture will likely continue.
An instructor’s adoption of research-based active learning strategies faces several barriers (4).
These barriers begin at the individual level. In a traditional lecture, instructional decisions are made
by the teacher, interactions are a one-sided discourse with passive students, and content for the
course involves explaining scientific facts and principles. With alternatives to lecture, teachers and
students share instructional decisions, both actively participate in conversations, and course content
includes science content as well as metacognitive and problem-solving skills. The traditional framing
of the classroom, with instructors teaching and students adapting to the instructor, is replaced with
instructors guiding and adapting to the students. By no means is this a minor change, and instructors
understandably have reservations about making this dramatic shift. Additionally, it is worth noting
that although research indicates little learning occurs from lecture itself, students in lecture classes do
learn (likely by working outside of class to figure out the course content). As a massive meta-analysis
has shown, almost every classroom practice exerts a positive influence on student learning (5), and
so an instructor employing a traditional format may conclude that the students are benefitting. A
much more important question is not whether students learn in traditional classes, but how their
learning and retention compares with that of students in active learning classes. Students may also
feel as though they learn less in an active learning environment compared to a lecture, despite actually
learning more (6). To overcome this barrier, instructors need to dedicate time to helping students
overcome this misconception about learning. It is encouraging to find that, given these barriers,
active learning is still being used in more and more STEM courses, including general chemistry.
As proponents of active learning acknowledge, instructors who demonstrate the effectiveness
of active learning do so as volunteers. Thus, it is not clear if universal adoption of these practices
would lead to the same increases in student performance (1). Currently, these early adopters of active
learning seek to transform their classes and find out what works for their students. These general

chemistry instructors are taking a greater interest in reflecting on and researching their own practices,
determining what is most effective, and continually seeking to improve teaching and learning in their
classes. Formative feedback from students is an important part of this process. A powerful way for
teachers to think about their roles is to see themselves as evaluators, seeking and using feedback
information about their teaching to better understand the effect they exert on learning (5). Feedback
to instructors can lead to important adjustments in how they teach, how they recognize strengths
and weaknesses, and how they regard their own effect on students. As instructors implement new
strategies, it’s crucial that they assess the effect on students’ learning and honestly share results with
the broader community.
This book is based on the symposium More bang for your buck: (More) effective active learning
methods in General Chemistry, organized by Mark Blaser for the 2018 Biennial Conference for
Chemical Education (BCCE). The motivation for this symposium was to have general chemistry
instructors share the active learning pedagogies they found most valuable. Symposium presenters and
other invited researchers and practitioners contributed to this book to add to the conversation about
active learning in STEM courses. The book showcases examples of how to implement active learning
strategies in a variety of learning environments, ranging from 20 to 420-person classrooms within
community colleges, liberal arts colleges, and large research institutions, with Volume 1 providing
x
www.pdfgrip.com


examples of comprehensive course reform and Volume 2 offering specific instructional interventions.
The authors are at the vanguard of active learning in general chemistry, finding out what is effective in
their courses, and enthusiastically sharing their insights with like-minded colleagues or those being
introduced to active learning for the first time. These educators recognize that becoming an expert in
active learning is an ongoing process. In keeping with studies on how individuals become experts in
their field, it takes years of experience in solving problems in this domain to gain expertise with active
learning (7). Developing expertise in ALP can be aided by other people and resources, as those new
to active learning are not expected to solve problems all by themselves. This book is intended to be a
resource that inspires and supports others in their quest to become expert instructors, implementing

and assessing active learning in their general chemistry classes.

References
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
6.

7.

Freeman, S.; Eddy, S.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth,
M. P. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2014, 111, 8410–8415.
Ballen, C. J.; Wieman, C.; Salehi, S.; Searle, J. B.; Zamudio, K. R. Enhancing diversity in
undergraduate science: Self-efficacy drives performance gains with active learning. CBE—Life
Sciences Education 2017, 16 (4), ar56.
Stains, M.; Harshman, J.; Barker, M. K.; Chasteen, S. V.; Cole, R.; DeChenne-Peters, S. E.;
Eagan, M. K.; Esson, J. M.; Knight, J. K.; Laski, M.; Levis-Fitzgerald, F. A.; Lee, C. J.; Lo,
S. M.; McDonnell, L. M.; McKay, T. A.; Michelotti, N.; Musgrove, A.; Palmer, M. S.; Plank,
K. M.; Rodela, T. M.; Sanders, E. R.; Schimpf, N. G.; Schulte, P. M.; Smith, M. K.; Stetzer,
M.; Van Valkenburgh, B.; Vinson, E.; Weir, L. K.; Wendel, P. J.; Wheeler, L. B.; Young, A. M.
Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science 2018, 359, 1468–1470.
Henderson, C.; Dancy, M. H. Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The
influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics

Education Research 2007, 3 (2), 020102.
Hattie, J. Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning; Routledge, 2012.
Deslauriers, L.; McCarty, L. S.; Miller, K.; Callaghan, K.; Kestin, G. Measuring actual learning
versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 2019, 66, 19251–19257. />1821936116
Hatano, G.; Oura, Y. Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from
expertise research. Educational Researcher 2003, 32 (8), 26–29.

Mark Blaser
Shasta College
11-555 Old Oregon Trail
Redding, California 96003, United States
Phone: (530) 242-2315
E-mail:

xi
www.pdfgrip.com


Ted Clark
The Ohio State University
120D Celeste Laboratory
120 W 18th Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43210, United States
E-mail:
Liana Lamont
University of Wisconsin–Madison
1321e Chemistry Building
Madison, Wisconsin 53706, United States
Phone: (608) 262-8828

E-mail:
Jaclyn J. Stewart
The University of British Columbia
2036 Main Mall
Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z1, Canada
Phone: (604) 822-5912
E-mail:

xii
www.pdfgrip.com


Chapter 1

Survey of Tools and Techniques Used in Large Lecture
Preparatory Chemistry at Ohio University
Corey A. Beck*
Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Ohio University,
Athens, Ohio 45701, United States
*E-mail:

Large chemistry classes include several challenges when trying to engage students.
Studies show that these difficulties arise from hearing and visualizing course
materials during lecture, lack of productive discussion during class, lecturer’s
inability to gauge students understanding in class, and overall student engagement
with course material (Lynch, R. P.; Pappas, E. International Journal of Higher
Education 2017, 6, 199-212). The question becomes, how do we as educators
effectively disseminate information to a large number of students in an engaging
and useful way? The aim of this paper is to inform other educators on the tools and
techniques used in my preparatory chemistry class at Ohio University to combat

student’s overall lack of engagement. To help structure engagement in my
classroom, the flipped classroom model was utilized and is discussed in this
chapter. The implementation, use, and progression of pre-class videos, in-class
personal response systems, and after-class videos is the primary focus of this
chapter. As a way to gauge student engagement, the DFW of my class over the past
6 years is discussed in the results/conclusion section of this chapter.

Student engagement in large lecture science classes is quickly becoming a major topic at
Universities. This is due in some part to the increased number of students declaring majors that
require general science classes. A report published in 2018 from the National Science Board shows
that the number of students declaring a major in science or engineering has increased from 115,800
in 2012 to 176,930 in 2017 (1). As the number of students in these classes increase the usage of large
lecture general science classes become necessary to handle the increasing student load.
The concept of what determines a large lecture class is somewhat fluid. What seems like a large
class size for one instructor may be considered a relatively small size for others. For the purpose
of this paper a class size above 150 will be considered a large class. General chemistry class sizes
at Ohio University (OU) range from 150 to 250 students per section and are required for a large
number of majors. All students taking a chemistry course at OU are required to complete an entrance
© 2019 American Chemical Society
www.pdfgrip.com


exam (2) which covers basic math and scientific reasoning skills. The outcome of the entrance exam
places students into either general chemistry or my preparatory chemistry class. The purpose of the
preparatory class is to teach students basic scientific reasoning and math skills required for scientific
inquiry. All tools and techniques discuss in this paper are implemented in my preparatory class. The
average size for a given section of my class is roughly 250 students during the fall and is held in an
auditorium style classroom without the help of teaching assistants. The four main topics covered
in the course are naming and classifying organic compounds, balancing chemical equations and
stoichiometric calculations, identifying types of reactions and predicting products, and applying

basic mathematical concepts to chemical processes. The topics for this course are generally covered
in the first four chapters of most traditional chemistry textbooks.
Lack of student engagement was quickly brought to my attention during my first year teaching
this course. As with many first time instructors I was unsure of my teaching style and decided to
use a traditional lecture approach. This included pre-class readings, in-class lectures, and post-class
homework assignments. A schematic representation of my first year class setup is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Traditional lecture format.
During that first year, when I would ask a question related to the previous night’s reading, many
of the students were not able to correctly answer it. This required me to spend a lot of in-class time
working through base level material, resulting in students needing to work on the most difficult
concepts on their own outside of class. I noticed that my students fell further and further behind with
each passing lecture. This prompted me to start looking at other teaching styles.

Figure 2. Flipped classroom format.
After some discussions with my colleagues I was introduced to the idea of a flipped classroom
(3). The concept of a flipped classroom appeared to solve my problem of getting students to interact
2
www.pdfgrip.com


with the course material outside of class while allowing me to focus on the difficult concepts during
class. There are many variations of a flipped classroom and the version that I settled on included preclass videos, in-class discussions on problem solving skills and small group work, post-class testing
of students understanding through guided homework questions, practice worksheets, and videos. A
schematic representation of my current flipped classroom is shown in Figure 2.
I do not intend this chapter to be a recommendation for using a flipped classroom model.
Rather, the flipped approach has allowed me to implement engaging tools for my students in large
lecture classes. The following discusses the progression of tools and techniques that I have used for
pre-class, in-class, and post-class study.


Pre-class
A common way to get students prepared for class is through assigned readings. However, after
seeing that my students were not coming to class prepared with the previous night’s readings, I
decided to record concept videos and used those as pre-class assignments. In my mind, this allowed
my students a chance to engage with the course material in a way that they were already using, digital
media.
At first the process of recording my videos was time consuming and involved a screen capture
software called OpenBroadcaster (4), a PowerPoint presentation, and a video overlay of myself. A
screenshot of two of my initial videos is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Example initial webcam videos.

Figure 4. Example DSLR videos.
I recorded the first set of videos using the built in webcam and microphone on my laptop. Survey
results from the first set of videos indicated that the video and sound quality using this process was
not consistent. This was due to varying light sources and ambient noises that the built in microphone
picked up. After visiting a few different teaching forums, I changed my recording device to a digital
single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera with an attachable microphone boom. My current setup uses a

3
www.pdfgrip.com


Canon EOS Rebel t7i camera with a Rode VideoMic Go microphone. A screenshot of a video using
the DLSR camera is shown in Figure 4.
The DLSR camera allowed for much higher sound and video quality. A limitation of videos
recorded using the DSLR camera was the inability to show complex images. As a result, I purchased
an external webcam with microphone and re-recorded videos using PowerPoint slides in order to get
higher video and sound quality with the added benefit of capturing complex images. I currently assign
both types of videos as pre-class assignments. Survey results show that students have no preference

on the style of video but find both styles useful as references for homework and exam review.
My first set of videos ranged anywhere from 20-30 minutes in length and were hosted on my
Google drive account. I linked the videos to my learning management system (LMS) and asked
students to watch the videos and take notes. Students were quick to tell me that they would start a
video with the intention of taking notes, but after five or six minutes, they would let the video run
in the background or turn it off after the first couple of minutes. This defeated the purpose of getting
students to interact with the course material before class.
After receiving the survey results I created a YouTube account to host my videos and to help track
student viewing habits. YouTube automatically tracks location, number of views, and the length an
average user watches a given video. YouTube analytics confirmed what my students said in the survey.
Students were not watching the majority of each video. The analytics for one of my average 20 minute
video are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Screenshot/analytics of an example 20 minute video.
On average my students only watched 5 – 8 minutes of a 20 minute video. This equated to
around 44% of the video being watched. Recent research shows the same result (5). Students watch
the majority of a 5-9 minute video with viewing completion dropping significantly after 9 minutes.
As a result I shortened each of my videos to 3-7 minutes in the hopes of getting students to watch the
majority of the information in each video. The analytics for a similar style video with a running time
of 3 minutes and 16 seconds is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Screenshot/analytics of an example 3 minute video.
4
www.pdfgrip.com


By shortening the video length to 3-7 minutes while maintaining the same style of video, my
students increased their viewing duration to between 70 - 90%. These results showed that my
students viewed the majority of information in a short video (3-7 minutes) rather than missing half
of the information as they do in a long video (> 9 minutes).

Along with increasing the view duration of a video, shortening my videos meant that only one
major topic was covered per video. This gave me the ability to adjust the order I assigned videos to
the students without having to reshoot a completely new video. Having the flexibility to adjust when
pieces of information were covered, gave me the ability to create a viewing schedule for preparatory
chemistry, general chemistry, and general/organic/biochemistry (GOB) without having to reshoot
videos.
An added benefit of hosting my videos on YouTube was that it helped me achieve compliance
with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). YouTube automatically adds closed captioning to
each video after it is uploaded. The closed captioning software used by YouTube is very accurate at
capturing simply words in English. However, the software has difficulty when scientific words are
used. The workaround for this issue is that YouTube allows its users to download a copy of the closed
captioning to correct the transcript. The corrected file can then be uploaded to YouTube, which will
then be seen when students watch the videos. This ensures scientifically correct information as well
as a way to meet ADA compliance.
Even after shortening the length of the videos, students told me that they would watch the videos
while performing other tasks. This still defeated the purpose of getting students to interact with the
material. As a result I added points in my class for viewing the videos. The two methods that I use
to assign points were a short quiz after each video or the use of a website called Playposit (6) which
allows for questions to be embedded directly into the videos. Figure 7A and 7B show screenshots of
questions created using my Universities LMS and the Playposit program respectively.

Figure 7A. Example question using LMS.

Figure 7B. Example embedded question.
The questions created using my LMS were given as a short quiz. Students were free to open
the quiz while watching the video, or could wait until they had completed watching the video to
answer the questions. Due to the limitations of this method, I am not able to see when students
5
www.pdfgrip.com



chose to answer the questions. The method using Playposit required students to watch the video and
answer the questions as they popped up during the video. The students were not able to see when
the questions were going to be asked, so the students had to watch the videos until they got to the
question. Both options are easy to implement and allow for a grade to be attached for watching a
video. I have tried assigning grades for answering the questions based on correctness, participation,
or a combination of the two.
No matter which method I use, student viewing duration did not change according to the
YouTube analytics. However, I did find that when students were graded only on correctness, I saw an
increase in the number of panicked emails from student’s related to the video questions. Since the
duration my students watched each video didn’t appear to change with or without assigning points
for correctness, I currently assign points only for participation to give a low-stakes way to watch the
videos.
Currently, videos seem like a viable way to help get modern students at OU to engage in course
material outside of class. This can be seen in the fact that nearly all students correctly answer video
questions while watching the videos, as opposed to a significantly lower number of students being
able to answer the same question when just readings were assigned.
Survey results from my class indicate that my current setup for assigning videos with associated
questions make the students feel like they are getting a base level understanding of the course material
before class. This is consistent with recent studies about student’s views on assigned pre-class
readings versus assigned pre-class videos. A study of 2084 general chemistry students has shown that
modern students rank the written text in a course textbook as less useful than the end-of-chapter
problems and in-chapter example questions (7). In addition, a study of nursing majors has shown
that students feel more prepared and willing to discuss course material during class when digital
media rather than a prepared reading is assigned (8). In an ongoing effort to help my students learn,
pre-class assignments will be refined as student use of, and access to, technology changes.

In-Class Work
How does an instructor teaching in a large auditorium style classroom effectively engage students
when most seating in such classrooms are tightly packed without the ability to move? This is a

problem that I run into regularly as my classrooms have fixed, immovable seats, and personally being
able to interact with all students becomes a major hurdle. The difficulties with teaching in large
lecture halls are not new and there have been many approaches to overcoming them such as Process
Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) (9), Team Based Learning (TBL) (10) and the use of inclass personal response systems (PRS). The approach I focused on while developing my class was the
implementation of a personal response systems. PRS have been shown to help student engagement
in class while aiding instructors in identifying students who need attention (11, 12).
I have tested a variety of PRS but the two systems that I regularly use are TopHat (13) and
Learning Catalytics (14). All PRS offer a number of ways to ask questions during class which include,
but are not limited, to multiple choice, numerical answers, and word answers. On any given day I
will ask my students between 10 and 18 questions during an hour and twenty minute lecture. This
number changes based on the student’s PRS answers and group work.
There are many ways that PRS allow students to view questions being asked in class. Some of
the common ways are through the projection of the question on a screen, through the internet, or
through an app. For the programs that I use my students report mostly viewing and answering the
questions through the app or through the internet. Issues can arise when viewing questions through
an app based or internet based system when students don’t have access to technology that connects
6
www.pdfgrip.com


to WIFI/data. Certain products such as TopHat gets around this issue by allowing any student with a
cell phone to text their answers into a unique phone number registered for each class.
Once I have asked a question I allow students time to work on the problem an encourage them
to break into small groups to check their answers. Small group work in large lecture classes can
seem daunting (15), but getting a small class feel in a large lecture hall has merit (16). Since my
classrooms are large and I do not have teaching assistants in class, there was a steep learning curve
in how to manage the class. However, PRS such as Learning Catalytics have built-in options that
help instructors manage large classes. An option in Learning Catalytics allows for instructors to create
small groups during class based on student’s answers. Once this option is selected, students receive
a notification directing them to discuss answers with specific surrounding classmates based on their

polling response.
After students answer a PRS question each program offers a way for instructors to view their
student’s answers during class. One common way that PRS report answers is by displaying the
number/percentage of students who answered a question a specific way. These number can then be
viewed by the instructor as a way to gauge their students understanding. An example answer report
from TopHat in my class is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. TopHat answer report.
Learning Catalytics offers a unique way for instructors to view their student’s answers. The
program allows for an instructor to set up a seat map of each lecture hall where they teach. When a
student enters class, they find their self-selected seat and register their account to that seat for the day.
As students answer questions during class, Learning Catalytics allows an instructor to view submitted
answers according to the seat map in real time. This gives instructors the ability to quickly identify
groups of students who are struggling, and allows for efficient navigation of large lecture classes
during group work. An example of a seat map of one of my classes is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Learning catalytics seat map.

7
www.pdfgrip.com


After asking a question, I generally give my students anywhere from 2 minutes to 8 minutes to
submit their answers depending on the question type. This usually equates to around 80% of my
students submitting an answer before I show the class results. Depending on how the class answers,
students will be given a chance to change their answer after I give a mini-lecture, or I will quickly go
through the method to solve the problem.
Like other aspects of the course, awarding points for submitting an answer encouraged my
students to take participation more seriously. Most PRS give the option of assigning points for
each question based on correctness as well as participation. Each program suggests best practices

for allocating points on their websites. I have tried assigning points anywhere from 100% for
participation to the other extreme of assigning 100% of points to correct answers. It has been my
experience that students will submit answers for any point distribution. However, survey results
of my students showed a negative reaction to only offering points for correct answers. As a result,
I currently only assign points for participation. This had no impact on the number of students
answering the questions, or on the types of answers that are submitted.
By flipping my classroom and adjusting how I use PRS, my class has gone from a quiet space
to a space where students will audibly react when they are shown to be correct. This indicates to
me that students are more engaged with the material during class. I have found personal response
systems offer a simple and efficient way to enable large groups of students to interact in classrooms
with restrictive seating. Additional work is in progress to support the anecdotal finding that student
engagement in my class is increased by use of personal response systems.
In order to guide student’s engagement with the material outside of class, I use a series of afterclass activities. The activities take the form of homework problem sets, after-class videos and afterclass practice worksheets. These activities are discussed in the following section.

After Class
Frequent assessment in a course has been linked to higher overall retention and understanding
of course material (17, 18). Homework is an example of how students test their knowledge outside
of class. Electronic homework has become a staple in many large chemistry courses with the
advancement of available products as well as greater instructor awareness about the programs. The
assignments I give to my students have gone from simple fill in the blank question through our
school’s LMS in 2012, to a Pearson Product called Mastering in 2014, to a McGraw-Hill Product call
CONNECT in 2016, and currently the homework system used in my class is a McGraw-Hill product
called ALEKS (19).
ALEKS is a program that gives students a chance to work on multiple question styles for each
type of problem. This type of practice has been shown to increase the effectiveness of homework
assignments (20). The ALEKS program was implemented in Fall 2018 and future work will discuss
the impact on student scores with the increase time spent on homework through the ALEKS
program.
Even though current technology provided my students feedback on their current level of
understanding, these preparatory students still sought from me additional assistance and ways to

improve their problem-solving abilities. I have created two resources to help aid my students with
their after-class homework and study. The first is a set of after-class worksheets and the second is a set
of after-class videos that focus on problem solving skills.
My first attempt at creating after-class worksheets involved writing problem sets and solution
manuals for each chapter. I allowed the students to view the problem set and the solutions at the
same time. After tracking my students viewing habits, it became clear that the majority of my students
8
www.pdfgrip.com


would only click on the link for the solutions and would not bother looking at the blank worksheets.
As a result, I changed when the solutions were available to the students by releasing the solutions
the night before an exam as a way for my students to check their answers. After this change, I saw
a marked increase in the number of students in my office hours during the semester with questions
about the worksheets. This indicated to me that students were actively working on the course material
outside of class.
A few semesters after creating the initial worksheets a student mentioned to me that it would be
helpful to have a more focused worksheet to help practice each lecture’s material. This feedback gave
me the idea to give a series of questions specifically aligned with that day’s lecture. Students have
had an overwhelmingly positive response to the shorter, more focused worksheets. Many students
have reported to me that after each lecture they go home and practice that day’s material by working
on the worksheets. Students have also indicated that they feel the worksheets are the best method
for exam preparation as they are written by me and have the same style as the questions given on
exams. I currently have a set of 24 worksheets that I offer to my students. Survey results show that my
students regularly rank the worksheets as their first choice of a study tool for exams and homework
assignments.
Student feedback also brought to my attention that a set of videos after class would be helpful.
As a way to supplement the pre-class concept videos, the creation of post-class videos which extend
the ideas discussed in class by considering more advanced examples and applications was discussed
with my colleagues. Collectively we came up with the plan of recording problem solving videos that

discussed the methods involved in solving general chemistry problems. Topics include, but are not
limited to, limiting reactants, solutions, nomenclature. The topic list covers the problem types that
my colleagues and I have seen students struggle with in the past. OU gave us a small grant to create a
program utilizing our junior/senior chemistry students to create 20 after-class videos.
The program required our junior/senior students to satisfy a rigorous set of standards in order
to create a video which resulted in them being paid $25. A pictorial representation of the process to
create an after-class video is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10. After-class video process.
Each student was required to come up with a set of problems with answer keys for each chemistry
topic they were recording a video for. Each student was then required to meet with an instructor
involved in the project about the pedagogy of the questions, and how to adjust their questions and
answers to meet the pedagogy of the class. Once the pedagogy was finalized, each student was
required to present their questions in front of three faculty members and all of the other students
involved in the project. After some more adjustments, the students would record the video either
with myself, or another instructor involved in the project.
The students had two options in recording a video. They could choose to record a video using
screen capturing software with a voice over, or they could use the same process that I utilized to make
the pre-class videos.
After the videos were recorded an instructor edited the video using either and Apple product
or the Movavi video suite program (21). All videos were uploaded to my YouTube account and the
transcript of the video was generated using the YouTube closed captioning software. The transcripts
9
www.pdfgrip.com


were then given to the student who recorded the video, and they were required to adjust the transcript
to make sure they matched what was said in the videos. The corrected transcripts were uploaded to
YouTube and the students were paid $25.
Over the course of 4 months the program generated a total of 20 videos. The post-class videos

were not assigned for points in class, rather they were introduced as a way to help students understand
the methods of solving chemical problems. Survey results showed that students appreciated the afterclass videos when working through homework or when studying for an exam. YouTube analytics
also show that view duration for the student created videos ranged from 60-70%. This is significantly
higher than the view duration for the original longer video (>9 minutes) and slightly lower than the
shorter videos (4-7 minutes) that had points associated with them.
This project had two main goals. The first was to provide the preparatory students with a set
of videos to guide them through the problem-solving strategies required to solve general chemistry
problems. The second goal was to allow our junior/senior level chemistry students a chance to think
about general chemistry concepts in a much deeper way. Similar to other institutions in higher
education, our juniors/seniors take graduate level entrance exams the end of their undergraduate
education, and this project allowed them to review some of the fundamental material that is on those
exams. Both students watching the videos and students participating in the creation of the video have
reported positively with the project. All after-class videos are available to the students throughout the
semester and are not assigned at this time. The after-class videos were created during the Summer of
2017 and work is in progress to determine the impact of students use of those videos.
The after-class worksheets and after-class videos were intended to help students engage in course
content in a low-stakes manner. These have both become important parts of the course and their
continual revision and optimization are ongoing concerns.

Results and Conclusions
Engaging students in class material is the goal of every instructor. As a way to ascertain the
effectiveness of each of the above mentioned techniques, the course grades of D, F, or withdraw
(DFW) rating after the implementation of each technique will now be discussed. During the Spring
and Summer semesters where I did not teach the preparatory class, I refined each of the tools on my
other classes. Those refinements were discussed in each of the above sections.
The preparatory class was created for the Fall 2012 semester using the traditional lecture
approach described above. The DFW rate at the end of the Fall 2012 semester was a 26.2%. This is
consistent with other first year STEM courses at OU, and this rate did not change significantly when
several of the course modifications described in this chapter were introduced. However, there is a
notable drop in DFW rates during the Fall 2015 semester where the rate dropped to 14.5%.

After the first year a rudimentary flipped model was used which included pre-class videos, inclass lectures and the addition of a homework system. The videos at this time were 20-30 minutes
long and the DFW for the Fall 2013 semester was a 25.8%. This is not a significant difference in
DFW rating from the non-flipped method used during my first year. However, I felt more confident
instructing in this method and it didn’t negatively affect my students.
Upon further refinement, in the Fall of 2014, I shortened each video to 5-7 minutes in length
and added a personal response system for in-class questions. I added points to the PRS questions
and continued to neglect points for the pre-class videos. The DFW rating for the Fall 2014 semester
dropped to 24.2%.
During the Fall 2015 semester, points were assigned for both the pre-class videos and the inclass PRS questions. The DFW for the Fall 2015 semester dropped to 14.5%. This was a significant
10
www.pdfgrip.com


drop and is currently the lowest DFW rating that has been attained for the class at this time. With
the addition of points for the pre-class videos and PRS questions, the overall points assigned in the
class had to be adjusted. In order to retain as much of a consistent grading policy as possible, the total
points assigned for personal work and for group work remained the same. Personal work includes
exams and quizzes, while group work includes homework, videos, PRS questions and a laboratory
component. The total percentage of personal work remained 72% of the total score in the class, while
group work remained at 28%.
In order to determine whether or not the significant drop in DFW rate could be attributed to
assigning points to the pre-class videos and PRS questions, I decided to remove the points associated
with the PRS question in class during the Fall 2016 semester. After removing the points the DFW
rate rose to 17.4%. This is the same magnitude as the drop seen when the points were added for the
for the PRS system.
To further my investigation I eliminated the points for the pre-class videos but still offer the
videos during the Fall 2017 semester. The DFW for this semester rose to 26.4%. By removing the
points associated with the pre-class videos, the increase in DFW rate was the same magnitude as
before the points were added.
As a result of the negative change of DFW rate, I have since added the points back for the preclass videos and the PRS system. Further data collection is needed in order to identify whether the

added points were the cause of the rising DFW rate, or if the rising DFW rate was due to the student
population.
Each of the techniques that have been discussed in this chapter have been adjusted and modified
to fit my personal teaching style and may not work for all instructors. In the future, large lecture
courses will present challenges and opportunities for both students and instructors alike. External
distractions, fast paced lecture, and large student populations will always be part of general chemistry
classes. The changing face of higher education will add unknown complexities to teaching general
chemistry course in the future. However, through the use of tools and techniques, such as those
described in this chapter and those yet to be created, instructors can find ways to construct a learning
environment that is engaging and useful to students.

References
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
7.

National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2018. NSB-2018-1; National Science
Foundation: Alexandria, VA, 2018. Available at />(accessed Jan. 1st, 2019).
University of Toledo, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Homepage. ledo.
edu/nsm/chemistry/undergrad/placementtest.html (accessed Apr. 25th, 2019).
Seery, M. K. Flipped Learning in Higher Education Chemistry: Emerging Trends and Potential
Directions. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 758–768.
OpenBroadcaster Homepage. (accessed Aug. 1st, 2013).
Slemmons, K.; Anyanwu, K.; Hames, J.; Grabski, D.; Mlsna, J.; Simkins, E.; Cook, P. The

Impact of Video Length on Learning in a Middle-Level Flipped Science Setting: Implications
for Diversity Inclusion. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2018, 27, 469–479.
PlayPosit Homepage. (accessed Dec. 18th, 2016).
Smith, B. D.; Jacobs, D. C. A Window into How General and Organic Chemistry Students Use
Textbook Resources. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 99–102.
11
www.pdfgrip.com


8.

9.
10.
11.
12.

13.
14.
15.

16.
17.
18.

19.
20.
21.

Hoover, C. A.; Dinndorf-Hogenson, G. A.; Peterson, J. L.; Tollefson, B. R.; Berndt, J. L.;
Laudenbach, N. Flipped Classroom: Do Students Perceive Readiness for Advanced

Discussion? Journal of Nursing Education 2018, 57, 163–165.
Moog, R. S.; Spencer, J. N. POGIL: An Overview; ACS Symposium Series 994; American
Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2008; pp 1−13.
Sibley, J.; Ostafichuk, P.; Michaelsen, L. K.; Roberson, B.; Franchinin, B.; Kubitz, K. Getting
Started With Team-Based Learning, 1st ed.; Stylus Publishing, LLC: Sterling, VA, 2014.
Sevian, H.; Robinson, W. E. Clickers Promote Learning in all Kinds of Classes-Small and
Large, Graduate and Undergraduate, Lecture and Lab. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2011, 40, 14–18.
Judson, E.; Sawada, D. Learning From Past and Present: Electronic Response Systems in
College Lecture Halls. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 2002, 21,
167–181.
TopHat Homepage. (accessed Apr. 23rd, 2019).
Pearson Homepage. (accessed Dec. 1st, 2016).
Cooper, J. L.; MacGregor, J.; Smith, K.; Robinson, P. Implementing Small-Group Instruction:
Insights from Successful Practitioners. New Directions for Teaching and Learning; Jossey-Bass
Publishers: San Francisco, CA, 2000; pp 63−76.
Cooper, J. L.; Robinson, P. The Argument for Making Large Classes Seem Small. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, CA, 2000; pp 5−16.
Roediger, H. L.; Karpicke, J. D. Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improve
Long-Term Retention. Psychological Science 2006, 17, 249–255.
Janes, J. L.; Dunlosky, J.; Rawson, K. How Do Students Use Self-Testing Across Multiple Study
Session When Preparing for a High-Stakes Exam? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and
Cognition. 2018, 7, 230–240.
McGraw-Hill Homepage. (accessed Apr. 25th, 2019).
Berardi, V. The Impact of Using Randomized Homework Values on Student Learning. Journal
of Effective Teaching. 2011, 11, 4–17.
MOVAVI Homepage. (accessed May. 1st, 2017).

12
www.pdfgrip.com