Jack F.
Eichler
*^{a} and
Junelyn
Peeples
^{b}
^{a}Department of Chemistry, University of California-Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521, USA. E-mail: jack.eichler@ucr.edu
^{b}Scripps, The Women’s College, Claremont University Consortium, Claremont, CA 91711, USA
First published on 3rd December 2015
In the face of mounting evidence revealing active learning approaches result in improved student learning outcomes compared to traditional passive lecturing, there is a growing need to change the way instructors teach large introductory science courses. However, a large proportion of STEM faculty continues to use traditional instructor-centered lectures in their classrooms. In an effort to create a low barrier approach for the implementation of active learning pedagogies in introductory science courses, flipped classroom modules for large enrollment general chemistry course sequence have been created. Herein is described how student response systems (clickers) and problem-based case studies have been used to increase student engagement, and how flipped classroom modules have integrated these case studies as collaborative group problem solving activities in 250–500 seat lecture halls. Preliminary evaluation efforts found the flipped classroom modules provided convenient access to learning materials that increased the use of active learning in lecture and resulted in a significant improvement in the course grade point average (GPA) compared to a non-flipped class. These results suggest this approach to implementing a flipped classroom can act as a model for integrating active learning into large enrollment introductory chemistry courses that yields successful outcomes.
Despite the slow transition away from the exclusive use of traditional lecture, progress is being made in regards to increasing the use of active learning in undergraduate chemical education, and instructional initiatives such as Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) and ChemConnections have made available a wide variety of resources dedicated to fostering active learning environments (Anthony et al., 1998; Yezierski et al., 2008). In addition, the curricular redesign project Chemical Thinking is an example of a broader initiative aimed at both rethinking the content coverage in traditional general chemistry courses and integrating active learning environments into large lectures (Talanquer and Pollard, 2010). Unfortunately, the data collected by the HERI faculty surveys indicate the broader implementation of these types of active learning approaches in chemistry and the broader STEM education community has yet to take place.
Flipped classes can be implemented in a hybrid learning format, in which the content learning is exclusively done in an out-of-class setting and the actual number of in-person contact hours are reduced. The in-person lecture is then used solely for problem solving activities and the online learning counts as part of the course credit hour requirement (Ealy, 2013). A more common flipped classroom approach involves carrying out the content learning in both a traditional lecture setting and an online learning environment. This type of flipped classroom is also known as blended learning since the student learning is “blended” between the online and in-person lecture environments. Flipped classrooms using the blended learning approach usually maintain the same number of in-person contact hours, and the amount of online learning and associated in-class problem solving can vary widely depending on the specific implementation (Shibley et al., 2011; Seery, 2015).
Flipped classroom pedagogies are well established in the physics community, and the evidence clearly indicates these instructional approaches lead to improved performance and student learning gains in large introductory classes (Crouch and Mazur, 2001; Deslauriers et al., 2011). The flipped classroom approach also has a growing cadre of devotees among the chemical education community, however publications reporting the implementation and effectiveness of these instructional innovations are relatively sparse and generally report flipped classes in chemistry courses enrolling fewer than 100 students (Shibley et al., 2011; Smith, 2013; Christiansen, 2014; Fautch, 2015). It is noted reports of implementations in larger classes are slowly coming online (Rein and Brookes, 2015; Flynn, 2015; Yestrebsky, 2015), and we expect the use of flipped classroom modules in large enrollment chemistry courses to increase in the coming years. A review of the state of the art of flipped classes in undergraduate chemistry has recently been published in this journal, and interested readers can find therein a summary of how flipped classroom approaches have been implemented and an overview of the general impact of this teaching strategy on student learning and engagement (Seery, 2015).
Given the dearth of flipped classroom implementations in large enrollment general chemistry courses, attention was given to a first quarter general chemistry course in which concepts well suited for online instruction were targeted. The course design focused on creating a series of flipped classroom modules that can be classified as blended learning, and for the sake of clarity, any reference to flipped classrooms or flipped classroom modules for the remainder of the manuscript imply the use of the blended learning approach. This modular flipped classroom approach has an advantage over a fully flipped hybrid classroom since no changes to the course schedule and lecture meeting times are needed, enabling new adopters the ability to integrate any number of the flipped classroom modules as they see fit. The implementation of the flipped classroom modules, and a comparison of course performance between students in the flipped class and a non-flipped class are described herein.
Fall 2014 | Flipped Classroom Course | Non-flipped Classroom Course |
---|---|---|
a Traditional Active Lecture problem-based case studies can be accessed through the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (NCCSTS; http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/). b Final course grade point averages (GPAs) are assigned as follows: A = 4.0, A− = 3.7, B+ = 3.3, B = 3.0, B− = 2.7, C+ = 2.3, C = 2.0, C− = 1.7, D = 1.0, F = 0; W = withdrawal (withdrawals do not get calculated into student GPAs). | ||
Instructor | J. F. Eichler | J. F. Eichler |
Course schedule | 10 week quarter; T/Th lectures | 10 week quarter; M/W/F lectures |
Enrollment | 452 | 294 |
Lecture activities |
4 flipped classroom sessions (80 minutes each)
13 instructor led lectures with significant use of clickers (80 minutes each) |
28 instructor led lecture lectures with significant use of clickers (50 minutes each) |
Recitation activities | Graduate TA led review sessions (non-graded practice problems, student Q&A) | Graduate TA led group problem solving; 2 problem based case studies and 6 collaborative group quizzes^{a} |
Homework | 138 ALEKS topics | 213 ALEKS topics |
Grading^{b} |
Clickers – 200 points
ALEKS HW – 100 points Online pre-lecture quizzes – 100 points Two midterms – 200 points Final exam – 400 points A/A− = 900–1000; B+/B/B− = 800–899; C+/C/C− = 600–799; D = 500–599; W = student withdrawal |
Clickers – 100 points
ALEKS HW – 100 points Recitation activities – 200 points Two midterms – 200 points Final exam – 400 points A/A− = 900–1000; B+/B/B− = 800–899; C+/C/C− = 600–799; D = 500–599; W = student withdrawal |
Active Learning in Lecture (as measured by time spent responding to clicker questions) | 28% of lecture time | 13% of lecture time |
The implementation of the flipped classroom course was designed in an effort to minimize changes to the course structure and provide flexibility to potential new faculty adopters. Thus, four flipped classroom modules were introduced throughout the ten-week quarter, and the remaining lectures that incorporated the use of traditional lecture and periodic clicker questions were structured in a similar fashion to the non-flipped classroom. In an effort to more effectively link the dependent variable of student performance with the flipped class intervention, the collaborative group problem solving was removed from the mandatory recitation sections and the ALEKS learning objectives associated with the flipped classroom module topics were not included in the online homework. Modifying the online homework was particularly important since it was previously shown the ALEKS online learning system has a significant impact on student performance (Eichler and Peeples, 2013). In order to eliminate exam bias on student course grade performance, the flipped and non-flipped classroom courses were given common midterm and final exams. Aside from the format of the discussion group recitations, the topics covered in the ALEKS online homework, and the group learning activities implemented in the flipped classroom course, the topics covered were the same and the non-flipped classroom sessions were carried out analogously in both courses. Table 1 provides the structure of the flipped and non-flipped classroom courses studied in fall 2014, and Appendix 1 summarizes the schedule of topics for the flipped and non-flipped classes. The reader will note the non-flipped course had more class meetings overall because the class was scheduled on a Monday/Wednesday/Friday format, whereas the flipped classroom lecture was scheduled on a Tuesday/Thursday format.
One potential drawback of flipped classroom environments is the fact students are trusted to independently complete the pre-lecture online learning assignments. If students do not successfully complete these activities and make significant learning gains, not only will the completion of the in-class activities be difficult, the students will likely not gain mastery of the associated learning objective. In an effort to mitigate this possible outcome, learning objectives in the first quarter general chemistry course associated with more algorithmic approaches to solving problems or answering questions were chosen (see Table 2). As an example, providing learning activities to help students learn the rules and procedure for writing electron configurations is more appropriate for an online learning space than the more complex concepts required to understand the quantum mechanical model of the atom and how atomic orbitals are used to describe probable positions/energies of electrons. Just as important as helping ensure successful student learning in the online learning space, it is predicted targeting these types of learning objectives will reduce the hesitation of faculty in adopting these modules.
Flipped classroom topics | Pre-lecture learning | In-class collaborative group learning |
---|---|---|
1. Electron configurations
2. Ionic bonding 3. Lewis structures 4. Reaction stoichiometry |
1. Khan academy Videos (40–60 minutes total).
2. Wolfram CDF Interactive Tutorials (electron configurations and stoichiometry). 3. Norton ChemTours Interactive Tutorials (ionic bonding and Lewis Structures). 4. Online quiz (Blackboard Course Management System). 5. Pre-lecture reading (short literature article or article excerpt). |
1. Clicker question learning check (5–10 minutes).
2. Just-in-time teaching mini-lecture (10–15 minutes). 3. Collaborative group worksheet/case introduction (10–15 minutes). 4. Collaborative group work on free response worksheets (35–45 minutes). 5. Clicker answer input with instructor feedback (25–30 minutes). |
The students were then instructed to work in collaborative groups of 3–4 people, and worked on completing the free response problems. Prior to the lecture, the graduate student teaching assistants (TAs) and undergraduate supplemental instructors (SIs) were given the worksheet and answer key to prepare them in answering student questions. For the flipped classroom course in the fall of 2014, there were three TAs and four SIs who helped the faculty instructor moderate the collaborative group work. Even though these activities were done in an auditorium lecture hall with 454 students, the students were able to work effectively in groups, and the instructor, TAs, and SIs were able to answer all student questions and address points of clarification.
Finally, after the students had completed the worksheets, the students were given clicker questions in which the free response problems had been converted to multiple choice questions. This was done to provide a quick method for “collecting” the student work, and since the clicker system generates an automated grade report the need to hand grade the student responses was eliminated. Table 2 summarizes the flipped classroom topics, and the structure of the pre-lecture learning and in-class lecture activities for the flipped classroom modules. The in-class activity worksheet and a power point file containing the clicker questions for the stoichiometry flipped classroom module are provided in the ESI.†
Questions (1–5 Likert scale responses; 5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree) | Flipped Classroom Course (response rate = 87%) | Non-flipped Classroom Course (response rate = 81%) | Average of all UCR Undergraduate Courses (response rate = 76%) |
---|---|---|---|
The instructor used class time effectively. | 4.7 ± 0.6 | 4.8 ± 0.4 | 4.3 ± 0.9 |
The syllabus clearly explained the structure of the course. | 4.6 ± 0.6 | 4.7 ± 0.5 | 4.4 ± 0.8 |
The assignments contributed to my learning. | 4.5 ± 0.7 | 4.5 ± 0.7 | 4.2 ± 0.9 |
The supplemental materials were informative. | 4.5 ± 0.7 | 4.5 ± 0.7 | 4.2 ± 0.9 |
The course overall as a learning experience was excellent. | 4.5 ± 0.7 | 4.6 ± 0.6 | 4.2 ± 0.9 |
Lecture type | Total W/D/F | Percent W/D/F (%) | Course GPA | Exam 1 avg. (%) | Exam 2 avg. (%) | Final exam avg. (%) | Clicker avg. (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a The traditional lectures taught by other instructors had similar exam formats as the flipped classroom and non-flipped classroom courses (two midterms and a final exam), and had TA led practice problem sessions and quizzes in the discussion group recitations. | |||||||
Flipped Classroom Course J. F. Eichler (one section) Fall 2014 | 24/454 | 5.3 | 2.923 | 83.4 ± 12.1 | 75.0 ± 16.5 | 73.6 ± 12.1 | 85.9 ± 18.6 |
Non-flipped Classroom Course J. F. Eichler (one section) Fall 2014 | 13/295 | 4.4 | 2.807 | 83.7 ± 12.5 | 73.5 ± 14.8 | 73.9 ± 13.0 | 74.4 ± 18.8 |
Traditional Lectures Other instructors (two sections) Fall 2012^{a} | 107/724 | 14.8 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Fig. 1 Course grade distributions in the flipped classroom and non-flipped classroom courses taught by J. F. Eichler in the fall 2014 quarter. |
In order to determine if there might be a distinguishable impact on the final exam performance, a multiple regression analysis was conducted. The final exam scores were compared between the students in the flipped and non-flipped classrooms, while holding constant the student background variables. Table 5 summarizes the correlation between the classroom interventions and the student final exam scores (the complete statistical summary of the correlation coefficients for all the independent variables can be found in Appendix 6). Results reveal there was not a statistically significant difference in the final exam grades between the flipped and non-flipped courses (unstandardized B = −6.292; significance > 0.05). Even though the flipped classroom led to an in increase in course grade/GPA compared to the non-flipped classroom (see Table 4), the fact no significant difference was observed in the final exam is not completely unexpected. The recent review of flipped classroom interventions in undergraduate chemistry courses observed that approximately half of the published studies report no improvement in exam scores for flipped classrooms (Seery, 2015).
Independent variable | Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients | t* | significance | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Standard error | Beta | |||
a Dependent variable = final exam score; t = t statistic (regression coefficient/standard error). | |||||
(Constant) | 289.493 | 21.375 | 13.544 | 0.000 | |
Flipped Classroom Course | −6.292 | 4.196 | −0.065 | −1.499 | 0.134 |
In addition to comparing performance on the final exam, it was desired to determine whether participating in a flipped classroom environment had a statistically significant impact on overall course grade/GPA. A multiple regression model was also used to measure whether course grades between the flipped and non-flipped courses differed significantly, while holding constant the various student background variables. Table 6 summarizes the correlation between the flipped classroom intervention and the non-flipped classroom by student course grade/GPA performance (the complete statistical summary of the correlation coefficients for all the independent variables can be found in Appendix 7). Students who participated in the flipped classroom course could expect to positively and significantly increase their overall course GPA by nearly 18 percentage points (unstandardized B coefficient = 0.179, significance < 0.05). In conjunction with these findings, the linear correlation coefficient quantifying the strength and direction between the dependent and independent variables was calculated. Although there is a significant and positive relationship between participating in the flipped classroom environment and the impact on a student’s course grade GPA, the correlation is considered weak (R = 0.396; R < 0.50 considered weak correlation; see Appendix 8).
Independent variable | Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients | t ^{ } | Significance | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Standard error | Beta | |||
a Dependent variable = course grade (as quantified by course GPA); t = t statistic (regression coefficient/standard error). | |||||
(Constant) | 1.163 | 0.412 | 2.822 | 0.005 | |
Flipped classroom course | 0.179 | 0.064 | 0.098 | 2.795 | 0.005 |
In short, the flipped classroom implementation resulted in an increased amount of active learning in the classroom and a significant improvement in overall course grade/GPA. The flipped classroom modules also achieved the same course completion rate as the non-flipped course taught by the same instructor, and both the flipped class and non-flipped class reduced the W/D/F failure rate compared to traditional lecture courses taught by other instructors. The results presented here corroborate previous findings about the efficacy of the flipped classroom approach. In particular, it was observed that a flipped classroom approach in large enrollment organic chemistry significantly improved student course grade/GPA performance, and reduced withdrawal and failure rates compared to non-flipped courses (Flynn, 2015). Improved student performance, as measured by course grade/GPA, has also been observed in flipped classroom implementations in small lecture courses (Fautch, 2015).
The flipped classroom approach incentivizes the students to complete their “homework” since the pre-lecture learning activities conclude with an online quiz. Additionally, the students are able to view the videos and work with the interactive tutorials at their own pace and if necessary multiple times, allowing the students to tailor the learning experience to their own needs. The advantage of this type of flipped pre-lecture learning environment might be explained by cognitive load theory, recently summarized by M. K. Seery. In essence, learning new material in a traditional lecture environment is restricted because the delivery of the content (the intrinsic load) and extraction of information by the student (the extraneous load) limit the capacity for learning new information (Seery, 2015).
It is proposed the pre-lecture learning environment carried out in the flipped classroom course reduced the cognitive load by allowing the students to access the content and extract the new information when it was most convenient for them to do so and at their own desired pace. This likely led to gains in the short/intermediate term learning for the students in the flipped classroom course. However, after the entire 10 week quarter the final exam performance in the flipped lecture course and non-flipped course equalized. A comparison of the descriptive clicker grades suggests the pre-lecture learning activities positively impacted the short/intermediate term learning, as the clicker average for the course implementing the flipped learning modules was over ten percentage points higher compared to the students in the non-flipped classroom course (see Table 4). Conversely, these gains did not translate to the final exam performance, which were found to be statistically equivalent for the flipped and non-flipped classes (see Tables 4 and 5). The improvement in overall course grade/GPA for the flipped class compared to the non-flipped class (see Tables 4 and 6) can thus be attributed to the marked improvement in student clicker performance, which most likely reflects the impact of the pre-lecture learning activities. The active learning clicker questions and more comprehensive ALEKS homework in the non-flipped classroom course also likely contributed to the fact students in the control group had comparable longer term learning gains, as measured by the final exam scores. Future studies will focus on isolating the impact of the in-class and pre-lecture activities on student learning, and efforts will be made to determine if changing the flipped classroom implementation might increase long term learning gains (e.g., will increasing the number of flipped classroom modules increase student final exam performance compared to a non-flipped course that incorporates active learning and ALEKS).
In addition to comparing the overall course grades and final exam scores for the flipped and non-flipped classes, insight was gained by comparing the W/D/F rates of the flipped and non-flipped classes to previous classes in which active learning approaches were not adopted. The results presented in this work indicate both the flipped classroom and non-flipped classroom courses significantly reduced the W/D/F rates compared to general chemistry courses in which traditional passive lecture was the predominant method of instruction. In fact, the percentage of students who did not earn a grade of C- or higher in the flipped classroom or non-flipped classroom courses was approximately three times lower than traditional lecture courses taught by other instructors (see Table 4). This marked improvement in student success was accompanied by high levels of student satisfaction with the courses described here, providing compelling evidence for practitioners of traditional passive lecture who are hesitant to adopt new approaches to teaching. These results, in conjunction with previous studies finding flipped classroom implementations improved student success rates and/or grade performance (Fautch, 2015; Flynn, 2015), also suggest the flipped classroom approach might help address the broader problem of student retention in STEM majors.
In summary, the flipped classroom implementation described here only requires the replacement of four traditional lectures in a ten week Tuesday/Thursday course with active learning group problem solving exercises, which are coupled to pre-lecture learning activities that are readily available to new adopters (the Khan Academy videos and Norton Publishing ChemTours are freely available online resources). The most daunting challenge for faculty using traditional lecture approaches may be the use of in-class clickers, however this technology is becoming more widespread and a number of web-based student polling systems are now available.†† Of course, instructors could choose to not use clickers and grade the student in-class work in more traditional methods, especially if graduate teaching assistants are available for grading or if the flipped classroom modules are adopted in small enrollment courses. Hence, using student response systems to foster active learning should not be a large barrier for implementing flipped classroom approaches. The flipped classroom approach is an instructional intervention that requires a manageable amount of course material development, does not impact course content coverage, and improves student grades in large enrollment lectures without negatively impacting end-of-course instructor evaluations. With these considerations in mind, the flipped classroom implementation outlined herein can act as a model for instructors teaching large enrollment general chemistry courses and stimulate broader adoption of active learning approaches, ultimately improving student success in a large introductory course required by students pursuing STEM degrees.
Flipped Classroom Course Schedule (Suggested sections for reading from the Gilbert “Chemistry: An Atoms Focused Approach” textbook are shown in parentheses) | |
---|---|
Week 0 | Course Logistics & Goals/Student Learning Goals Review of Measurement Conversions (1.8–1.9) |
Week 1 | Atomic Structure (Democritus Reading, 2.1–2.4) |
Electronic Structure (de Broglie Reading, 3.1–3.5) | |
Week 2 | Electronic Structure (3.6–3.8) |
Electronic Structure (3.9) – Blended Learning Module | |
Week 3 | Electronic Structure (3.9) – Review |
Exam 1 (Chapters 1–3) | |
Week 4 | Ionic Bonding (4.1–4.2) – Blended Learning Module |
Periodic Trends (3.10–3.12) | |
Week 5 | Covalent Bonding (4.1, 4.3) |
Lewis Structures (4.3, 4.8) – Blended Learning Module | |
Week 6 | No Class – Holiday |
Molecular Geometry (5.1–5.2) | |
Week 7 | Intermolecular Forces (6.1–6.2) |
Advanced Bonding (5.4, 5.7) | |
Week 8 | Exam 2 (Chapters 4–6) |
No Class – Holiday | |
Week 9 | Reactions/Stoichiometry (7.1–7.2, 7.4) |
Reactions/Stoichiometry (7.5–7.7) | |
Week 10 | Reactions/Stoichiometry (7.8, 8.1–8.2) – Blended Learning Module |
Finish Chapter 7/Review | |
Final Exam (Chapters 1–7) (11:30–2:30; Location TBD) |
Non-flipped Classroom Course Schedule (Suggested sections for reading from the Gilbert “Chemistry: An Atoms Focused Approach” textbook are shown in parentheses) | |
---|---|
Week 0 | Course Logistics & Goals/Student Learning Goals Review of Measurement Conversions (1.8–1.9) |
Finish Measurement Conversions (1.8–1.9) | |
Week 1 | Atomic Structure (Democritus Reading, 2.1–2.4) |
Electronic Structure (de Broglie Reading, 3.1–3.5) | |
Electronic Structure (3.6–3.7) | |
Week 2 | Electronic Structure (3.8) |
Electronic Structure (3.9) | |
Electronic Structure (3.9) – Review | |
Week 3 | Exam 1 (Chapters 1–3) |
Ionic Bonding (4.1–4.2) | |
Ionic Bonding (4.1–4.2) | |
Week 4 | Periodic Trends (3.10–3.12) |
Periodic Trends (3.10–3.12) | |
Covalent Bonding (4.1, 4.3) | |
Week 5 | Covalent Bonding (4.1, 4.3) |
Lewis Structures (4.8) | |
Lewis Structures (4.8) | |
Week 6 | Molecular Geometry (5.1–5.2) |
Molecular Geometry (5.1–5.2) | |
Intermolecular Forces (6.1–6.2) | |
Week 7 | Intermolecular Forces (6.1–6.2) |
Advanced Bonding (5.4, 5.7) | |
Advanced Bonding (5.4, 5.7) | |
Week 8 | Exam 2 (Chapters 4–6) |
No Class – Holiday | |
Week 9 | Reactions/Stoichiometry (7.1–7.2, 7.4) |
Reactions/Stoichiometry (7.5–7.7) | |
Reactions/Stoichiometry (7.8) | |
Week 10 | Reactions/Stoichiometry (7.8) |
Reactions/Stoichiometry (8.1–8.2) | |
Finish Chapter 7/Review | |
Final Exam (Chapters 1–7) (11:30–2:30; Location TBD) |
Variable model name | Variable full name | Variable meaning |
---|---|---|
R_GRADE | Failure Rates/Final Exam Grade/Course Grade GPA (Dependent Variable) | Course GPA (0.0–4.0) |
GROUPS | Type of Classroom Structure (Flipped Classroom vs. Non-flipped Classroom) | 1 if Flipped Classroom; 0 if Non-Flipped Classroom |
WOMEN | Gender | 1 if female; 0 if male |
MEN | Gender | 1 if male; 0 if female |
AFRAM | African American Race/Ethnicity | 1 if African American; 0 else |
NATVAMER | Native American Race/Ethnicity | 1 if Native American; 0 else |
HISP | Hispanic Race/Ethnicity | 1 if Hispanic; 0 else |
ASIAN | Asian/Pacific Islander Race/Ethnicity | 1 if Asian/P.I.; 0 else |
CAUCASIAN | Caucasian Race/Ethnicity | 1 if Caucasian; 0 else |
OTHER | Other/Unknown Race/Ethnicity | 1 if Other/Unknown; 0 else |
R_FIRSTGEN | First Generation Status | 1 if either Parent Education < no 4 year degree received; 0 if > 4 year degree or higher |
R_LOWINC | Low Income Status | 1 if Parental Income < 30k; 0 otherwise |
cuhsgpa | High School GPA | GPA score (0.0–4.0) |
sat1verb | SAT Verbal | SAT Verbal score |
sat1math | SAT Math | SAT Math score |
sat1writ | SAT Writing | SAT Writing score |
FROSH | Freshman Class Status | 1 if freshmen; 0 else |
SOPH | Sophomore Class Status | 1 if sophomore; 0 else |
JR | Junior Class Status | 1 if junior; 0 else |
SR | Senior Class Status | 1 if senior; 0 else |
ONCAMPUS | On Campus Living | 1 if living in residence halls or university owned apartments; 0 if otherwise |
CHASS | College of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences (includes School of Business) | 1 if CHASS/SOB; 0 else |
CNAS | College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences | 1 if CNAS; 0 else |
BCOE | Bourns College of Engineering | 1 if BCOE; 0 else |
LC | Learning Community | 1 if participated in a living learning community; 0 otherwise |
Flipped Classroom Population | N ^{ b } | Mean | Standard deviation | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Statistic | Statistic | Standard error | Statistic | |
^{ a }The statistic for these variables is given as a fraction of the total student population (e.g., women comprised 55.31% of the population in the flipped classroom course). ^{b}N = number of students in the flipped class. | ||||
R_GRADE (Course Grade GPA) | 452 | 2.9231 | 0.04308 | 0.91792 |
WOMEN^{a} | 452 | 0.5531 | 0.02341 | 0.49772 |
MEN^{a} | 452 | 0.4469 | 0.02341 | 0.49772 |
AFRAM^{a} | 452 | 0.0509 | 0.01035 | 0.22001 |
NATVAMER^{a} | 452 | 0.0133 | 0.00539 | 0.11457 |
HISP^{a} | 452 | 0.3031 | 0.02164 | 0.46011 |
ASIAN^{a} | 452 | 0.4978 | 0.02354 | 0.50055 |
CAUCASIAN^{a} | 452 | 0.1128 | 0.01490 | 0.31674 |
OTHER^{a} | 452 | 0.0000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 |
R_FIRSTGEN^{a} | 452 | 0.4978 | 0.02354 | 0.50055 |
R_LOWINC^{a} | 452 | 0.3960 | 0.02303 | 0.48961 |
cuhsgpa | 452 | 3.706173 | 0.0201362 | 0.4281023 |
sat1verb | 452 | 505.09 | 7.339 | 156.021 |
sat1math | 452 | 554.40 | 7.951 | 169.040 |
sat1writ | 452 | 512.74 | 7.409 | 157.515 |
FROSH^{a} | 452 | 0.7588 | 0.02014 | 0.42826 |
SOPH^{a} | 452 | 0.2146 | 0.01933 | 0.41100 |
JR^{a} | 452 | 0.0133 | 0.00539 | 0.11457 |
SR^{a} | 452 | 0.0133 | 0.00539 | 0.11457 |
ONCAMPUS^{a} | 452 | 0.5973 | 0.02309 | 0.49098 |
CHASS | 452 | 0.0951 | 0.01382 | 0.29372 |
SOBA^{a} | 452 | 0.0000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 |
CNAS^{a} | 452 | 0.8319 | 0.01761 | 0.37441 |
BCOE^{a} | 452 | 0.0730 | 0.01225 | 0.26044 |
LC^{a} | 452 | 0.3673 | 0.02270 | 0.48259 |
Valid N (listwise) | 452 |
Traditional Lecture Population | N ^{ b } | Mean | Standard deviation | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Statistic | Statistic | Standard error | Statistic | |
^{ a }The statistic for these variables is given as a fraction of the total student population (e.g., women comprised 48.30% of the population in the non-flipped classroom course). ^{b}N = number of students in the non-flipped class. | ||||
R_GRADE (Course Grade GPA) | 294 | 2.8017 | 0.05199 | 0.89296 |
WOMEN^{a} | 294 | 0.4830 | 0.02919 | 0.50056 |
MEN^{a} | 294 | 0.5170 | 0.02919 | 0.50056 |
AFRAM^{a} | 294 | 0.0442 | 0.01201 | 0.20593 |
NATVAMER^{a} | 294 | 0.0000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 |
HISP^{a} | 294 | 0.2585 | 0.02558 | 0.43856 |
ASIAN^{a} | 294 | 0.5476 | 0.02908 | 0.49858 |
CAUCASIAN^{a} | 294 | 0.1327 | 0.01982 | 0.33978 |
OTHER^{a} | 294 | 0.0000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 |
R_FIRSTGEN^{a} | 294 | 0.4830 | 0.02919 | 0.50056 |
R_LOWINC^{a} | 294 | 0.3571 | 0.02799 | 0.47997 |
cuhsgpa | 294 | 3.630510 | 0.0354519 | 0.6078739 |
sat1verb | 294 | 522.72 | 8.215 | 140.851 |
sat1math | 294 | 576.50 | 9.011 | 154.512 |
sat1writ | 294 | 534.18 | 8.413 | 144.257 |
FROSH^{a} | 294 | 0.7415 | 0.02558 | 0.43856 |
SOPH^{a} | 294 | 0.2109 | 0.02383 | 0.40863 |
JR^{a} | 294 | 0.0340 | 0.01059 | 0.18157 |
SR^{a} | 294 | 0.0136 | 0.00677 | 0.11604 |
ONCAMPUS^{a} | 294 | 0.6361 | 0.02811 | 0.48195 |
CHASS | 294 | 0.0680 | 0.01471 | 0.25222 |
SOBA^{a} | 294 | 0.0000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 |
CNAS^{a} | 294 | 0.8333 | 0.02177 | 0.37331 |
BCOE^{a} | 294 | 0.0986 | 0.01742 | 0.29869 |
LC^{a} | 294 | 0.4694 | 0.02916 | 0.49991 |
Valid N (listwise) | 294 |
Course grade distribution | ||
---|---|---|
Flipped classroom population | Non-flipped classroom population | |
^{ a }N = number of students in each category; df = degrees of freedom; F = test statistic (ratio of two mean square values). | ||
A–C course grades | 94.7% (N = 430) | 95.6% (N = 282) |
W/D/F course grades | 5.3% (N = 24) | 4.4% (N = 13) |
Descriptives | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Failure course grades (D/F) | ||||||||
N ^{ a } | Mean | Standard deviation | Standard error | 95% confidence interval for mean | Minimum | Maximum | ||
Lower bound | Upper bound | |||||||
Flipped classroom | 24 | 0.5750 | 0.59728 | 0.12192 | 0.3228 | 0.8272 | 0.00 | 1.30 |
Non-flipped classroom | 13 | 0.4846 | 0.55052 | 0.15269 | 0.1519 | 0.8173 | 0.00 | 1.30 |
Total | 37 | 0.5432 | 0.57520 | 0.09456 | 0.3515 | 0.7350 | 0.00 | 1.30 |
ANOVA | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Failure course grades (D/F) | |||||
Sum of squares | df^{a} | Mean square | F ^{ a } | Significance | |
Between groups | 0.069 | 1 | 0.069 | 0.204 | 0.655 |
Within groups | 11.842 | 35 | 0.338 | ||
Total | 11.911 | 36 |
Model | Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients | t ^{ a } | Significance | Correlations | Collinearity statistics | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B ^{ a } | Standard error | Beta^{a} | Zero-order | Partial | Part | Tolerance | VIF^{a} | |||
^{ a }Dependent variable: R_GRADE = final exam scores; B and Beta = regression coefficients; t = test statistic (regression coefficient/standard error); VIF = variance inflation factor. | ||||||||||
(Constant) | 289.493 | 21.375 | 13.544 | 0.000 | ||||||
Flipped classroom | −6.292 | 4.196 | −0.065 | −1.499 | 0.134 | −0.039 | −0.067 | −0.064 | 0.957 | 1.045 |
MEN | 8.683 | 4.285 | 0.091 | 2.027 | 0.043 | 0.104 | 0.090 | 0.086 | 0.899 | 1.112 |
AFRAM | −033.899 | 17.372 | −0.143 | −01.951 | 0.052 | −0.110 | −0.087 | −0.083 | 0.337 | 2.965 |
NATVAMER | −23.430 | 25.324 | −0.048 | −0.925 | 0.355 | −0.036 | −0.041 | −0.039 | 0.675 | 1.480 |
HISP | −19.625 | 14.942 | −0.172 | −1.313 | 0.190 | −0.104 | −0.058 | −0.056 | 0.106 | 9.400 |
ASIAN | −8.244 | 14.687 | −0.085 | −0.561 | 0.575 | 0.123 | −0.025 | −0.024 | 0.078 | 12.748 |
CAUCASIAN | −10.432 | 15.550 | −0.071 | −0.671 | 0.503 | 0.012 | −0.030 | −0.029 | 0.165 | 6.075 |
ALIEN | 20.766 | 13.701 | 0.068 | 1.516 | 0.130 | 0.053 | 0.067 | 0.065 | 0.901 | 1.109 |
R_FIRSTGEN | −12.662 | 4.746 | −0.133 | −2.668 | 0.008 | −0.151 | −0.118 | −0.114 | 0.732 | 1.366 |
R_LOWINC | 3.900 | 4.859 | 0.039 | 0.803 | 0.422 | −0.026 | 0.036 | 0.034 | 0.761 | 1.314 |
sat1verb | −0.026 | 0.036 | −0.087 | −0.726 | 0.468 | 0.044 | −0.032 | −0.031 | 0.125 | 7.982 |
sat1math | 0.028 | 0.030 | 0.102 | 0.946 | 0.345 | 0.077 | 0.042 | 0.040 | 0.155 | 6.450 |
sat1writ | 0.012 | 0.037 | 0.042 | 0.332 | 0.740 | 0.060 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.111 | 8.980 |
SOPH | 18.838 | 9.106 | 0.091 | 2.069 | 0.039 | 0.081 | 0.092 | 0.088 | 0.944 | 1.059 |
JR | 6.274 | 23.618 | 0.013 | 0.266 | 0.791 | 0.010 | 0.012 | 0.011 | 0.777 | 1.288 |
ONCAMPUS | −5.289 | 4.833 | −0.050 | −1.094 | 0.274 | −0.012 | −.049 | −0.047 | 0.876 | 1.142 |
CHASS | 1.782 | 10.778 | 0.007 | 0.165 | 0.869 | −0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.916 | 1.092 |
BCOE | −10.661 | 15.984 | −0.029 | −0.667 | 0.505 | −0.029 | −0.030 | −0.028 | 0.949 | 1.053 |
LC | 10.032 | 4.305 | 0.105 | 2.330 | 0.020 | 0.086 | 0.103 | 0.099 | 0.894 | 1.119 |
Model | Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients | t ^{ a } | Significance | Correlations | Collinearity statistics | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B ^{ a } | Standard error | Beta^{a} | Zero-order | Partial | Part | Tolerance | VIF^{a} | |||
^{ a }Dependent variable: R_GRADE = overall course grade/GPA; B and Beta = regression coefficients; t = test statistic (regression coefficient/standard error); VIF = variance inflation factor. | ||||||||||
(Constant) | 1.163 | 0.412 | 2.822 | 0.005 | ||||||
Flipped classroom | 0.179 | 0.064 | 0.098 | 2.795 | 0.005 | 0.073 | 0.103 | 0.095 | 0.954 | 1.048 |
MEN | 0.038 | 0.066 | 0.021 | 0.580 | 0.562 | 0.039 | 0.022 | 0.020 | 0.876 | 1.142 |
AFRAM | −0.085 | 0.262 | −0.020 | −0.325 | 0.745 | −0.034 | −0.012 | −0.011 | 0.299 | 3.345 |
NATVAMER | −0.188 | 0.409 | −0.019 | −0.460 | 0.646 | −0.012 | −0.017 | −0.016 | 0.705 | 1.419 |
HISP | −0.210 | 0.229 | −0.105 | −0.918 | 0.359 | −0.206 | −0.034 | −0.031 | 0.088 | 11.336 |
ASIAN | 0.152 | 0.225 | 0.085 | 0.677 | 0.499 | 0.214 | 0.025 | 0.023 | 0.074 | 13.428 |
CAUCASIAN | −0.014 | 0.238 | −0.005 | −0.058 | 0.954 | −0.016 | −0.002 | −0.002 | 0.157 | 6.376 |
ALIEN | 0.053 | 0.186 | 0.010 | 0.287 | 0.774 | −0.014 | 0.011 | 0.010 | 0.951 | 1.052 |
R_FIRSTGEN | −0.172 | 0.073 | −0.096 | −02.370 | 0.018 | −0.172 | −0.088 | −0.081 | 0.715 | 1.399 |
R_LOWINC | −0.057 | 0.073 | −0.031 | −0.782 | 0.435 | −0.114 | −0.029 | −0.027 | 0.750 | 1.334 |
Cuhsgpa | 0.421 | 0.074 | 0.238 | 5.719 | 0.000 | 0.147 | 0.208 | 0.195 | 0.675 | 1.482 |
sat1verb | 0.000 | 0.001 | −0.027 | −0.292 | 0.770 | 0.020 | −0.011 | −0.010 | 0.138 | 7.262 |
sat1math | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.143 | 1.735 | 0.083 | 0.066 | 0.064 | 0.059 | 0.172 | 5.799 |
sat1writ | −0.001 | 0.001 | −0.159 | −1.648 | 0.100 | 0.018 | −0.061 | −0.056 | 0.124 | 8.043 |
SOPH | 0.090 | 0.090 | 0.041 | 0.995 | 0.320 | −0.098 | 0.037 | 0.034 | 0.686 | 1.458 |
JR | 1.080 | 0.244 | 0.174 | 4.434 | 0.000 | 0.057 | 0.163 | 0.151 | 0.755 | 1.324 |
SR | 0.720 | 0.306 | 0.092 | 2.357 | 0.019 | −0.011 | 0.087 | 0.080 | 0.760 | 1.315 |
ONCAMPUS | 0.058 | 0.070 | 0.031 | 0.824 | 0.410 | 0.119 | 0.031 | 0.028 | 0.813 | 1.230 |
CHASS | 0.030 | 0.127 | 0.009 | 0.235 | 0.814 | −0.038 | 0.009 | 0.008 | 0.758 | 1.319 |
BCOE | −0.186 | 0.131 | −0.057 | −1.423 | 0.155 | −0.037 | −0.053 | −0.049 | 0.720 | 1.390 |
LC | 0.350 | 0.071 | 0.192 | 4.901 | 0.000 | 0.194 | 0.179 | 0.167 | 0.762 | 1.312 |
Model | R ^{ c } | R square | Adjusted R square | Standard error of the estimate | R square change | F ^{ c } change | df1^{c} | df2^{c} | Significance F change |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
^{ a }Predictors: (constant), LC, NATVAMER, ALIEN, R_FIRSTGEN, AFRAM, SR, GROUPS, MEN, JR, CAUCASIAN, sat1verb, ONCAMPUS, CHASS, BCOE, HISP, R_LOWINC, SOPH, cuhsgpa, sat1math, sat1writ, ASIAN. ^{b}Dependent variable: R_GRADE = overall course grade/GPA^{. c}R = correlation factor; R square = goodness of fit; F = test statistic (ratio of two mean square values); df = degrees of freedom. | |||||||||
1 | 0.396^{a} | 0.157 | 0.133 | 0.83734 | 0.157 | 6.421 | 21 | 724 | 0.000 |
Footnotes |
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: 10.1039/c5rp00159e |
‡ The HERI survey is a national survey of higher education faculty across the United States. More information about the survey can be found at: http://www.heri.ucla.edu/facoverview.php |
§ ALEKS (http://www.aleks.com). |
¶ Khan Academy general chemistry video tutorials (http://https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry). |
|| Wolfram CDF: (http://https://www.wolfram.com/cdf/). The primary advantage of the CDF tutorial is the students are able to manipulate graphs and schematics, view dynamic molecular models, etc. Our tutorials are designed to have students make predictions and determine resulting outcomes based on the changes to specific variables. The CDF player software can be downloaded for free by students. Though a number of chemistry tutorials are available online (http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/search.html?query=chemistry), we chose to create our own tutorial specifically designed to address the learning objectives in our stoichiometry blended learning unit. The stoichiometry CDF tutorial is available in the supplemental materials associated with this article. |
** Norton ChemTours: http://www.wwnorton.com/college/chemistry/chemistry3/ch/01/chemtours.aspx |
†† Examples of commonly used web-based student response/polling systems: (a) http://https://www.polleverywhere.com/ and (b) http://https://tophat.com/ |
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 |