Student-generated video in chemistry education

Abstract

Student-generated videos are growing in popularity in education generally, and in chemistry education there are several reports emerging on their use in practice. Interest in their use in chemistry is grounded in the visual nature of chemistry, the role of laboratory work in chemistry, and a desire to enhance digital literacy skills. In this perspective, we consider the place of student-generated videos in chemistry education, by first considering an appropriate pedagogical rationale for their usage. We then survey the reports of student-generated video with this framework in mind, exploring the role of generation in the reports surveyed. From this, we summarise the current status of student-generated videos in chemistry education and highlight from our readings some considerations for future research in this area, as well as guidelines for practitioners wishing to integrate student-generated video into their practice.

---

Student-generated video in education

Video as a medium is well embedded in chemistry education, with a long history of supporting different aspects of teaching and learning chemistry. These include use of video in supporting learning in lectures (Seery, 2015), supporting students’ preparation for laboratory work (Agustian and Seery, 2017), and the general supporting of student learning through a vast range of supplemental materials available through commercial publishers and on public sharing platforms (Wijnker et al., 2018). Less well documented are student-generated videos. These are videos created by students for the purpose of supporting some aspects of their studies and/or demonstrating their understanding of a particular concept, usually completed for assessment. Our intention in this perspective is to present a framework to underpin the inclusion of student-generated video in curricula. We then consider examples from the chemistry education literature reporting their use in order to learn how approaches have been incorporated into practice, and what guidance for practice can be gleaned from their use. Many of the reports on student-generated video in the literature are reports of practice, and therefore it is not possible to critique them as would be normal in a typical (critical) review, as several reports do not provide much research data to critique.

While student-generated video has a short history, the education literature that describes their use is not trivial. One of the significant challenges is terminology, and our use of the term ‘video’ here is grounded in Reyna's work on describing learner-generated digital media assignments (Reyna et al., 2017). In considering a range of digital artefacts from blog post through podcasts to blended media, they describe video as “a sequence of images to form a moving picture” which can include audio. Generation of a video therefore requires the arrangement and compilation of moving images which may be captured by a camera, animation, or a series of images in sequence, and usually incorporating audio with that compilation. A key factor from our perspective then is that student-generated video requires students to plan out the content and sequence of the digital product they intend to generate.

Using a framework of generative learning theory

From this perspective, we consider student-generated video in the overarching framework of generative learning theory (Wittrock, 1974, 1994). At the core of Wittrock's theory is a consideration of how learners turn information into knowledge, or learn science with understanding. The particular aspects of generative learning theory require, as the name implies, generating relationships between the new pieces of knowledge and between the new information and what they already know (Wittrock, 1994). This generation requires active construction, so that learners take actions that purposefully utilise new knowledge to develop an understanding, thus making connections between new information and what they already know. This of course describes what most educators consider to be the general umbrella of constructivism, a paradigm that became popular a decade after Wittrock's original work, but we emphasise the generative aspect here to highlight the generation of something new in learning, and the implicit value in generation from something tangible to learners. In her work on considering learning in the chemistry laboratory, Nakhleh advocates generative learning theory, because the laboratory environment offers a place for students to “construct images and verbal representations from their observations and interpretations, and these opportunities, correctly used, should facilitate learning” (Nakhleh, 1994). While it is unlikely that Wittrock had the generation of a digital artefact in mind, the theme of generation emerges strongly in recent literature. In their useful work on assessment of digital artefacts, Nielsen et al. (2018) write (our emphasis):

“A digital explanation thus has the potential for student learning as it involves both researching multiple representations, as well as generating and assembling them to create a coherent product…”

The use of generative learning theory to frame student-generated video production aligns with Nakhleh's arguments; generation of video requires bringing together imagery and explanation into a narrative that intends to demonstrate understanding. Student-generated video enables students to produce their own representations of chemistry concepts and skills (Yaseen, 2018). The tangible requirements (of producing a video artefact) act as a useful vehicle for facilitating student self-explanations in the curriculum, as students will need to consider what it is they wish to present in a video (Lawrie, 2016). Similar arguments made in the writing to learn literature (Halim et al., 2018; Moon et al., 2018) resonate for student-produced videos; namely that activities that involve cognitive and metacognitive processes are beneficial as they promote reflective thinking (Fry and Villagomez, 2012). The production of video will by its very nature require planning out of content and review of narrative. Lawrie (2016) has framed this in the context of a semiotic progression based in the work of Hoban et al. (2011); making a video means that students need to (i) research content for their video, (ii) generate the sequence and representations necessary to populate the content of the video, and (iii) narrate the video. The overall process structures the progression of students making meaning from their representations, linking together information new to them with information they already know.

The case for integration of student-generated video in the curriculum

While the use of video as an instructional tool is ubiquitous in higher education, reports of student-generated materials are still novel. The planning, creation, and production of videos by students in the chemistry classroom has been catalyzed by the fast development of mobile technologies in the last decade (Hoban and Nielsen, 2010). The growing interest in this approach over the last 15 years is likely to be primarily due to two factors. First, there is growing resistance to a model of students as passive consumers with knowledge being “provided” to them (Boden and Epstein, 2006) which has led to large shifts in pedagogic approaches such as the emerging “student as producers” paradigm; and secondly the rapid growth in ease of recording video on mobile devices, which has led to a corresponding growth in the use of video as a medium, and a subsequent requirement for universities to consider the digital literacy capabilities of their graduates (Jorm et al., 2019).

The concept of digital literacy can be grouped with other general activities such as teamwork, planning, and communication that together come under an umbrella of transferable skills. Including student-generated video in the curriculum affords students the opportunity to learn to do in a supported environment an activity they will likely need to be competent in after graduation (Orús et al., 2016; van der Meij, 2017). Indeed Jorm and co-workers report that video production is already embedded in schools in Australia (Dezuanni, 2015) and the USA (Yuan and Bakian-Aaker, 2015). Digital literacy – and the ability to adapt to changing forms of digital literacy – is a core skill in the modern age (Leu et al., 2017).

Digital literacies involve the generation and use of learning materials that extend beyond the written (or spoken word), and as such invoke the literature of multi-modal pedagogies (Kress et al., 2001). Multi-modal approaches aim to re-conceptualize classroom communication beyond a focus on language to considering communication that includes language as one of a range of options, alongside student action and visual imagery, all of which can interact to communicate a representation of student understanding. This consideration is of primary importance in chemistry, a subject that relies on consideration of multiple representations as described in the manifestation of representations by Johnstone's triangle (macroscopic, microscopic, symbolic) (Johnstone, 1993) and also because of the physical nature of the chemistry laboratory. Ability to show a variety of representations and objects of chemistry in means other than a written form therefore are likely to offer significant advantage to students looking to voice their understanding beyond the use of text. Multi-modal pedagogies also underpins the considerations in improving accessibility of teaching and learning activities and assessment by invoking a variety of ways to consider those activities and assessments; an approach usually discussed under the umbrella of universal design for learning (Scanlon et al., 2018). Nielsen et al. have written extensively on the assessment of digital explanations, including student-generated video, arguing that inclusion of such assessment approaches will provide opportunity for more authentic assessment of understanding of concepts that require multi-modal considerations (2018).

Finally, the use of student-generated video has been situated in the literature on meaningful learning (Jonassen et al., 2003), because the process of creating a video can invoke active, collaborative, contextual, and creative characteristics, which have been shown to lead to increased motivation and positive emotions (Pirhonen and Rasi, 2017). Student-produced videography has the power to benefit students in both lab and lecture by enhancing their sense of self-efficacy, enabling deeper, more meaningful learning, and developing presentation/communication skills (Ryan, 2013; Stanley and Zhang, 2018). As mentioned, it is a method of both teaching and learning that allows students to produce their own representations of chemistry concepts and skills (Yaseen, 2018).

The above discussion describes four arguments to give pedagogic rationale for inclusion of student-generated video into chemistry curriculum;

(1) that the approach is grounded in a framework of generative learning theory, enabling students to use tangible imagery and narratives to elicit their explanations and/or understandings;

(2) that the approach helps develop transferable skills including digital literacy;

(3) that it allows for multi-modal pedagogies and assessment and the consequent advantages to curriculum accessibility; and

(4) that it improves students’ emotional interaction with teaching and learning activities, and thus within the framework of meaningful learning, is beneficial.

For the remainder of this perspective, we turn our attention to examples from chemistry education, exploring how student-generated videos have been incorporated into the curriculum, and identify both opportunities for further research as well as considerations for those wishing to incorporate this approach in their own practice.

Reports of practice from chemistry education

We used both Web of Science and Google Scholar to source articles and book chapters reporting the use of student-generated video in chemistry education. Search terms included “student-generated video”, “student-authored video”, and “student video”. Subsequently, the search was snowballed to explore citing and cited papers, and any paper that met the core criterion of student-generated video in chemistry/biochemistry education settings was noted. The reports from practice that were sources were categorised according to their primary purpose, and are listed in Table 1. We note here that our intention is not to present an exhaustive review of the field, but to identify a range of different approaches used in chemistry education, and guided by our own interest in student-generated videos, present our perspective on their use in practice.

Table 1 Categories of student-generated video in chemistry/biochemistry education (note: some articles are included in more than one category)

Purpose	Examples
Generating videos that show instrumentation, techniques, etc. relevant to the laboratory	Rouda (1973)
	Benedict and Pence (2012)
	Erdmann and March (2014)
	Jordan et al. (2015)
	Box et al. (2017)
Producing video in the laboratory to incorporate a laboratory aspect into explanations or to produce a product of laboratory work for assessment	McClean et al. (2016)
	Francisco (2017)
	Speed et al. (2018)
Demonstrating competency in performing laboratory skills/techniques.	Towns et al. (2015)
	Hensiek et al. (2016)
	Seery et al. (2017)
	Skibo (2019)
Presenting chemical understanding	Lichter (2012)
	Ryan (2013)
	Morsch (2017)
	Franz (2011)
	Haxton (2019)
Presenting chemical understanding, but with the explicit incorporation of physical models or animations	Gillette et al. (2017)
	Lawrie and Bartle (2013)
	Tierney et al. (2014)
	Lawrie (2016)
	Yaseen (2018)
Presenting chemical understanding, but to a defined audience that is not instructor, such as general public or other students	Benedict and Pence (2012)
	Smith (2014)
	Hubbard et al. (2019)

---

Video in the chemistry laboratory

Providing students with videos of laboratory techniques is common practice in laboratory teaching, with students being offered the chance to view video in preparation for their laboratory learning (Agustian and Seery, 2017). However, the concept of student-generated videos about laboratory techniques is reported much less frequently, and we compiled articles under this theme into three categories: (i) asking students to prepare a video about a technique in preparation for laboratory work; (ii) asking students to prepare a video in the laboratory to demonstrate general chemical understanding incorporating some practical activity; and (iii) asking students to demonstrate competency in a practical technique.

(i) Preparing for laboratory work. Early work in this field was reported by Rouda (1973) for a physical chemistry laboratory course. Driven by the need to give students insight into experiments that were conducted on rotation, he required students to prepare videos on experimental techniques they would be using, including some underlying theory and how data was to be processed. While the primary purpose was to reduce the burden on the instructor on explaining experimental techniques, advantages were noted with regards to the student becoming more proficient in the experimental approach, improved laboratory reports, and improved transferable skills such as communication and proficiency in media recording.

A similar approach reported more recently assessed information retention in students after producing a laboratory technique video (Erdmann and March, 2014). Students were split into two groups and were tasked with the creation of technique videos for the laboratory they were assigned to that week. Every student had to perform the technique and post it to YouTube. Students who created a video performed significantly higher on assessment questions than those who received verbal instruction alone. Other advantages noted were the ability to observe technique and provide feedback asynchronously. Speed et al. (2018) report the use of a video in place of a laboratory report for a biochemistry, which the authors advocated as it allowed students demonstrate critical thinking in the analysis of their data.

As well as incorporating video generation into pedagogical approaches, other reports describe the generation of videos by students for use by other students. Benedict and Pence (2012) tasked students in a chemistry club to generate instructional videos on laboratory techniques, with the videos made being provided to future students via a two-dimensional barcode in laboratory materials and on instruments. Student-generated videos by senior students for junior laboratory classes were also found to be valuable, with students who watched videos outperforming those who only received assistance in the laboratory from teaching assistants (Jordan et al., 2015). A related study with videos produced by teaching assistants (themselves postgraduate students) reported that there was a decrease in the amount of questions from students and a decrease in the time taken to complete the lab (Box et al., 2017). These studies impart the value of video generation and usage by students, but do raise further research questions on the additional benefits of student self-creation, rather than usage of another video.

(ii) Demonstrating understanding in laboratory settings. McClean introduced student-generated videos as part of a laboratory curriculum whereby students were prompted to create a video documenting some aspect of their laboratory work, with the intention of generating additional outcomes for the laboratory time, and promoting reflection on learning (McClean et al., 2016). Students were provided with reflective prompts on their learning, and reported general agreement with statements around the approach improving their awareness of bringing together theoretical and practical aspects, interaction with peers, and improved affective perceptions as a result of the activity. Reflection was also prompted by encouraging students to revisit their own and their peers’ videos, as the platform used allowed students to view, rate, and comment on their peer's videos.

Francisco tasked his students to prepare a video about some real-world chemical context using the laboratory (Francisco (2017)). Students were tasked with finding out some appropriate information and incorporating it into a video with an experiment. The rationale was to generate some affective engagement with chemistry content in the course being taught, and in the main was reported to be successful, with students reporting that the process helped make connections and was interesting to them, although they reported a lot of effort was required to devise the appropriate experiment. It was also noted that students needed guidance on aspects such as reporting waste disposal and other safety considerations.

(iii) Demonstration of laboratory competence. A related theme to laboratory techniques is demonstration of laboratory competence, with student-generated videos being used with the expressed purpose of showing competence in a particular laboratory activity, usually for the purposes of assessment. Students demonstrating laboratory competency allows instructors to have a direct observation of the students’ comprehension of laboratory procedures, but in an asynchronous manner. The rationale is to allow students demonstrate their competency and allow for the provision of specific feedback on demonstrated technique.

A significant amount of work in this area has been reported by Towns, who reported the use of student-generated competency videos to assess pipetting (Towns et al., 2015), use of a burette (Hensiek et al., 2016) and vacuum filtration and Bunsen burner setup (Skibo, 2019). After uploading videos to a web portal, student technique was assessed, and where competency was demonstrated, students were awarded with a digital badge. Students reported knowledge, confidence, and experience of the techniques increased significantly as a result of the activity.

Related work on use of student-generated videos for assessment of laboratory competency was reported by Seery et al. (2017). In this case, students were provided with exemplar videos, and peer-review was incorporated into the laboratory activity. Students submitted videos on completing a titration and explaining a distillation, and videos were assessed for competency. Knowledge, confidence, and experience of the techniques improved as a result of the activity, as well as key questions about each technique.

Video illustrating chemical concepts

A second category of student-generated video is that where students are asked to create a video to explain a chemistry concept or topic from their course materials. The studies reviewed largely focus on the students’ learning experiences in creating videos to communicate chemistry concepts.

(i) Producing content to demonstrate understanding. Ryan uses the students as producers paradigm to underpin his work in a report on the viability of using student-produced videos as a reusable method of teaching both the student producers of the videos and the student viewers of the videos (Ryan, 2013). Students were tasked with creating a video on a chosen topic in biochemistry. Students reported that by teaching their peers, they taught themselves as well, with additional noted benefits in communication, project management, and technological skills. The report noted that students engaged in higher order thinking because of the motivation they felt from having more autonomy in their learning experience.

Development of engagement and communication skills also underpinned the work reported by Morsch, where students were tasked with creating vignettes from a list of provided course topics (Morsch, 2017). The work was completed outside of class time to others, and the report noted that students gained collaboration and presentation skills. Haxton recently reported an approach that aligns with Lawrie's research/generate/narrate approach, which she introduced to overcome pragmatic considerations about scheduling student presentations, but also to invoke more systematic peer and self-assessment (Haxton, 2019).

Other reports detail assignments that can be completed as extra credit, in addition to class time. Franz added an additional component to a writing assignment, where students were tasked with writing a script about how they would present information in a video for credit, with students receiving extra credit if they made the video and uploaded it to YouTube (Franz, 2011). The report noted that students reported that they felt like they learned the organic material “more effectively” after completing the assignment. A similar activity requiring students to teach solubility rules through video also involved an extra credit assignment (Lichter, 2012). The report noted that students that completed the extra credit video opportunity performed significantly better on a question on solubility on a second and subsequent (final) exam than those that did not do the extra credit. Researchers connected the performance on the exam with the level of involvement in learning, with students reporting a more enjoyable and “easier” studying approach by creating the videos.

(ii) Explicit value in the role of models. As mentioned above, Lawrie invokes a framework of semiotics to describe her implementation of student-generated videos, which they call “vlogs” (Lawrie and Bartle, 2013; Lawrie, 2016). The purpose was to engage students with the process of generating their own representations, and video as a medium was chosen as students would be able to invoke physical models as part of their explanation of chemical concepts.

Tierney et al. (2014) required students to answer questions using a modeling kit and post the resulting video to YouTube for assessment. The rationale for video was to allow the instructor to evaluate any higher-order thinking in the students presenting the information. Students gained an appreciation for the visualizations that molecular modeling kits can provide. There was observed improvement in the student performance on exam questions after being assessed via video.

A recent research study explored the use of student-generated animations as a method for representing understanding of models of the three states of matter: solid, liquid, and gas (Yaseen, 2018). Students were tasked with creating animations of the states of matter. There were multiple phases of review and collaboration between the students, with opportunities for students to discuss any misrepresentations and misconceptions. Students received feedback and gained clarification on the states of matter concepts as they progressed through their assignment. The animations enabled students to visualize the motions of the particles and were therefore able to better understand the dynamics of the states of matter.

(iii) Videos for diverse audiences. Work by Smith also offered students additional credit, but differed because it defined the audience of the videos as members of the general public rather than other chemists or chemistry students (Smith, 2014). Students were given the choice to either write a magazine article or create a YouTube video script on an aspect of polymer chemistry. Students who made a video along with the script were given extra credit. The report noted that the action of making the video and preparing a script further embedded what the students were learning, and because the video is in the public domain, it enables science communication beyond the usual channels of university public engagement.

The work of Benedict and Pence (2012), mentioned above, also tasked students in a chemistry club with making chemistry concept videos that were shared publicly. More recent work on student generation of videos that were intended for an audience of peers took the form of tutorials on textbook problems, which were deemed valuable by students (Hubbard et al., 2019).

Potential future research on student-generated videos

Reports of practice on student-generated video in the literature described above indicate that the approach has benefit for learners. However, in common with previous reviews on flipped learning (Seery, 2015) and pre-laboratory activities (Agustian and Seery, 2017), practice reports often report positively, but lack corresponding research to explore the theoretical basis or associated pedagogy of whatever approach is being described. However, those studies we have identified that do incorporate a rigorous research approach (for example Erdmann and March, 2014; Towns et al., 2015; Hensiek et al., 2016) and/or align with an explicit framework (for example Ryan, 2013; Lawrie, 2016; Seery et al., 2017) do offer additional reassurance that the approach has merit and at the very least is worth further research. The findings of Box et al. (2017) raise questions about what exactly the additional value of student creation is, above the usage of video, for example as provided as a preparatory resource by instructors. We consider that generative learning theory is a useful lens to explore these questions, as outlined in our opening remarks, and as mentioned, many of the research questions being explored in the writing to learn and learning to write literature have relevance here.

As well as research into the use of student-generated video as a vehicle for learning, the works reviewed here suggested its role in assessment. It is perhaps curious that given the value of video as an observation tool in chemistry education research – especially valuable given the role of visualisation and models in chemistry – that the use of video is not more widespread in assessment of learning. Our reports here on its use of assessment of laboratory competence as well as assessment of conceptual understanding raise some tantalising questions: is it a reliable approach; is it feasible for, as suggested by Morsch (2017), eliciting higher order concepts; what do we know about the affective aspects of producing a video for assessment (Seery et al., 2019)? The work of Nielsen et al. (2018) is valuable here. Their work offers insight into the nature of artefacts produced by students in a variety of assignments, illustrating how students draw together different digital components to produce an overall piece. This work illustrates that the nature of the assignment and the direction given to students are important to set guidance, especially important given the wide range of possibilities that could be generated.

Implications for practice

This perspective is written by educators who have used student-generated video in their practice in different settings, and our aim in preparing it was to explore the approach further in terms of pedagogic rationale and by considering how others have used it in their practice. Student-generated video in chemistry education is clearly in the nascent stages of use, and as such, there is much research to be done on exploring its purported benefits, effect on learning, affective aspects, and its role in assessment. However along with our own experiences referenced herein, we are heartened by those research studies that indicate value with this approach. Much work remains to be done in this field, and there is a need for practitioners to formally evaluate their interventions to generate evidence in the form of data that the community can build on further. We have chosen the underpinning framework of generative learning theory, and in practice this means students being proactive in the generation of their video – planning out content and sequence, considering the text and images to include to generate their narrative. The added value of video over the written word in chemistry education is that it empowers a multi-modal approach; such as inclusion of models or laboratory techniques.

In many ways this is as old an approach as writing itself, albeit with the need for coincidental considerations of written and spoken texts, graphics, and other effects. Nevertheless, the lessons from the literature on learning to write, such as that in chemistry education by Kovac and Sherwood (1999, 2001) are valuable. These include the three considerations of audience, purpose, and technical know-how. Audiences mentioned in the articles available on the subject include academics, other students, and general public, with the purpose of demonstrating competence or illustrating understanding. Learning from Kovac and Sherwood, students will need clear guidance on the audience and purpose in their briefing. The added complexity for student-generated video over a written assignment is the technical aspect as these types of assignment will be different from much of their chemistry coursework. They will need guidance on the length and structure of the video, whether it should be a “screencast” or a real setting; the nature and types of props that may be used – likely to be especially important if particular visualizations are sought. The latter consideration was the specific rationale in the work of Lawrie (2016) and Tierney et al. (2014). In their work, Reyna and Meier have outlined a “learner-generated digital media” framework to consider assignments of this type (Reyna and Meier, 2018). This consists of eight stages: (i) explaining why the approach is being used; (ii) training students in artefact production; (iii) explaining where to upload their artefact for viewing; (iv) providing a marking scheme; (v) ensuring contributions in a group assignment; (vi) explaining feedback approaches; (vii) soliciting student reflection; and (viii) evaluating the approach.

Conclusions

Student-generated videos are likely to continue to grow as a content type in chemistry education. We report here some examples from the chemistry education literature as viewed through a lens of generative learning theory, summarising the active generation of videos and the ways they have been used in education settings. While research is still at preliminary stages, reports from research as well as the reports of practice described indicate that the approach has potential in structuring student learning and demonstration of understanding and competency in chemistry, especially mindful of the tangible components relevant to chemistry, such as use of models and the place of the laboratory. We intend this perspective to offer guidance for those wishing to use and research student-generated video in their own work.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

References

1. Agustian H. Y. and Seery M. K., (2017), Reasserting the role of pre-laboratory activities in chemistry education: a proposed framework for their design, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18, 518–532.
2. Benedict L. and Pence H. E., (2012), Teaching chemistry using student-created videos and photo blogs accessed with smartphones and two-dimensional barcodes, J. Chem. Educ., 89(4), 492–496.
3. Boden R. and Epstein D., (2006), Managing the research imagination? Globalisation and research in higher education, Global. Soc. Educ., 4(2), 223–236.
4. Box M. C., Dunnagan C. L., Hirsh L. A., Cherry C. R., Christianson K. A., Gibson R. J. and Gallardo-Williams M. T., (2017), Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of three types of student-generated videos as instructional support in organic chemistry laboratories, J. Chem. Educ., 94(2), 164–170.
5. Dezuanni M., (2015), The building blocks of digital media literacy: socio-material participation and the production of media knowledge, J. Curric. Stud., 47(3), 416–439.
6. Erdmann M. A. and March J. L., (2014), Video reports as a novel alternative assessment in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15, 650–657.
7. Francisco Junior W. E., (2017), Digital Videos of Experiments Produced by Students: Learning Possibilities, in Hahl K., Juuti K., Lampiselkä J., Uitto A. and Lavonen J. (ed.), Cognitive and Affective Aspects in Science Education Research, Contributions from Science Education Research, Cham: Springer, vol. 3,  DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-58685-4_11.
8. Franz A. K., (2011), Organic chemistry YouTube writing assignment for large lecture classes, J. Chem. Educ., 89(4), 497–501.
9. Fry S. W. and Villagomez A., (2012), Writing to learn: benefits and limitations, Coll. Teach., 60(4), 170–175.
10. Gillette A. A., Winterrowd S. T. and Gallardo-Williams M. T., (2017), Training students to use 3D-model sets via peer-generated videos facilitates learning of difficult concepts in an introductory chemistry course, J. Chem. Educ., 94(7), 960–963.
11. Halim A. S., Finkenstaedt-Quinn S. A., Olsen L. J., Gere A. R. and Shultz G. V., (2018), Identifying and Remediating Student Misconceptions in Introductory Biology via Writing-to-Learn Assignments and Peer Review, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 17(ar28), 1–12.
12. Haxton K. J., (2019), Undergraduate screencast presentations with self-, peer-, and tutor-assessment, in Seery M. K. and Mc Donnell C. (ed.), Teaching Chemistry in Higher Education: A Festschrift in Honour of Professor Tina Overton, Dublin: Creathach Press, pp. 265–282.
13. Hensiek S., DeKorver B. K., Harwood C. J., Fish J., O’Shea K. and Towns M., (2016), Improving and assessing student hands-on laboratory skills through digital badging, J. Chem. Educ., 93(11), 1847–1854.
14. Hoban G. and Neilsen W., (2010), The 5 Rs: A new teaching approach to encourage slowmations (student-generated animations) of science concepts, Teach. Sci., 56(3), 33–38.
15. Hoban G., Loughran J. and Nielsen W., (2011), Slowmation: preservice elementary teachers representing science knowledge through creating multimodal digital animations, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 48(9), 985–1009.
16. Hubbard B. A., Jones G. C., and Gallardo-Williams M. T., (2019), Student-generated digital tutorials in an introductory organic chemistry course, J. Chem. Educ., 96(3), 597–600.
17. Johnstone A. H., (1993), The Development of Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 70(9), 701–705.
18. Jonassen D. H., Howland J., Moore J. and Marra M., (2003), Learning to Solve Problems with Technology. A Constructivist Perspective, 2nd edn, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
19. Jordan J. T., Box M. C., Eguren K. E., Parker T. A., Saraldi-Gallardo V. M., Wolfe M. I. and Gallardo-Williams M. T., (2015), Effectiveness of student-generated video as a teaching tool for an instrumental technique in the organic chemistry laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 93(1), 141–145.
20. Jorm C., Roberts C., Gordon C., Nisbet G. and Roper L., (2019), Time for university educators to embrace student videography, Cambridge J. Educ., 1–21.
21. Kovac J. and Sherwood D. W., (2001), Writing across the chemistry curriculum: an instructor's handbook, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22. Kress G. R., Jewitt C., Ogborn J. and Tsatsarelis C., (2001), Multimodal teaching and learning, London: Continuum.
23. Lawrie G., (2016), Video Blogs: a vehicle to support student-generated representations and explanations in chemistry, in Hoban G., Nielsen W. and Shepherd A. (ed.), Student-generated Digital Media in Science Education: Learning, explaining and communicating content, Routledge: New York, pp. 95–107.
24. Lawrie G. and Bartle E., (2013), Chemistry Vlogs: a Vehicle for Student-Generated Representations and Explanations to Scaffold their Understanding of Structure–Property Relationships, Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ., 21(4), 27–45.
25. Leu D. J., Kinzer C. K., Coiro J., Castek J. and Henry L. A., (2017). New literacies: a dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment, J. Educ., 197(2), 1–18.
26. Lichter J., (2012), Using YouTube as a platform for teaching and learning solubility rules, J. Chem. Educ., 89(9), 1133–1137.
27. McClean S., McCartan K. G., Meskin S., Gorges B. and Hagan W. P., (2016), Reflections on “YouTestTube.com”: an online video-sharing platform to engage students with chemistry laboratory classes, J. Chem. Educ., 93(11), 1863–1870.
28. Moon A., Gere A. R. and Shultz G. V., (2018), Writing in the STEM classroom: faculty conceptions of writing and its role in the undergraduate classroom, Sci. Educ., 102(5), 1007–1028.
29. Morsch L. A., (2017), Student authored video vignettes in chemistry, E-Mentor, 3, 25–32.
30. Nakhleh M. B., (1994), Chemical education research in the laboratory environment: how can research uncover what students are learning? J. Chem. Educ., 71(3), 721.
31. Nielsen W., Georgiou H., Jones P. and Turney A., (2018), Digital explanation as assessment in university science, Res. Sci. Educ. DOI:10.1007/s11165-018-9785-9.
32. Orús C., Barlés M. J., Belanche D., Casaló L., Fraj E. and Gurrea R., (2016), The effects of learner-generated videos for Youtube on learning outcomes and satisfaction, Comput. Educ., 95, 254–269.
33. Pirhonen J. and Rasi P., (2017), Student-generated instructional videos facilitate learning through positive emotions, J. Biol. Educ., 51(3), 215–227.
34. Reyna J. and Meier P., (2018), Using the learner-generated digital media (LGDM) framework in tertiary science education: a pilot study, Educ. Sci., 8(3), 106–128.
35. Reyna J., Hanham J. and Meier P., (2017), A taxonomy of digital media types for Learner-Generated Media assignments, E-Learning and Digital Media, 14(6), 309–322.
36. Rouda R. H., (1973), Student-produced videotapes in a physical chemistry laboratory course, J. Chem. Educ., 52(2), 126–127.
37. Ryan B., (2013), A walk down the red carpet: students as producers of digital video-based knowledge, Int. J. Technol. Enhanced Learn., 5(1), 24–41.
38. Scanlon E., Legron-Rodriguez T., Schreffler J., Ibadlit E., Vasquez E. and Chini J. J., (2018), Postsecondary chemistry curricula and universal design for learning: planning for variations in learners’ abilities, needs, and interests, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 19(4), 1216–1239.
39. Seery M. K., (2015), Flipped learning in higher education chemistry: emerging trends and potential directions, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 16, 758–768.
40. Seery M. K., Agustian H. Y. and Lambert T. O., (2019), Teaching and assessing technical competency in the chemistry laboratory, in Seery M. K. and Mc Donnell C. (ed.), Teaching Chemistry in Higher Education: A Festschrift in Honour of Professor Tina Overton, Dublin: Creathach Press, pp. 349–362.
41. Seery M. K., Agustian H. Y., Doidge E. D., Kucharski M. M., O'Connor H. M. and Price A., (2017), Developing laboratory skills by incorporating peer-review and digital badges, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18, 403–419.
42. Sherwood D. W. and Kovac J., (1999), Writing in chemistry: an effective learning tool, J. Chem. Educ., 76(10), 1399.
43. Skibo C., (2019), Video Assessment of Students’ Lab Skills, in Parr J. (ed.), Video in Chemistry Education: Applications of Interactive Tools, American Chemical Society Symposium Series, Washington, DC: ACS.
44. Smith D. K., (2014), iTube, YouTube, WeTube: Social media video in chemistry education and outreach, J. Chem. Educ., 91(10), 1594–1599.
45. Speed C., Lucarelli G. A. and Macauley J. O., (2018), Student produced videos – an innovative and creative approach to assessment, Int. J. High. Educ., 7(4), 99–109.
46. Stanley D. and Zhang Y., (2018), Student-produced videos can enhance engagement and learning in the online environment, Online Learn., 22(2), 5–26.
47. Tierney J., Bodek M., Federicks S., Dudkin E. and Kistler K., (2014), Using web-based video as an assessment tool for student performance in organic chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 91(7), 982–986.
48. Towns M., Harwood C. J., Robertshaw M. B., Fish J. and O’Shea K., (2015), The digital pipetting badge: a method to improve student hands-on laboratory skills, J. Chem. Educ., 92(12), 2038–2044.
49. van der Meij H., (2017), Reviews in instructional video, Comput. Educ., 114, 164–174.
50. Yaseen Z., (2018), Using student-generated animations: the challenge of dynamic chemical models in states of matter and the invisibility of the particles, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 19, 1166–1185.
51. Yuan T. and Bakian-Aaker L., (2015), Focus on Technology: Classroom Digital Storytelling in Grades K-2: Writers Make a Movie for the Reader, Childhood Educ., 91(5), 402–404.
52. Wijnker W., Bakker A., van Gog T. and Drijvers P., (2018), Educational videos from a film theory perspective: Relating teacher aims to video characteristics, Br. J. Educ. Technol., 50(6), 3175–3197.
53. Wittrock M. C., (1974), Learning as a generative process, Educ. Psychol., 11, 87–95.
54. Wittrock M. C., (1994), Generative Science Teaching, in Fensham P. J., Gunstone R. F. and White R. T. (ed.), The Content of Science: A Constructivist Approach to its Teaching and Learning, Falmer Press.

---