View PDF VersionPrevious ArticleNext Article
 
DOI: 10.1039/D3RP00221G (Paper) Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2024, 25, 703-720

Implementing an interactive online platform in a large undergraduate general chemistry course and its impact on student learning and perceptions

Sarah L. Cresswell *, Wendy A. Loughlin and Tak H. Kim
School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Nathan Campus, Queensland, 4111, Australia

Received 11th August 2023 , Accepted 9th March 2024

First published on 11th March 2024

Abstract

The rise of technology and online approaches has challenged the traditional learning and teaching model for first year chemistry of formal face-to-face lectures and in-person laboratory sessions. The COVID-19 pandemic since 2020 has created a rapidly changing environment in assessment and learning experiences for students and led to rapid adoption of online technology within chemistry courses. This study, during 2019–2021, examined the implementation of an active learning platform in a large undergraduate chemistry course. This study was informed by constructivist theories of learning and of relevance was the 5E framework, with learning phases of engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate. A combination of post-survey data and coursework data were analysed. Post-survey results indicated that students positively perceived that the interactive online platform helped them to learn. User statistics data for learning and self-assessment activities affirmed that students gave priority to the self-paced interactive online approach, in preference to conventional social learning activities. Modernization of delivery of the curriculum to replace unstructured independent private study with structured learning and revision activities was of greatest benefit to student learning for lower performing students that were typically mature age students, with significant differences observed for online quiz and final exam results for this cohort of students. Overall, student learning was supported with the introduction of digital technologies in the course. The findings revealed that the self-paced learning activities for chemistry, delivered with an interactive online platform, combined with conventional learning activities can be effective in creating a culture of learning in students and maintaining academic outcomes.

Introduction

Introductory chemistry courses at university are often perceived by students as challenging due to the specialised symbols and chemical concepts (Carter and Brickhouse, 1989; Gulacar and Bowman, 2014). Success in chemistry coursework has been associated with independent problem solving where authentic and contextualised ‘homework’ improved learning and influenced final course achievement (Cuadros et al., 2007) and positive student perceptions (Revell, 2014). Traditionally, a strong component of chemistry teaching is experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), which supports improved critical and independent thinking skills and greater depth of understanding (Bruck and Towns, 2009). Typically, experiential learning includes laboratory classes that aim to develop a students’ ability to learn and practice technical skills and put the theory learned into context and application (Seery, 2020; Accettone, 2021). The traditional learning model for first year chemistry of formal lectures (face-to-face) and in-person laboratory sessions, has increasingly been under pressure, as the diversity of student cohorts increases and innovation in teaching and learning has emerged. In recent years, the Higher Education sector has adopted a range of approaches to the teaching and learning of chemistry including active learning (Obenland et al., 2013; Freeman et al., 2014), inverted teaching (Flynn, 2015; Seery, 2015; Weaver and Sturtevant, 2015; Bokosmaty et al., 2019) and student-centred approaches (Slunt and Giancarlo, 2004; Kang and Keinonen, 2018). Recent studies include identification that a successful online learner needs to be proactive and self-directed in their learning (Al Mamun et al., 2020; Huang, 2020) and that self-assessment helps students to take ownership of their learning (Ndoye, 2017; Nieminen et al., 2021). Furthermore, scaffolded inverse blended learning has been shown to increase student engagement in self-paced, individualized learning and develop students’ ability to solve problems (Ang, 2020).

In 2019, the introductory chemistry landscape was mixed, with a range of face-to-face traditional models of teaching which implemented variable levels of technology and ‘newer’ pedagogical approaches. During 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic was a significant disruptor. The challenges of teaching chemistry, and science subjects, during the COVID-19 pandemic is well documented (for example: Lawrie, 2021; Collantes et al., 2022; DeCoito and Estaiteyeh, 2022), and follows the sudden transition from face-to-face to remote/online teaching. The insights gained while teaching during the pandemic in 2020 (onwards) has accelerated changes in assessment and learning experiences for students (Fung and Lam, 2020; Holme, 2020; Nyachwaya, 2020; Schweiker and Levonis, 2020) and led to rapid adoption of online technology within chemistry courses as the pandemic evolved. As the world learned to live with COVID-19 and its variants, the face-to-face mode is reemergent in combination with the online mode as a mixed/blended/hybrid approach to teaching and assessment.

Technologies in chemistry teaching and learning

Trend analysis of technology enhanced chemistry learning during 2010–2019 (Wu et al., 2021) established that technologies tended to be visual presentation, knowledge acquisition tools and that applied technologies gradually changed during the period from use of personal computers to the use of tablets and wearable devices. From a pedagogical perspective technology integration offered student-centred approaches such as, real-time student polling during lectures (e.g., voluntary via Kahoot) (Urban et al., 2017), use of manual clickers in lectures (Flynn, 2011; King, 2011), interactive textbooks (Stoltzfus, 2016) along with pre-lecture video strategies to increase student engagement (Woodward and Reid, 2019).

Online homework systems in large first year chemistry courses that have a positive impact on student performance are typically responsive or responsive-adaptive (Eichler and Peeples, 2013), and include systems such as MasteringChemistry (Griffiths et al., 2017; MasteringChemistry, 2022), Achieve Learning (Macmillian Learning, 2022) and Assessment and Learning in Knowledge Spaces (Nabulsi et al., 2021; Aleks, 2022). However, less favourable attitudes towards responsive-adaptive (Richards-Babb et al., 2018) and increased subscription rates can limit broader adoption.

There was a significant uplift in technology-enhanced learning in chemistry courses in higher education, primarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic and insights gained while teaching chemistry during the pandemic period in 2020 featured in the literature (Holme, 2020). Examples of studies explored the pivot to remote learning and teaching, and associated learnings including leveraging technological resources to enable effective delivery of material (Nguyen et al., 2020; Villanueva et al., 2020), incorporation of interactive online learning synchronous problem solving via Zoom (Sunasee, 2020), and pre-recorded videos with pop-up questions (Haagsman et al., 2020).

Theoretical framework

Mainstream learning theories are reviewed elsewhere (Schunk, 2012) and are complemented by educational practice. Learning frameworks based on the constructivist perspective (Driver and Scott, 1996; Baviskar et al., 2009) feature that student learning is improved when students are learning-by-doing, and thus actively involved in learning and constructing knowledge. One framework, the 5E framework, (Bybee et al., 2006; Bybee et al., 2015) is relevant here, as it emphasises active learning phases in an evidence-based approach. The 5E framework includes five phases: engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate (Bybee et al., 2006; Bybee et al., 2015).

Engage

In the engagement phase the teacher, or a curriculum task, uses short activities to promote interest and help learners become engaged in a new concept.

Explain

The explanation phase provides opportunities for leaners to demonstrate their conceptual understanding and process skills. This phase also provides opportunities for teachers to directly introduce a concept, process, or skill to guide learners toward a deeper understanding, which is a critical part of this phase.

Explore

In the exploration phase, the learner has the time and opportunity to actively explore the content and facilitate their own conceptual understanding.

Elaborate

In the elaboration phase learners develop deeper and broader understanding and apply their understanding of the concept by conducting additional activities. These activities can occur through class discussions, teacher led workshops and feedback from online platforms.

Evaluate

The evaluation phase encourages students to assess their understanding and abilities by formative/low value assessment and teachers can evaluate student progress toward achieving the learning objectives using formative and summative assessment.

The 5E instructional model has been used successfully at the undergraduate chemistry level where the 5E inquiry learning activities were effective in improving the achievement in chemical equilibrium assessment and understanding compared to lecture-based traditional activities (Sen and Oskay, 2017). Active participation in the 5E instructional model encourages students to explore and understand scientific concepts and relate those understandings. Students are required to meaningfully learn and think about concepts and problems and broadly, from the student perspective this can be considered as active learning. The 5E framework was used to validate the curriculum design presented herein.

Active learning has the general definition of ‘teaching that engages students in the learning process’. The literature around active learning has been reviewed elsewhere (Prince, 2004; Nguyen et al., 2021) including: in a STEM context (Lombardi et al., 2021), in a first-year undergraduate chemistry context (Eichler and Peeples, 2016; Naibert et al., 2021; Scholten et al., 2021) and has been linked with flipped learning (Li et al., 2021).

Research questions

Herein we explore the impact of intentional design changes to the learning and teaching of a large undergraduate first year chemistry course, prior to the pandemic and subsequently the pivot of these approaches through the pandemic in 2020–2021. The project includes a review of the learning activities in a general chemistry course, primarily delivered with an interactive online platform, which emphasised self-directed learning. The focus of this work explores student perceptions, usage of an interactive online platform and the impact of online resources on the student learning in a large undergraduate first year chemistry course. This study was guided by the following research questions:

RQ 1: What were the student perceptions of active online learning in first year chemistry?

RQ 2: What was the student usage of the of the active online learning platform in first year chemistry?

RQ 3: Did the active online learning approach influence student learning, as measured by course results performance?

Methods

Participants

Participants (total n = 1293) in the study were enrolled at a large public Australian university in a general chemistry course delivered as part of trimester 1 and trimester 3 of the first year of study at undergraduate level during the 2019–2021 academic years (2019 T1, n = 395; T3, n = 65; 2020 T1, n = 384; T3, n = 65; 2021 T1, n = 433; T3, n = 72). Students who dropped their enrolment by the census date (normally the fourth week of a twelve-week trimester) were not included in the study. Students repeating the course after a previous failed attempt, represented 10–25% of the trimester 3 cohort. The general ratio of male[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]female students was 39[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]61. The students were studying a degree program in medical/biomedical science (25%), forensic science (37%), science (21%), environmental science (14%) or other (3%; e.g., engineering, arts). Approximately 72% students were 19 and under, with 23% in between 20 to 29 and 5% over 30. Approximately 20% of students were from low socioeconomic backgrounds, 45% were first in family and typically 30% of students will not have studied chemistry at secondary school (Loughlin et al., 2015) prior to enrolling in the course. As determined by the degree admission criteria, the medical/biomedical science students were high performing, whereas the forensic science students were typically average performing, with the science and environmental science having greater representation of lower performing students. Furthermore, typically there was a 74[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]26 ratio of students that were school leavers to mature age students (students that were 19+ years of age and had completed secondary school at least 1 year prior to admission) for Trimester 1, which varied noticeably to a 47[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]53 ratio of school leavers to mature age students as observed for Trimester 3. Students studied face-to-face in 2019, face-to-face and then online in 2020, and blended face-to-face and online in 2021; the later years impacted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Course background

Alignment between specific learning activities and assessment and learning objectives for the general chemistry course was mapped against the Trimester timeline and recorded prior to each delivery of the course. Learning objectives were inclusive of understanding the basic principles of chemistry, solving problems in the pure and applied chemical sciences, and performing simple experimental procedures in the chemical laboratory. Further descriptions of the learning activities and assessment are given below. All required learning material was provided via learning activities described below and students were not expected to source their own learning material. The material from the publishers should be checked, selected and/or adapted to requirements. For example, prior to the first offering of Articulate Rise 360 (see below), the authors spent some time sourcing the videos with suitable content and other appropriate resources. Subsequent maintenance of resources involved checking URL links prior to the next trimester of course offering; usually <1% of links were broken and needed replacement.

Learning activities – interactive online platform

MasteringChemistry (0.5–1 hour per week; structured learning and revision for student's private self-study) supported the lectures and lectorials. MasteringChemistry is an interactive online learning platform for theory in which the learner explores and revises the chemistry module content at their own pace to understand and master the topics. It coaches students by providing personalised learning for students with immediate, specific feedback and aims to keep students engaged. This program is allied to the textbook used in this course and poses interactive revision questions based on each chapter; allowing students to engage in just-in-time revision, cementing their understanding before moving on to the next chapter. Questions take the form of multiple-choice responses, mathematical calculations, and molecular shape determination.

Articulate Rise 360 (2 hours per week in 2021); appears to students in a similar fashion to a website with text, images and embedded videos; a passive learning activity. After watching the videos, students do active learning activities by completing self-check questions and worked examples. It is read at the student's own pace and students must complete embedded formative assessment items as they progress. The system will remember where each student stopped and will re-start at that place later when the student returns to the course site. It does not use PowerPoint slides, or voice recording as would be expected in a recorded lecture.

The online modes of delivery for learning activities included MasteringChemistry and Articulate Rise 360. MasteringChemistry and Articulate Rise 360 were made available through links to the various modules via the LMS for the course and were available for all students for the duration of the course. How to access and use MasteringChemistry and Articulate Rise 360 were communicated through announcements in lectures, the LMS, and emails.

Learning activities – other activities

The curriculum of the general chemistry course was comprised of other learning activities (theory and laboratory-based) as follows:

Lectures (3 hours per week; in-person in 2019; Online in 2020), which provided content including theory topics such as introduction, basic concepts, molecular structure and bonding, energy, and physical processes (Table 1). During lectures, the student participated in teacher led lectures which engage and explore specific topics with students and provide deeper explanations to students. Lecture mode of delivery was impacted by the pandemic, with lectures being face-to-face in 2019, and asynchronous online – recorded in 2020.

Table 1 Mode of learning and assessment activities
Year Activityab Mode
a Details of activities described in section learning activities and assessment. b Number in brackets indicates contact hours per week.
2019
Lecture (3 hours) F2F
Tutorial (1 hour) F2F
PASS (1 hour) F2F
Lab Sessions F2F
MasteringChemistry Online
Lab Reports F2F
Quizzes F2F
Final Exam F2F
2020
Lecture (3 hours) Recorded
Drop-in tute (1 hour) Online
PASS (1 hour) Online
Lab Sessions F2F
MasteringChemistry Online
Lab Reports Online
Quizzes Online
Final Exam Online
2021
Articulate Rise 360 Online
Lectorial (2 hours) F2F
Drop-in tute (2 hours) Online
PASS (1 hour) F2F/Online
Lab Sessions F2F
MasteringChemistry Online
Lab Reports F2F
Quizzes Online
Final Exam F2F

Workshops will be the term used to cover a variety of problem-solving learning activities used during 2019–2021: tutorials were used in 2019 (1 hour per week) where due to the face-to-face delivery, feedback was direct and via hand-up questions and answers, providing all students present with a form of self-evaluation; drop-in-tutorials were used in 2020 (2 hour per week-optional) where due to the online delivery were delivered through the online learning management system (LMS) and its collaborate functionality; lectorials (a hybrid of a lecture and tutorial) were used in 2021 (2 hours per week) in combination with drop-in-tutorials, termed Frequently-Asked-Questions Friday (1–2 hour per week; structured learning and revision for student's private self-study), thus increasing the opportunity for students self-evaluation with live problem solving sessions that concentrated on working through questions and calculations relating to each week's content.

PASS (Peer-Assisted Study Sessions; 1 hour per week; optional; group-based) were available for students, where the learner participated in peer led class discussion to build and elaborate on understanding. PASS was delivered by experienced students and was only offered face-to-face in 2019 and offered both online and face-to-face during 2020–2021.

Laboratory-based sessions (3 hours per fortnight) provided experiential learning activities for students though experiments that were integrated with the theory component. Laboratory sessions were face-to-face in 2019, 2021 and the first 4 weeks of trimester 1 in 2020; online lab sessions were held in the remainder of 2020.

Assessment

Online and traditional assessment approaches were used as follows:

MasteringChemistry homework (10% of total assessment; 30–60 min per week) which provided online self-practice/skill building and self-evaluation for students with the personalised iterative feedback and hints provided to the students by the MasteringChemistry system. The MasteringChemistry system provided formative feedback to students about the success of their learning.

Laboratory reports (20% of total assessment; 3 hours per fortnight) were a form of traditional assessment and required continuous organisation by students to complete all the components. Laboratory reports were submitted within the lab book at the end of each session and were based on the work completed in each lab session. In 2020 laboratory reports were submitted online.

Quizzes were face-to-face in 2019, however due to the timetabling for the large class enrolments, online quizzes were introduced in 2020, just prior to the pandemic. Quizzes were run online in 2020 and 2021 during weeks 4, 7, and 11 (20% of total assessment; 3 × 30 min). Quiz results provided summative feedback to students about the success of their learning.

Final exam (45% of total assessment, 2 hours) that required understanding and knowledge to complete in a restricted time (in person in 2019; online in 2020–2021); created from a large pool of questions, with variables randomised for question creation. The final exam results provided summative feedback to students about the success of their learning.

Data collection and analysis

A mixed methods approach was used involving quantitative and qualitative approaches to provide understanding of the research problems (Ivankova et al., 2006). The data collection spanned trimester 1 and trimester 3 during each year of the period 2019–2021.

The expected hours of study (both contact time and self-study) are typically a total of 10 hours per week for an average student (Table 1). Given the course design and delivery was the same for Trimester 1 and 3 for any given year, data collection was aggregated by year, where relevant to the course activities. Specific examples of learning activities that aligned with the engage, explain, explore, elaborate and evaluate phases (5E framework) for self-directed active learning are shown in Table 5 (Appendix).

The curriculum and lecture teaching team were the same for the period of the study and the textbook (Pearson) remained unchanged during 2019–2021. All assessment items throughout 2019–2021 were monitored in accordance with the University academic integrity procedures. The data was collected from a total number of 1293 students in the general chemistry course during three academic years (2019–2021). All data from student background obtained from degree program enrolment or student assessment grades was de-identified such that all data contained no personal information. The data for analysis was aggregated by trimester of study, number of attempts or percentage obtained for the assessment item.

Furthermore, the deidentified student assessment results data was analysed by ‘discipline area’ of degree program enrolled in, with sub-groups of the cohort (97% of students) defined as follows: Science, Medical and Biomedical Science, Forensic Science, and Environmental Science. The remaining 3% of the cohort was not included as it represented ad hoc enrolments in a single year (e.g., Arts degree students).

The data that was analysed included: (a) student experience of course survey results: likert questions and Leximancer analysis of student perspectives (student experience of course survey anonymous open-ended comments 2019–2021), which was used as a measure of student perceptions for research question one; questions created by authors are not validated measures; (b) de-identified student use of the online items within the LMS in 2019–2021 which was used as a measure of student participation for research question two; and (c) statistical analysis of assessment results for de-identified students marks from assessment items with a significant weighting (>20%) and final overall course mark in 2019–2021, which was used as a measure of de-identified student performance for research question three. All data was collected in accordance with university ethics procedures.

Leximancer analysis of student evaluation of course open-ended comments

Leximancer analysis of the student experience of course survey open-ended comments were used as a measure of student perceptions for research question one. The 2019–2021 open-ended comments for each year and combined open-ended comments (Response Rates for 2019 trimester 1 27.8%, trimester 3, 33.8%; for 2020 trimester 1 22.1%, trimester 3, 15.4%; for 2021 trimester 1 13.2%, trimester 3 19.4%; response rates were reduced with potential online fatigue and were within expected ranges (Porter and Umbach, 2006)) from two questions of the student experience of course survey administered in week 11–12 of trimester 1 and trimester 3 during 2019–2021 were further de-identified for the teaching team member and analysed using Leximancer 4.5. Prior to analysis, the text processing options were set at 1 sentence per block, similar concept seeds were merged (e.g.: mastering and mastering chemistry; understand and understanding), no tags and English default stop list, were applied to the automatic concept mapping settings after a list of concept seeds was generated by Leximancer, prior to generation of the thesaurus. Default theme size was used to generate a topical network concept map. Theme sizes and visible concepts were manipulated to restrict the number of themes to four and maximize the visible concepts for analysis. The study was enriched by selection of indicative quotes from the student responses, that were aligned with each theme.

Student usage of the technology assisted learning activities within the learning management system

De-identified student use of the online items within the LMS in 2019–2021, was used as a measure of student usage of the technology assisted learning activities for research question two. Statistics tracking was enabled in the LMS of the course which allowed us to determine the use of the individual items (e.g.: MasteringChemistry in 2019–2021, Articulate Rise 360 in 2021, online workshops, online quizzes, final exam, etc.) as well as the number of ‘access hits per content area’. Use of the site was recorded during the time the site was available to the student cohort until the final exam (weeks 0–14; where weeks 1–12 are teaching weeks). Access to the site was (a) mapped against the trimester chronology or (b) access hit count on an item by a single student. All student usage data was de-identified and aggregated for analysis. Table 2 outlines the learning modules and curriculum content of chapters for MasteringChemistry.
Table 2 MasteringChemistry learning modules and chapter content
Module Chaptera Chapter content (sub-module)
a MasteringChemistry.
Introduction to chemistry basic concepts 1 Introduction to matter and measurement
2 Atoms, molecules, and ions
3 Stoichiometry, calculations with chemistry formula and equations
4 Reactions in aqueous solutions
Molecular structure and bonding 6 Electronic structure of atoms
7 Periodic properties of elements and introduction to chemical bonding
8 Concepts of chemical bonding
9 Molecular geometry and bonding theories
Energy and physical processes 10 Intermolecular forces: gases
11 Intermolecular forces: liquids and solids
12 Properties of solutions
14 Thermodynamics

Statistical analysis of assessment results

Statistical analysis of assessment results for de-identified students marks from assessment items with a significant weighting (>20%) and final overall course mark in 2019–2021, was used as a measure of student performance for research question three (Tables 3 and 4). Group sizes were >15 apart from Environmental Science in T3, 2019, and Forensic Sciences in T3, 2019, 2020 and 2021 (Table 3). The exam and quiz formats and weightings remained consistent for the courses in 2019–2021. The learning achievement levels for each of the degree program sub-groups for each of the main assessment items (exam mark, quiz mark and overall course mark), across three years (2019, 2020 and 2021) were assessed using one-way ANOVA. The statistical significance of the year was ascertained using single factor analysis which sought to determine if the mode of teaching resulted in a significant difference in assessment scores. ANOVA was performed for each of the four programs of study across three years and two trimesters resulting in 12 between group ANOVA results each for trimester 1 and trimester 3 students (see Table 3).
Table 3 ANOVA results for degree program sub-groups and for main assessment items
Item Sub-group* SS df MS F p-value (0.05) F crit Cohen's d Tukey Kramer ref.
SS = sum of squares; df = degrees of freedom; MS = mean of the sum of squares; F-value = test statistic from the F-test; p-value = shows how likely it is that the F value calculated would have occurred; F critical = from tables; degree program sub-groups: Science* = Bachelor of Science and associated double degrees; Biomed. Science* = Bachelor of Biomedical Science and Bachelor of Medical Science; Forensic Science* = Bachelor of Forensic Science and Bachelor of Forensic Science/Bachelor of Criminology and Criminal Justice; Environmental Science* = Bachelor of Environmental Science and associated double degrees.
Trimester 1 between 2019–2020-2021
Course mark Science 1625.32 2 812.66 1.79 0.170 3.05
Biomedical Science 1172.61 2 586.30 1.76 0.173 3.03
Forensic Science 5300.36 2 2650.18 9.06 0.001 3.02 0.04 a
Environmental Science 731.48 2 365.74 1.66 0.195 3.07
Final exam Science 2270.62 2 1135.31 3.36 0.040 3.06 0.03 b
Biomedical Science 1884.84 2 942.42 2.76 0.060 3.03
Forensic Science 6535.15 2 3267.57 11.40 <0.001 3.02 0.05 c
Environmental Science 1123.06 2 561.53 1.89 0.155 3.07
Online quizzes Science 228.05 2 114.02 0.21 0.812 3.05
Biomedical Science 1733.35 2 866.67 1.95 0.144 3.03
Forensic Science 8561.84 2 4680.92 13.78 <0.001 3.02 0.07 d
Environmental Science 602.70 2 301.35 0.78 0.461 3.07
Trimester 3 between 2019–2020–2021
Course mark Science 2603.36 2 1301.68 3.37 0.040 3.13 0.06 e
Biomedical Science 120.35 1 120.35 0.80 0.386 4.54
Forensic Science 810.10 2 405.05 1.38 0.269 3.34
Environmental Science 5790.65 2 2895.32 13.46 <0.001 3.21 0.35 f
Final exam Science 4919.72 2 2459.86 8.94 <0.001 3.14 0.18 g
Biomedical Science 10.79 1 10.79 0.05 0.827 4.54
Forensic Science 1869.45 2 934.73 4.92 0.015 3.37 0.21 h
Environmental Science 263.28 2 131.64 0.48 0.625 3.23
Online quizzes Science 2928.98 2 1464.49 3.98 0.023 3.13 0.08 i
Biomedical Science 0.04 1 0.04 <0.01 0.988 4.54
Forensic Science 640.01 2 320.00 1.36 0.274 3.34
Environmental Science 4004.35 2 2002.17 9.46 <0.001 3.21 0.27 j

Table 4 Tukey-Kramer analysis of significant ANOVA results
Tukey Kramer ref. Years Trimester Difference Group 1 (n) Group 2 (n) SE q Q crit Statistically significant (positive)
Refer to Table 3 for Tukey-Kramer references (a–j); SE = standard error; q = calculated statistic (absolute mean difference/SE); Q critical = from tables; if q > Q critical, then there is a statistically significant difference; degree program sub-groups = Science* = Bachelor of Science and associated double degrees; Forensic Science* = Bachelor of Forensic Science and Bachelor of Forensic Science/Bachelor of Criminology and Criminal Justice; Environmental Science* = Bachelor of Environmental Science and associated double degrees.
Science*
b 2019–2020 1 0.99 50 56 2.53 0.39 3.35 No
b 2020–2021 1 7.84 56 47 2.57 3.05 3.35 No
e 2019–2020 3 13.04 24 27 3.90 3.33 3.39 No
e 2020–2021 3 0.76 27 22 3.99 0.19 3.39 No
g 2019–2020 3 19.21 23 25 3.39 5.67 3.39 Yes
g 2020–2021 3 3.37 25 21 3.47 0.97 3.39 No
i 2019–2020 3 13.93 24 26 3.84 3.63 3.39 Yes
i 2020–2021 3 0.91 26 22 3.93 0.23 3.39 No
Forensic Science*
a 2019–2020 1 1.60 126 108 1.559 1.01 3.33 No
a 2020–2021 1 6.35 108 172 1.48 4.28 3.33 Yes
c 2019–2020 1 4.86 126 102 1.61 3.01 3.33 No
c 2020–2021 1 4.77 102 168 1.50 3.17 3.33 No
d 2019–2020 1 5.19 126 108 1.63 3.17 3.33 No
d 2020–2021 1 12.44 108 171 1.53 8.12 3.33 No
h 2019–2020 3 6.44 7 8 5.21 1.23 3.58 No
h 2020–2021 3 19.17 8 8 4.87 3.93 3.58 Yes
Environmental Science*
f 2019–2020 3 22.81 14 16 3.80 6.01 3.43 Yes
f 2020–2021 3 2.87 16 16 3.67 0.78 3.43 No
j 2019–2020 3 20.21 14 16 3.76 5.37 3.43 Yes
j 2020–2021 3 0.13 16 16 3.64 0.03 3.43 No

In the study, the dependent variable is the results of students, in terms of percentages received for assessment items (exam mark, quiz mark and overall course mark) and the sub-groups of students by discipline area. We further investigated the trends in result means from assessment items for the sub-groups of students using one-way ANOVAs and Tukey-Kramer post hoc tests. The ANOVA resulted in a significant result for ten of the assessment items. For these ten instances a post hoc Tukey-Kramer analysis was performed. This post hoc Tukey-Kramer analysis compared the means of each year's results within the sub-group to identify within which years a significant difference was observed (see Table 4).

Ethical procedures

All data was collected in accordance with university ethics procedures. A formal in-person control group was not approved, as establishing a control group where the “control” students are denied access to the LMS (and thus technology) was considered inequitable and did not adhere with the university ethical guidelines. Inequities of student experience prevented the creation of a control group in 2019.

All data analysed during this study are included in the article in summary form. The anonymised datasets are held in secure institutional holdings and are not available to the public in line with ethical regulations.


image file: d3rp00221g-f1.tif
Fig. 1 LMS aggregated item hit counts by students during weeks 1–14; *** = mid-trimester break week highlighted in red oval (week 5, 6, or 7 for 2021, 2020 and 2019 respectively).

image file: d3rp00221g-f2.tif
Fig. 2 LMS aggregated item hit counts by online activities for weeks 0–14 during trimester 1 and 3 for 2019–2021.

Results and discussion

RQ 1 What were the student perceptions of active online learning in first year chemistry?

Student experience of course survey results for the Likert questions suggested that students positively perceived that the course helped them to learn (Appendix, Fig. 4), and this included the use of online technologies (Appendix, Fig. 6). On average, at least 80% of students reported agreeing or strongly agreeing with teaching approach on this course was effective in helping them to learn (Appendix, Fig. 5). Due to the changes to mode of delivery during the period of the study (2019–2021) and variance in student cohort sizes (see participants) direct comparisons for before and after could not be made. A follow-up Leximancer analysis of the open-ended comments from the student experience of course survey indicated that there were predominant themes, around the course, modules, content, lectures and the teachers. The transition from face-to-face in 2019, face-to-face and then online in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, or blended face-to-face and online in 2021 was not a dominant theme during 2019–2021. It was noted that student comments used variable terminology to that used in this paper, e.g., Friday lectures are the Frequently-Asked-Questions workshop held on a Friday. Responses that represented the predominant Leximancer themes are indicated below:

The dominant theme of the student responses to the question What did you find particularly good about this course? was approaches to the content aspects of the course. The three main areas evaluated by students were the helpfulness of the online MasteringChemistry homework, their learning, and the quality of the lecturing team delivering their course. Many students found value in the online MasteringChemistry homework for understanding content, concepts, practice applying equations and using chemistry laws.

This cohort of students correlated success in the course with use of MasteringChemistry. The reference to ‘module’ indicates engagement during 2021 with Articulate Rise 360.

Student (2019): “The MasteringChemistry online was super helpful, and it helped me put the things I learned into practice”.

Student (2020): “I liked the mastering assignments and being able to have several chances at answering questions”.

Student (2021): “The delivery of the content was really effective in that I was able to work through at my own pace and was kept accountable with the MasteringChemistry activities at the end of each module.”

Students felt there were many opportunities to learn with the self-paced module approach, supported by workshops and PASS sessions.

Student (2019): “PASS was also a great tool that significantly helped my learning”.

Student (2020): “I found the activities and resources very helpful when learning”.

Student (2021): “The self-paced online modules [Articulate Rise 360] were perfect for helping to understand harder topics because you could keep going through them until you fully understood”.

Students felt the (teachers/lecturers were supportive, engaging,) and provided extra, such as revision lessons, and recognised the effort pivoting to online approaches during the pandemic.

Student (2020): “Teacher made a special effort to run weekly collaborate sessions to ensure the course was still interactive.”

The dominant topic of responses to the question How could this course be improved? was around understanding content aspects of the course and the resources and activities available to students. Some students, including those with poor prior knowledge of chemistry (potentially ∼30% of the cohort), discussed issues such as needing extra information for when they did not understand or had confusion with the content and sought more interactive learning activities.

Student (2019): “The lectures slide could be better organised in a way that made it clear of which topic the information was relating to”.

Student (2020): “I would have liked maybe small workshops or something to help me understand how to do the equations”.

Student (2021): “One or two lectures a week where they explain the content in-depth would really help people who never have done chemistry before”.

Other students indicated that they were seeking more resources and support to understand content or identified the need for more practice questions. In another study, a similar observation was reported, where some of the students expressed their desire to see additional resources, seemingly contradicting the picture of declining engagement over the course of the semester (Chamberlain et al., 2021).

Student (2019): “having more interactive workshops for students to ask questions about the content that they don't understand”.

Student (2020): “I really liked the workshop questions done during the Friday lectures [Frequently-Asked-Questions Friday] and would have liked to have access to more of these questions”.

Student (2021): “More online work/modules and more practice questions”.

The comments provide insights into how the learning experience of the students was in response to implementation of the interactive online learning platform and learning activities. A closer inspection of comments from the themes of ‘course’ and ‘lectures’ showed that learners commented positively on the self-paced interactive approach of MasteringChemistry (as well as Articulate Rise 360 in 2021) along with conventional learning activities such as PASS and the workshop and linked both with being able to learn in the course. This finding is supported by Petillion and McNeil (2020) who identified that students feel that interactive questions embedded in the videos contributed positively to their conceptual understanding. It was noted that comments reflecting those students seeking improvements, such as more workshops, were often those with poor prior knowledge of chemistry. However, across both the positive and improvements comments, the online learning activities appear to have stimulated a culture of learning. A recent study (Rojas, 2023) has similarly identified the value students now place on low-stakes learning from mistakes and web-based interactive presentations. The comments in the present study reflect that students are better engaged and thus actively carrying out learning activities, including the self-paced online modules.

RQ 2: What was the student usage of the of the active online learning platform in first year chemistry?

We sought an independent measure of the learning activities of the students by obtaining the user statistics data from the LMS. Overall usage was observed for the aggregated items in the course throughout trimesters as shown in Fig. 1 for trimester 1, 2019–2021. The usage pattern in Fig. 1 reflected the same pattern observed for trimester 3, 2019–2021. The aggregated item hit-counts observed in 2019 (in-person course delivery), were significantly increased in 2020 and 2021, respectively, in response to the pandemic as well as the change in mode of delivery, which was not unexpected. The overall patterns of usage of the site by students indicated peak usage after the in-class announcements advertising the site to students (weeks 1–2) and around online assessment such as the online quizzes (weeks 4, 7, and 11; all years) and end-of-trimester exam (weeks 13–14; in-person 2019, online 2020–2021). Elevated usage of items for revision in preparation for the final exam was observed in weeks 13 and 14 of 2020 and 2021, respectively (Fig. 1). Decreased usage was observed during the mid-trimester break weeks (Fig. 1; red ovals). These findings are consistent with pre-pandemic observations by Chamberlain et al. (2021) who reported that a general decline in student engagement occurred over the semester in a large general chemistry course.

Greater usage by students was observed as students completed a quiz over allocated multiple days (Tuesday–Thursday), first availability of the modules for MasteringChemistry (Monday), and day of the workshops (Friday). Decreased usage was observed on the weekends (Saturday and Sunday), presumably due to recreation time and/or casual employment.

Whereas Fig. 1 provides the holistic overview of the trimester the user statistic data was analysed further to understand in more detail the types of learning activities that students were using. Student access to (i) optional learning activities (MasteringChemistry, live-online workshops, online PASS), (ii) required activities (laboratory content delivery, Articulate Rise 360) and (iii) summative assessment (laboratory reports, online quizzes final exam) were aggregated for the years that online delivery occurred (Fig. 2). Analysis showed that self-directed learning activities (Mastering Chemistry and Articulate Rise 360) were heavily used as compared to other optional social learning activities such as the workshops and PASS. Analysis indicated that this was only partly attributable to hit counts being associated with individual items within MasteringChemistry and Articulate Rise 360. A drop in student usage of MasteringChemistry was observed in 2020 from weeks 5–12, upon the onset of lockdowns with the COVID-19 pandemic and a teaching delivery mode shift from face-to-face to online.

Furthermore, it was observed that students engaged with MasteringChemistry homework completion during early and mid-trimester rather than deferring it to the end of trimester. Furthermore, the drop in student usage in 2020 for chapter six onwards was directly correlated with the onset of lockdowns with the COVID-19 pandemic as students adapted to learning exclusively online in 2020. Introduction of Articulate Rise 360 during trimester 1 and 3 in 2021 competed with use of MasteringChemistry homework. Articulate Rise 360 was only reported as aggregated usage in the LMS, however was inclusive of self-paced learning activities, worked examples as well as theoretical content, which led to increased usage by students (Fig. 2). Elsewhere, a comprehensive study of a general chemistry course with and without in-class active learning suggested that teaching practices and course structure apart from in-class active learning contributed to student success (Clark, 2023).

Student usage of the live online workshop was mapped against the trimester timeline. Access by students to the live staff teaching online workshops, was sustained despite the pandemic, and correlated with teaching weeks, and the timing of online quizzes, apart from weeks 1–4 of trimester 1, 2020 when tutorials/workshops were face-to-face. In summary, Fig. 1 and 2 indicate that overall patterns of usage of the course activities by students were typical of previous observations (Struyven et al., 2005) that students learning behaviour was orientated around online assessment and balanced with extracurricular pressures, where decreased usage was observed on the weekends (Saturday and Sunday). Furthermore, the MasteringChemistry usage includes self-assessment activities which provided online self-evaluation for students. Although students engaged with MasteringChemistry chapters during early and mid-trimester slightly more than in the later weeks of trimester (Fig. 3), usage of MasteringChemistry was preferred by students. Analysis of the phases of the 5E framework revealed that each phase was not sequential, rather integrated and used multiple times by students. The engage, explain and explore stages were used repeatedly during trimester by students, whereas the elaborate and evaluate phases were part of a formalised timetable for the course.


image file: d3rp00221g-f3.tif
Fig. 3 LMS aggregated item hit counts by MasteringChemistry chapters for teaching weeks 1–12 of trimester.

The next preferred activity, live online workshops, provided the insight that some students were still engaged with a structured learning experience led by a teacher. Overall, the usage patterns provide insights and reaffirm that learners placed high importance on the self-paced technology approach of MasteringChemistry (and Articulate Rise 360) along with conventional learning activities such as a live online workshop. In doing so the students demonstrated that they were participating in technology assisted learning by working through content and problems online. These findings are consistent with Richards-Babb et al. (2018) who determined that students recognized the benefit of using adaptive-responsive online homework system by ranking its assignments and explanations or review materials as two of the top three most useful course aspects contributing to perceived learning. Perceived benefits to this synchronous/asynchronous approach come from the increased flexibility for students to study at a time that best suits them and allows acquisition of both fundamental chemistry knowledge and soft skills such as improved time management.

RQ 3: Did the active online learning approach influence student learning, as measured by course results performance?

The learning achievement levels for each degree program sub-group, for each of the main assessment items (exam mark, quizzes mark and overall course mark), across three years (2019, 2020 and 2021) were analysed to produce values for mean, median, standard deviation, minimum and maximum, and confidence intervals for trimester 1 (Table 6, Appendix) and trimester 3 (Table 7, Appendix). ANOVA was performed for each of the subgroups across 2019–2021 and two trimesters, using two degrees of freedom.

Cohen's d values were determined as a measure of effect size. Ten instances were observed to give a positive Cohen's d value (Table 3). It was observed that the four values associated with a moderate effect (0.35; Environmental Science Course Mark) or small effect (0.1–0.3) were all in Trimester 3. The remaining six values were all <0.1, which indicated that the difference between these groups was negligible, even if it was statistically significant (see below). A post hoc Tukey Kramer test was performed. Analysis revealed that there were only six statistically significant differences (p = <0.05) in student assessment scores for the Science, Forensic Science, and Environmental Science subgroups (Table 4). Five of these statistically significant differences were observed between 2019 and 2020 and one between 2020 and 2021. Five of these statistically significant differences were observed within the trimester 3 cohort with only one in trimester 1; a statistically significant difference occurring between 2020 and 2021 for the Forensic Science subgroup where the mean overall course mark was higher in 2021 than in 2020 despite all other assessment items remaining statistically similar across those years.

These five statistically significant differences for assessment scores for the trimester 3 cohorts bore no relation to the percentages of repeat students but were related to the sub-groups of Science, Forensic Science and Environmental Sciences, and may be related to the higher proportion of mature aged students in Trimester 3.

All other significant differences were observed in our trimester three cohorts which are all considerably smaller and all changes were observed between the 2019 and 2020 cohorts. This corresponded with a move online as a result of the pandemic and assessments moved online too and this perhaps accounts for the observed increased in marks for these cohorts. Caution should be taken in the interpretation of the data points with a group size of n < 15.

Interestingly however, not all cohorts exhibited statistically significant increases in marks with the move online. Of the four cohorts of students only one cohort (the Bachelor of Biomedical Science) was not impacted by the move to online assessment. The Bachelor of Forensic Science students showed a statistically significant increase in their final exam mark, but this increase did not result in a corresponding increase to their overall course marks. Similarly, the Bachelor of Science students’ online quiz results were statistically significantly higher in 2020 compared to 2019, as were their final exam results.

In contrast the Bachelor of Environmental Science students’ online quiz results were also higher in 2020 than in 2019 and this increase was carried over to a corresponding increase in the overall course marks for this cohort of students across the same time period. It is worth noting however, that there were only 14 students in 2019 and 16 students in 2020. These observations are consistent with previous research that showed that students who worked on online homework can enhance their performance in their final exam scores (Eichler and Peeples, 2013). It was noted that the demographics of the course was considerably diverse with a broad range of prior knowledge, where the high performing students were normally in the Biomedical and Medical Science subgroup and the lower performing students in the Science and Environment subgroups. Other research has noted that achievement gaps for underrepresented minority students are narrowed when teaching practices go beyond in-class active learning (Clark, 2023). Interestingly, there were no significant differences for the high-performance and high achieving biomedical and medical science students, as this cohort of students maintained their strong academic results.

The use of MasteringChemistry discussed above, was interpreted as a major component of learning activity by students, that facilitated improvements for the quizzes and final exam results which comprised 65% of total assessment towards the overall course mark. MasteringChemistry allowed students to take ownership for their learning and it was apparent that some students had done so effectively by using the structured learning to explore, obtain explanations, elaborate, and self-evaluate as part of their self-directed active learning, as measured by the improved results.

In summary, the data in Tables 3 and 4 was used as a measure of student results and established whether the online technology learning resources had an impact on student learning outcomes. The context period during which the online technology learning resources were implemented had a transition from face-to-face in 2019, predominantly online in 2020, and blended face-to-face and online in 2021. Student grades were compared by degree sub-groups, due to the higher admission requirements for the Biomedical/Medical Science degree, as compared to the other subgroups. Furthermore, the lack of significant statistical differences for many assessment scores supports that the introduction of online technology learning resources was not detrimental to the overall student results, and that modernization of delivery of the curriculum-maintained student outcomes for the total cohort.

Limitations and future work

In the present study, the participants were enrolled in the first-year, first trimester chemistry course offered at a large public Australian University, in the years 2019–2021. Our analysis shows that this cohort of students are typical for this university and represent a full spectrum of students entering Queensland universities. Variables such as direct comparability of the university to other higher education providers, and for the participants, the variables of prior study of high school chemistry by an individual student, individual motivation levels or alternate chemistry support during a student's trimester of study are unknown and cannot be controlled or reported. It was also not possible to determine how much time students spent on individual online assessment items. Registration of live attendance at face-to-face activities and online lectures delivered via collaborate cannot be reported due to a lack of attendance recording mechanisms. Generalizing the findings here to non-chemistry contexts may be limited.

The findings reveal that the self-paced technology approach along with conventional learning activities are effective in engaging students and create a culture of learning early in their general chemistry studies. Interesting areas for future work could include, how teachers can support students to develop effective self-paced learning of chemistry as well as a deeper understanding of what strategies will motivate students to complete learning activities in general chemistry.

Conclusions

This study reviewed implementation of an interactive online platform in a large general chemistry course and its impact on student learning and perceptions amid a rapidly changing learning environment (face-to-face, online and hybrid) and a pandemic, during the 2019–2021 period. It has been recognised that COVID-19 has been a threshold event for chemistry and students have experienced a significant impact on their engagement with learning chemistry which will influence how they approach their future studies (Lawrie, 2021). The curriculum components were compared to the 5E framework (Table 5, Appendix) and the results here show that student participation was predominantly through use of MasteringChemistry for the explore, explain, and elaborate phases of learning, and for the self-evaluation phase of summative assessment (interactive activities). Post-survey responses indicated that students positively perceived that the course and online teaching approach helped them to learn. Open ended comments supported the that students were better engaged and thus actively carrying out learning activities, including the self-paced online modules. However, user statistics data from the LMS affirmed that learners used the self-paced interactive online approach of MasteringChemistry and Articulate Rise 360 for their learning, in preference to conventional social learning activities, such as workshops and PASS. At the course level, the modernization of delivery of the curriculum to replace unstructured independent private study with structured learning and revision activities for student's self-study maintained overall student results and outcomes, for the total cohort during 2019–2021. Learning was not lost with the introduction of digital technologies in the course, rather student learning was maintained or even supported. However, a deeper analysis indicated that some significant differences in online quiz and final exam results were observed for the sub-groups of Science, Forensic Science and Environmental Science, particularly in Trimester 3, where there was a higher proportion of mature aged students. Whereas there were no significant differences for the high-performance and high achieving biomedical and medical science students, as this cohort of students maintained their strong academic results. The interactive online approach using an online platform in teaching a large general chemistry course was of greatest benefit to student learning for the lower performing students, that were typically mature aged students.

Although trying a new pedagogy in large general chemistry can be intimidating with resources development and implementation and time required, chemistry educators should be encouraged to be forward thinking in their approach to chemistry teaching and learning. Already, emerging technologies in chemical education in the digital era have been reviewed (Chiu, 2021). In this study overall student response was positive to the introduction of online active platform (MasteringChemistry and Articulate Rise 360) and associated learning activities and assessment resources, in a general chemistry course. Furthermore, students were achieving learning outcomes for the general chemistry course. Given the results, the teaching team will continue to use an interactive online platform approach, making use of Articulate Rise360 supported by both MasteringChemistry and lectorials delivered in hybrid mode – allowing for synchronous online and face-to-face delivery of content and in-class polling.

Author contributions

Authors One and Two contributions were data curation, formal analysis methodology, validation, visualization, and writing – original draft. All authors contributed to conceptualization and writing – review and editing.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Appendix


image file: d3rp00221g-f4.tif
Fig. 4 Student responses to post survey question: this course engaged me in learning.

image file: d3rp00221g-f5.tif
Fig. 5 Student responses to post survey question: the teaching (lecturers, tutors, online etc.) on this course was effective in helping me to learn.

image file: d3rp00221g-f6.tif
Fig. 6 Student responses to post survey question: the use of online technologies helped me to learn in this course.
Table 5 Examples of structured learning activities that aligned with the engage, explain, explore, elaborate and evaluate phases for learning
Learning phase Learning activity or assessment Example of learning activity or assessmenta
a Images are original, representative of and similar to source (MasteringChemistry, You tube, etc.).
Engage Example: Short Video activity in Articulate Rise 360.
Criteria Short activities built into Articulate 360 (in 2021) like amusing cartoon Videos engage students and to introduce new concepts and topics. image file: d3rp00221g-u1.tif
Short activities to promote interest and help learners become engaged in a new concept Passive learning
Explain Example: Knowledge check with immediate feedback and explanation
Criteria MasteringChemistry self-paced online module will take students through material in each Chapter. image file: d3rp00221g-u2.tif
Opportunities for leaners to demonstrate their conceptual understanding and process skills. The dynamic study modules in MasteringChemistry provides immediate ersonalized feedback to the student once they have answered a question. If the answer is incorrect, a full worked answer appears to help explain and there is opportunity to do the question again.
Opportunities for teachers to directly introduce a concept, process, or skill to guide learners toward a deeper understanding. Active learning
Explore Example: Interactive activities in Articulate Rise 360.
Criteria
Learner has the time and opportunity to actively explore the content and facilitate their own conceptual understanding. Interactive activities in content modules of Articulate Rise 360 to test understanding as going through the chemistry content. Style of activities included drag and drop, matching lists, etc. Answers are marked correct or incorrect, but no worked answer in these activities. image file: d3rp00221g-u3.tif
Active learning Example: Homework activities in MasteringChemistry
Homework in MasteringChemistry provides extra instructional support when and where students need it, and math remediation and wrong-answer feedback. More difficult problems also have Hints on how to approach the problem.
Active learning image file: d3rp00221g-u4.tif
Elaborate PASS sessions
Criteria PASS sessions are class discussion/sessions that breakdown complex chemistry ideas and helps students to understand the chemistry content more deeply through a range of learning activities. image file: d3rp00221g-u5.tif
Learners develop deeper and broader understanding and apply their understanding of the concept by conducting additional activities. Active learning. Online feedback from MasteringChemistry shown in Explain and Explore section.
These activities can occur through class discussions, teacher led workshops and feedback from online platforms. Passive & active learning.
Evaluate Summative – Self-Test activities in content modules of MasteringChemistry with instant answers for students to identify where they went wrong. Self-Test activities: example of a question and answer in content modules of MasteringChemistry:
Criteria
Encourages students to assess their understanding and abilities by formative/low valued assessment. Active learning. image file: d3rp00221g-u6.tif
Teachers can evaluate student progress toward achieving the learning objectives using formal and summative assessment. Formative – three quizzes (20%; multiple choice format generated from question bank for each student) where each quiz covered chemistry delivered in Module 1, 2 or 3 of the course and was single attempt with restricted time. Quizzes: Example multiple choice question for Module 1:
image file: d3rp00221g-u7.tif

Descriptive statistics for the ANNOVA analysis are listed in Tables 6 and 7.
Table 6 Descriptive statistics for student results for Trimester 1 by degree program sub-group
Cohort Assessment (%) Cohort size Mean (%) Median (%) Standard deviation Min Max Confidence intervals
Degree Program sub-groups: Science* = Bachelor of Science and associated double degrees; Biomed. Science* = Bachelor of Biomedical Science and Bachelor of Medical Science; Forensic Science* = Bachelor of Forensic Science and B. Forensic Science/Bachelor of Criminology and Criminal Justice; Environmental Science* = Bachelor of Environmental Science and associated double degree.
Science* 2019 Overall course 56 64.6 65.1 21.1 4.2 96.5 5.5
Final exam 50 60.4 57.8 20.2 17.8 97.8 5.6
Quizzes 55 62.2 59.5 20.7 18.0 100.0 5.5
Science* 2020 Overall course 62 64.8 72.6 23.3 8.7 98.0 5.8
Final exam 56 61.4 60.0 17.2 22.2 95.6 4.5
Quizzes 60 60.4 66.0 24.6 8.0 100 6.2
Science* 2021 Overall course 48 71.6 75.8 18.7 16.3 99.0 5.3
Final exam 47 69.3 68.9 17.6 24.4 97.8 5.0
Quizzes 44 63.2 67.0 24.9 11.7 100.0 7.4
Biomedical Science* 2019 Overall course 85 82.6 87.9 17.0 13.7 100.0 3.6
Final exam 83 78.1 84.4 18.3 26.7 100.0 3.9
Quizzes 85 82.4 91.0 18.8 20.0 100.0 4.0
Biomedical Science* 2020 Overall course 111 79.0 83.9 19.7 8.8 100.0 3.7
Final exam 108 73.8 77.8 20.4 20.0 100.0 3.9
Quizzes 111 76.5 80.0 21.8 12.0 100.0 4.1
Biomedical Science* 2021 Overall course 97 83.4 87.8 17.4 14.2 100.0 3.5
Final exam 94 79.6 82.2 16.1 37.8 100.0 3.2
Quizzes 95 79.9 84.0 22.1 16.0 100.0 4.5
Forensic Science* 2019 Overall course 126 64.5 65.4 19.5 3.0 97.0 3.4
Final exam 120 54.5 51.1 20.2 17.8 93.3 3.6
Quizzes 126 60.7 60.5 21.1 10.0 100 3.7
Forensic Science* 2020 Overall course 108 66.1 67.3 16.6 3.0 98.5 3.1
Final exam 102 59.4 57.8 13.6 35.6 97.8 2.6
Quizzes 108 61.8 63.5 19.5 15.0 98.5 3.7
Forensic Science* 2021 Overall course 172 72.4 72.0 15.4 5.0 98.1 2.3
Final exam 168 64.1 64.4 16.2 15.6 97.8 2.5
Quizzes 171 62.2 60.7 21.5 18.0 100 3.2
Environmental Science* 2019 Overall course 29 66.8 66.2 14.9 38.5 93.9 5.4
Final exam 28 57.3 60.0 18.6 20.0 88.9 6.9
Quizzes 28 61.3 60.0 18.2 28.0 95.0 6.7
Environmental Science* 2020 Overall course 44 73.2 74.4 13.8 27.7 96.2 4.1
Final exam 42 64.5 66.6 15.2 28.9 95.6 4.6
Quizzes 43 66.8 72.0 18.2 28.0 94.0 5.4
Environmental Science* 2021 Overall course 51 71.7 73.7 15.7 25.2 97.2 4.3
Final exam 49 53.1 66.7 18.0 15.6 95.6 5.0
Quizzes 50 62.9 62.0 21.6 9.3 100 6.0

Table 7 Descriptive statistics for student results for Trimester 3 by degree program sub-group
Cohort Assessment (%) Cohort size Mean (%) Median (%) Standard deviation Min Max Confidence intervals
Degree Program Sub-groups: Science* = Bachelor of Science and associated double degrees; Biomed. Science* = Bachelor of Biomedical Science and Bachelor of Medical Science; Forensic Science* = Bachelor of Forensic Science and B. Forensic Science/Bachelor of Criminology and Criminal Justice; Environmental Science * = Bachelor of Environmental Science and associated double degrees.
Science* 2019 Overall course 24 60.8 58.6 16.6 20.2 93.0 6.7
Final exam 23 52.0 42.2 18.7 26.7 88.9 7.6
Quizzes 24 57.0 56.0 17.1 31.0 91.0 6.8
Science* 2020 Overall course 27 73.8 81.2 22.1 10.4 93.7 8.3
Final exam 25 71.2 71.1 13.5 42.2 91.1 5.3
Quizzes 26 70.9 74.5 19.2 22.0 95.0 7.4
Science* 2021 Overall course 22 73.0 79.4 19.5 20.5 96.1 8.2
Final exam 21 67.8 64.4 17.5 20.0 93.3 7.5
Quizzes 22 70.0 73.0 21.2 16.3 98.0 8.9
Biomedical Science* 2019 Overall course 0 — — — — — —
Final exam 0 — — — — — —
Quizzes 0 — — — — — —
Biomedical Science* 2020 Overall course 10 73.5 72.7 14.4 47.6 91.2 8.9
Final exam 10 69.6 68.9 15.5 44.4 97.8 9.6
Quizzes 10 69.1 61.5 14.6 57.0 96.0 9.0
Biomedical Science* 2021 Overall course 7 78.9 74.9 8.1 69.9 90.6 6.0
Final exam 7 67.9 62.2 13.5 53.3 88.9 10.0
Quizzes 7 69.0 71.0 11.0 49.3 82.7 8.1
Forensic Science* 2019 Overall course 8 54.7 58.8 15.9 19.5 71.8 11.0
Final exam 8 40.6 41.1 11.1 22.2 55.6 7.7
Quizzes 8 50.9 53.5 17.6 25.0 74.0 12.2
Forensic Science* 2020 Overall course 9 66.6 72.7 19.8 22.6 87.8 12.9
Final exam 8 59.7 58.9 16.3 26.7 84.4 11.3
Quizzes 9 60.3 63.0 16.5 35.0 84.0 10.8
Forensic Science* 2021 Overall course 14 66.2 67.4 16.0 30.7 86.3 8.4
Final exam 13 57.6 60.0 13.6 40.0 80.0 7.4
Quizzes 14 61.7 64.3 13.2 38.3 86.3 6.9
Environmental Science* 2019 Overall course 14 56.0 58.9 20.2 11.7 83.3 10.6
Final exam 11 68.9 73.3 21.9 44.4 93.3 12.9
Quizzes 14 56.3 61.5 15.2 20.0 71.0 7.9
Environmental Science* 2020 Overall course 16 78.8 79.8 11.8 59.5 96.5 5.8
Final exam 16 69.4 67.8 14.0 44.4 93.3 6.8
Quizzes 16 76.5 76.5 14.2 55.0 98.0 7.0
Environmental Science* 2021 Overall course 16 81.7 84.2 11.2 61.1 99.0 5.5
Final exam 16 74.3 73.3 15.0 44.4 97.8 7.3
Quizzes 16 76.6 74.7 14.3 47.7 100.0 7.0

References

  1. Accettone S. L., (2021), Student perceptions of remote chemistry lecture delivery methods, J. Chem. Educ., 98(12), 3667–3679 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00757.
  2. Aleks, (2022), About ALEKS. https://www.aleks.com/about_aleks. Accessed 30 May 2023.
  3. Al Mamun M. A., Lawrie G. and Wright T., (2020), Instructional design of scaffolded online learning modules for self-directed and inquiry-based learning environments, Comput. Educ., 144, 103695 DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103695.
  4. Ang J. W. J., (2020), Scaffolded inverse blended learning: an approach to teach an online general chemistry course, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 2839–2844 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed0c00436.
  5. Baviskar S. N., Hartle R. T. and Whitney T., (2009), Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist-teaching method articles, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 31(4), 541–550 DOI:10.1080/09500690701731121.
  6. Bokosmaty R., Bridgeman A. and Muir M., (2019), Using a partially flipped learning model to teach first year undergraduate chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 96(4), 629–639 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00414.
  7. Bruck L. B. and Towns M. H., (2009), Preparing students to benefit from inquiry-based activities in the chemistry laboratory: guidelines and suggestions, J. Chem. Educ., 86 (7), 820–822 DOI:10.1021/ed086p820.
  8. Bybee R. W., Taylor J. A., Gardner A., Van Scotter P., Carlson Powell J., Westbrook A. and Landes N., (2006), BSCS 5E instructional model: origins, effectiveness and applications, Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS Science Learning. https://fremonths.org/ourpages/auto/2008/5/11/1210522036057/bscs5efullreport2006.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2023.
  9. Bybee R., Taylor J. A., Gardner A., Van Scotter P., Carlson Powell J., Westbrook A. and Landes N., (2015), The BSCS 5E instructional model, Arlington, TX: National Science Teachers Association Press DOI:10.2505/9781941316009.
  10. Carter C. S. and Brickhouse N. W., (1989), What makes chemistry difficult? Alternate perceptions, J. Chem. Educ., 66(3), 223–225 DOI:10.1021/ed066p223.
  11. Chamberlain S., Elford D., Lancaster S. J. and Silve, F., (2021), Tailored Blended Learning for Foundation Year Chemistry Students, Chimia, 75(1–2), 18–26 DOI:10.2533/chimia.2021.18.
  12. Chiu W. K., (2021), Pedagogy of emerging technologies in chemical education during the era of digitalization and artificial intelligence: a systematic review, Educ. Sci., 11(709) 1–24 DOI:10.3390/educsci11110709.
  13. Clark T. M., (2023), Narrowing Achievement Gaps in General Chemistry Courses with and without In-Class Active Learning, J. Chem. Educ., 100(4), 1494–1504 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00973.
  14. Collantes L. M., Torres J. M., Astrero E. T., Gaboy R. G., Castillo M. E. G. C. and Mukminin A., (2022), Perspectives, challenges, and opportunities: the pandemic teaching experiences in science courses, J. High. Educ. Theor. Pract., 22(4), 75–90 DOI:10.33423/jhetp.v22i4.5131.
  15. Cuadros J., Yaron D. and Leinhardt G., (2007), “One firm spot”: the role of homework as lever in acquiring conceptual and performance competence in college chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 84(6), 1047–1052 DOI:10.1021/ed084p1047.
  16. DeCoito I. and Estaiteyeh M., (2022), Transitioning to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: an exploration of STEM teachers’ views, successes, and challenges, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 31(3), 340–356 DOI:10.1007/s10956-022-09958-z.
  17. Driver R. and Scott P., (1996), Curriculum development as research: a constructivist approach to science curriculum development and teaching, in D. F. Treagust (ed.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics, New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 94–108.
  18. Eichler J. F. and Peeples J., (2013), Online homework put to the test: a report on the impact of two online learning systems on student performance in general chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 90(9), 1137–1143 DOI:10.1021/ed3006264.
  19. Eichler J. F. and Peeples J., (2016), Flipped classroom modules for large enrolment general chemistry courses: a low barrier approach to increase active learning and improve student grades, Chem. Educ. Res. Prac., 17(1), 197–208 10.1039/c5rp00159e.
  20. Flynn A. B., (2011), Developing problem-solving skills through retrosynthetic analysis and clickers in organic chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 88(11), 1496–1500 DOI:10.1021/ed200143k.
  21. Flynn A. B., (2015), Structure and evaluation of flipped chemistry courses: organic and spectroscopy, large and small, first to third year, Chem. Educ. Res. Prac., 16(2), 198–211 10.1039/c4rp00224e.
  22. Freeman S., Eddy S. L., McDonough M., Smith M. K., Okoroafor N., Jordt H. and Wenderoth M. P., (2014), Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 111(23), 8410–8415 DOI:10.1073/pnas.131903011.
  23. Fung F. M. and Lam Y., (2020), How COVID-19 disrupted our “flipped” freshman organic chemistry course: insights gained from Singapore, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 2573–2580 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00590.
  24. Griffiths R., Boyce J., Wang S., Tallie W. and Murphy R., (2017), Study of Mastering Chemistry at selective research university. Technical Report Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/efficacy-and-research/reports/Pearson-Mastering-Chemistry-Correlational-Technical-Report.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2023.
  25. Gulacar O. and Bowman C. R., (2014), Determining what our students need most: exploring student perceptions and comparing difficulty ratings of students and faculty, Chem. Educ. Res. Prac., 15(4), 587–593 10.1039/c4rp00055b.
  26. Haagsman M. E., Scager K., Boonstra J. and Koster M. C., (2020), Pop-up questions within educational videos: effects on students’ learning, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 29(6), 713–724 DOI:10.1007/s10956-020-09847-3.
  27. Holme T. A., (2020), Introduction to the Journal of Chemical Education special issue on insights gained while teaching chemistry in the time of COVID-19, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 2375–2377 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01087.
  28. Huang J., (2020), Successes and challenges: online teaching and learning of chemistry in higher education in China in the time of COVID-19, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 2810–2814 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00671.
  29. Ivankova N. V., Creswell J. W. and Stick S. L., (2006), Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice, Field Method, 18(1), 3–20 DOI:10.1177/1525822x05282260.
  30. Kang J. and Keinonen T., (2018), The effect of student-centered approaches on students’ interest and achievement in science: relevant topic-based, open and guided inquiry-based, and discussion-based approaches, Res. Sci. Educ., 48(4), 865–885 DOI:10.1007/s11165-016-9590-2.
  31. King D. B., (2011), Using clickers to identify the muddiest points in large chemistry classes, J. Chem. Educ., 88(11), 1485–1488 DOI:10.1021/ed1004799.
  32. Kolb D. A., (1984), Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall DOI:10.1002/job.4030080408.
  33. Lawrie G., (2021), Chemistry education research and practice in diverse online learning environments: resilience, complexity, and opportunity! Chem. Educ. Res. Prac., 22(1), 7–11 10.1039/d0rp90013c.
  34. Li R., Lund A. and Nordsteien A., (2021), The link between flipped and active learning: a scoping review, Teach. High. Educ., 1–35 DOI:10.1080/13562517.2021.1943655.
  35. Lombardi, D., Shipley, T. F., Astronomy Team, Biology Team, Chemistry Team, Engineering Team, Geography Team, Geoscience Team and Physics Team, (2021), The curious construct of active learning, Psychol. Sci. Pub. Interest, 22(1), 8–43 DOI:10.1177/15291006209739.
  36. Loughlin, W. A., Watters, D. J., Brown, C. L. and Johnston, P. R., (2015), Snapshot of mathematical background demographics of a broad cohort of first year chemistry science students. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ., 23(1), 21–36.
  37. Macmillian Learning, (2022), Achieve Home Page. https://www.macmillanlearning.com/college/us/digital/achieve. Accessed 30 May 2023.
  38. MasteringChemistry (2022), Mastering Home Page. https://mlm.pearson.com/northamerica/masteringchemistry/. Accessed 30 May 2023.
  39. Nabulsi L., Nguyen A. and Odeleye O., (2021), A comparison of the effects of two different online homework systems on levels of knowledge retention in general chemistry students, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 30(1), 31–39 DOI:10.1007/s10956-020-09872-2.
  40. Naibert N., Duck K. D., Phillips M. M. and Barbera J., (2021), Multi-institutional study of self-efficacy within flipped chemistry courses, J. Chem. Educ., 98(5), 1489–1502 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01361.
  41. Ndoye A., (2017), Peer/self-assessment and student learning, Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ., 29(2), 255–269.
  42. Nguyen C. K., DeNeve D. R., Nguyen L. T. and Limbocker R., (2020), Impact of COVID-19 on general chemistry education at the United States Military Academy, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 2922–2927 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00771.
  43. Nguyen K. A., Borrego M., Finelli C. J., DeMonbrun M., Crockett C., Tharayil S., Sekhar P., Waters C. and Rosenberg R., (2021), Instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning: a systematic literature review, Int. J. STEM Educ., 8, 1–18 DOI:10.1186/s40594-021-00270-7.
  44. Nieminen J. H., Asikainen H. and Ramo J., (2021), Promoting deep approach to learning and self-efficacy by changing the purpose of self-assessment: a comparison of summative and formative models, Stud. High. Educ., 46(7), 1296–1311 DOI:10.1080/03075079.2019.1688282.
  45. Nyachwaya J. M., (2020), Teaching general chemistry (I) online during COVID-19. Process, outcomes, and lessons learned: a reflection, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 2935–2939 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00891.
  46. Obenland C. A., Munson A. H. and Hutchinson J. S., (2013), Silent and vocal students in a large active learning chemistry classroom: comparison of performance and motivational factors, Chem. Educ. Res. Prac., 14(1), 73–80 10.1039/c2rp20055d.
  47. Petillion R. J. and McNeil W. S., (2020), Johnstone's triangle as a pedagogical framework for flipped-class instructional videos in introductory chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 97(6), 1536–1542 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b01105.
  48. Porter S. R. and Umbach P. D., (2006), Student Survey Response Rates across Institutions: Why Do they Vary? Res. High. Educ., 47, 229–247 DOI:10.1007/s11162-005-8887-1.
  49. Prince M., (2004), Does active learning work? A review of the research, J. Eng. Educ., 93(3), 223–231 DOI:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.
  50. Revell K. D., (2014), A comparison of the usage of tablet PC, lecture capture, and online homework in an introductory chemistry course, J. Chem. Educ., 91(1), 48–51 DOI:10.1021/ed400372x.
  51. Richards-Babb M., Curtis R., Ratcliff B., Roy A. and Mikalik T., (2018), General chemistry student attitudes and success with use of online homework: traditional-responsive versus adaptive-responsive, J. Chem. Educ., 95(5), 691–699 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00829.
  52. Rojas N. R. L., (2023), Outcomes from Online vs Face-to-Face Learning in General Chemistry: A Natural Experiment, J. Chem. Educ., 100(11), 4261–4269 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00124.
  53. Scholten D. J., Wijtmans M., Dekker S. J., Vuuregge A. H., Boon E. J., Vos J. C., Siderius M., Westbroek H. and van Muijlwijk-Koezen J. E., (2021), Practical guidelines to redesign introductory chemistry courses using a flexible and adaptive blended format, J. Chem. Educ., 98(12), 3852–3863 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c0064.
  54. Schunk D. H., (2012), Learning theories an educational perspective, Pearson Education, Inc.
  55. Schweiker S. S. and Levonis S. M., (2020), Insights gained while teaching first semester chemistry in the time of COVID-19 at Bond University in Australia, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 2863–2865 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00621.
  56. Seery M. K., (2015), Flipped learning in higher education chemistry: emerging trends and potential directions, Chem. Educ. Res. Prac., 16(4), 758–768 10.1039/c5rp00136f.
  57. Seery M. K., (2020), Establishing the laboratory as the place to learn how to do chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 97(6), 1511–1514 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00764.
  58. Sen S. and Oskay O. O., (2017), The effects of 5E inquiry learning activities on achievement and attitude toward chemistry, J. Educ. Learn., 6(1), 1–9 DOI:10.5539/jel.v6n1p1.
  59. Slunt K. M. and Giancarlo L. C., (2004), Student-centered learning: a comparison of two different methods of instruction, J. Chem. Educ., 81(7), 985–988 DOI:10.1021/ed081p985.
  60. Stoltzfus M. W., (2016), Active Learning in the Flipped Classroom: Lessons Learned and Best Practices to Increase Student Engagement, in Muzyka J. L. and Luker C. S. (ed.), The Flipped Classroom: Background and Challenges; ACS Symposium Series 1223, Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, vol. 1, pp. 105–122 DOI:10.1021/bk-2016-1223.ch008.
  61. Struyven K., Dochy F. and Janssens S., (2005), Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: a review, Assess. Eval. High. Educ., 30(4), 325–341 DOI:10.1080/02602930500099102.
  62. Sunasee R., (2020), Challenges of teaching organic chemistry during COVID-19 pandemic at a primarily undergraduate institution, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 3176–3181 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00542.
  63. Urban S., Brkljaca R., Cockman R. and Rook T., (2017), Contextualizing learning chemistry in first-year undergraduate programs: engaging industry-based videos with real-time quizzing, J. Chem. Educ., 94(7), 873–878 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00063.
  64. Villanueva O., Behmke D. A., Morris J., Simmons R., Anfuso C., Woodbridge C. and Guo Y., (2020), Adapting to the COVID-19 online transition: reflections in a general chemistry sequence taught by multiple instructors with diverse pedagogies, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 2458–2465 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00752.
  65. Weaver G. C. and Sturtevant H. G., (2015), Design, implementation, and evaluation of a flipped format general chemistry course, J. Chem. Educ., 92(9), 1437–1448 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00316.
  66. Woodward R. L. and Reid C. S., (2019), You’ve got mail (and homework): simple strategies for promoting student engagement with pre-lecture videos, J. Chem. Educ., 96(9), 2055–2058 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00315.
  67. Wu S. H., Lai C. L., Hwang G. J. and Tsai C. C., (2021), Research trends in technology-enhanced chemistry learning: a review of comparative research from 2010 to 2019, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 30(4), 496–510 DOI:10.1007/s10956-020-09894-w.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2024