The Flipped Classroom

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.fw001

Volume 2:
Results from Practice

Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.fw001

Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 ACS SYMPOSIUM SERIES 1228

The Flipped Classroom

Volume 2:
Results from Practice
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.fw001

Jennifer L. Muzyka, Editor

Centre College
Danville, Kentucky

Christopher S. Luker, Editor

Highland Local Schools
Medina, Ohio

Sponsored by the
ACS Division of Chemical Education

American Chemical Society, Washington, DC

Distributed in print by Oxford University Press

Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Muzyka, Jennifer L., editor. | Luker, Christopher S., editor. |

American Chemical Society. Division of Chemical Education.
Title: The flipped classroom volume 2: results from practice / Jennifer L. Muzyka, editor,
Centre College, Danville, Kentucky, Christopher S. Luker, editor, Highland Local
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.fw001

Schools, Medina, Ohio ; sponsored by the ACS Division of Chemical Education.

Description: Washington, DC : American Chemical Society, [2016]- | Series:
ACS symposium series ; 1223, 1228 | Includes bibliographical references
and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016038824 (print) | LCCN 2016055070 (ebook) | ISBN
9780841231436 (v. 1) | ISBN 9780841231627 (v. 2) | ISBN 9780841231610 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Chemistry--Study and teaching. | Active learning. |
Instructional systems--Design.
Classification: LCC QD40 .F535 2016 (print) | LCC QD40 (ebook) | DDC
540.71--dc23
LC record available at [Link]

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National
Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials,
ANSI Z39.48n1984.

Copyright © 2016 American Chemical Society

Distributed in print by Oxford University Press

All Rights Reserved. Reprographic copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108
of the U.S. Copyright Act is allowed for internal use only, provided that a per-chapter fee of
$40.25 plus $0.75 per page is paid to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood
Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Republication or reproduction for sale of pages in this
book is permitted only under license from ACS. Direct these and other permission requests
to ACS Copyright Office, Publications Division, 1155 16th Street, N.W., Washington, DC
20036.

The citation of trade names and/or names of manufacturers in this publication is not to be
construed as an endorsement or as approval by ACS of the commercial products or services
referenced herein; nor should the mere reference herein to any drawing, specification,
chemical process, or other data be regarded as a license or as a conveyance of any right
or permission to the holder, reader, or any other person or corporation, to manufacture,
reproduce, use, or sell any patented invention or copyrighted work that may in any way be
related thereto. Registered names, trademarks, etc., used in this publication, even without
specific indication thereof, are not to be considered unprotected by law.

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Foreword
The ACS Symposium Series was first published in 1974 to provide a
mechanism for publishing symposia quickly in book form. The purpose of
the series is to publish timely, comprehensive books developed from the ACS
sponsored symposia based on current scientific research. Occasionally, books are
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.fw001

developed from symposia sponsored by other organizations when the topic is of

keen interest to the chemistry audience.

Before agreeing to publish a book, the proposed table of contents is reviewed

for appropriate and comprehensive coverage and for interest to the audience. Some
papers may be excluded to better focus the book; others may be added to provide
comprehensiveness. When appropriate, overview or introductory chapters are
added. Drafts of chapters are peer-reviewed prior to final acceptance or rejection,
and manuscripts are prepared in camera-ready format.

As a rule, only original research papers and original review papers are
included in the volumes. Verbatim reproductions of previous published papers
are not accepted.

ACS Books Department

Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Preface
A full introduction to the flipped classroom and its history can be found in
Chapter 1 of the first volume of this collection. Below is the description of the
content in both Volume 1 and Volume 2 of this book, which also appears in Volume
1.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.pr001

Volume 1 of this collection starts by demonstrating how faculty members

generate buy-in for novel pedagogical methods. Swearingen describes how she
flipped the syllabus in her general chemistry course at John Brown University,
introducing students to the novel approach and generating buy-in among students
for the method. Next, the reader is introduced to logistics of implementing the
flipped classroom. Storer describes his implementation of the flipped classroom
in a general chemistry course at a community college in rural Ohio. An important
characteristic of this course is that it served as a dual enrollment course for high
school students in the region, many of whom did not have Internet access in their
homes. His creative approach demonstrates logistics that make flipping possible
even in challenging circumstances.
The next few chapters describe different methods used in flipped courses,
transitioning into the educational theory behind the flipped course. Although most
flipping of chemistry courses happens in general chemistry, the following two
chapters both focus on physical chemistry courses. Goss describes the use of Just-
in-Time Teaching combined with screencast videos that demonstrate the use of a
symbolic math program like Mathematica to flip her physical chemistry courses at
Idaho State University. Hagen describes the use of team-based learning (TBL) to
flip his thermodynamics course.
Morsch’s organic chemistry course is atypical, as each student is required to
bring his or her own iPad to participate in the course. Morsch’s students access pre-
class videos on iTunes U and read assigned text on the ChemWiki. Students use
a variety of apps on their iPad devices to respond to questions that Morsch poses.
Morsch introduces the cognitive load theory to explain and interpret enhanced
grades and student responses to surveys about the teaching method.
Lekhi’s general chemistry students at the University of British Columbia are
being challenged to develop skills that will enable them to productively participate
in research projects. She explains how the flipped classroom promotes in these
students a more sophisticated epistemology as they develop these research-ready
process skills.
Of the chemists who are aware of the flipped classroom, many believe
that the approach can only work in small classes. Several authors in this
collection (Stoltzfus, Link, Soult, and Yestrebsky) dispel that notion, describing
their successful implementations in courses that have over two hundred

ix
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 students. Stoltzfus teaches general chemistry at The Ohio State University.
Link teaches organic chemistry at University of California, Irvine. Soult
teaches general-organic-biochemistry for nurses at the University of Kentucky.
Yestrebsky teaches general chemistry at University of Central Florida. Yestrebsky
presents data demonstrating that average students benefit from the flipped
teaching, with larger percentages of A’s and B’s in the flipped course than in a
matched lecture course.
The chapters in Volume 2 of this collection provide further data about how
flipping influenced their students’ learning. Most authors found enhanced learning
(Yestrebsky, Casadonte, Haak, Read, Houseknecht, Esson, and Muth); one reports
similar grades (Maloney) in a course that previously included significant amounts
of active learning. Casadonte flipped his honors general chemistry course at Texas
Tech University. Haak describes a hybrid course with reduced face-to-face time
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.pr001

for a general chemistry course at Oregon State University. Read describes partial
flipping at University of Southampton. Houseknecht implemented Just-in-Time
Teaching in organic chemistry at Wittenberg University, having students generate
iPad screencasts in groups. Maloney teaches organic chemistry courses for
classes of biology majors with up to 100 students. Esson flipped both general and
analytical chemistry at Otterbein University. Finally, Muth describes his flipped
biochemistry course at St. Olaf College.

Jennifer L. Muzyka
Department of Chemistry, Centre College
600 W. Walnut St.
Danville, Kentucky 40422
[Link]@[Link] (e-mail)

Christopher S. Luker
Highland Local Schools
4150 Ridge Rd.
Medina, Ohio 44256
cluker@[Link] (e-mail)

x
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Chapter 1

Direct Comparison of Flipping in the Large

Lecture Environment
Cherie L. Yestrebsky*
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

Chemistry Department, University of Central Florida, Orlando,

Florida 32816, United States
*E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

Very large lecture-based classes are a commonly used teaching

mode at high-population universities. To ascertain the
effectiveness of ‘flipping the classroom’ in these classes, a study
focused on the change in the presentation mode: in-person
lectures versus recorded lectures posted online with problem
solving during class time. The study involved two very large
classes (320 and 415 students) of second-semester general
chemistry students taught by the same instructor. One class
was taught in the traditional lecture format normally used
within the department with example problems posted online.
The other class was taught using a flipped protocol and those
students accessed all lectures online with class time devoted
to instructor-led examples and small group problem solving.
Final grades were compared between the two groups and
results showed that students in the flipped class had a greater
percentage of high grades (‘A’ and ‘B’ grades) compared to
the control group. The control group had more ‘C’ or average
grades but the two groups had almost identical percentages
of low grades (‘D’ and ‘F’). This suggests that the average
performing students were aided by this teaching method
compared to the traditional teaching format. Surveys that were
administered to each class at the end of the semester revealed
that students in the flipped class found the online instruction
valuable; 86% watched at least some recorded lectures more
than once and 68% responded that they would take another
class using this teaching method. The control class expressed a
high evaluation of the in-class instruction but did not express

© 2016 American Chemical Society

Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 a high evaluation of the example problems and slides (without
recorded lecture) provided online.

Introduction
The concept of ‘flipping the classroom’ or ‘flipping’ has received considerable
interest in recent years (1–4). The basic concept refers to a classroom where
students reverse the normal lecture-class routine of listening and observing an
instructor during class time with homework and practice outside of class. In a
flipped classroom, students listen to and watch the videotaped lecture or other
instruction on their own, often via some form of access to the internet, and class
time is used for discussion, independent work with teacher guidance, group work,
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

peer instruction, teacher led examples, etc. Much of the published literature on the
topic focuses on examples in relatively small classrooms of less than 50 students
while far fewer publications focus on college-level, large lecture course studies of
this mode of teaching.
The passive learning environment of a large science lecture presents fertile
ground for testing better methods of engaging students. Motivated instructors
can certainly engage many students but the interaction with students in this
environment is limited. Therefore, if a student has a question, he/she is likely
too intimidated to interrupt the lecture and relatively few will reach out to the
instructor during office hours. Flipping is an effort to engage students in active
learning, which requires learners to take some responsibility for their own learning
experience. College-level studies have shown reductions in DFW grades (5–7)
and benefits in final grades of students in courses that involved varying levels
of a flipped classroom environment for moderate- and small-sized chemistry
courses; however, literature is lacking for flipping the larger classes of over 300
students. Schneider (2015) (8) showed that students liked the flipped classroom
environment but there was no improvement in their grades. Other studies have
shown little or no benefit as measured in student performance or student opinion
of flipping (9) and not all subject areas may benefit from this change in teaching.
This study seeks to evaluate the basic concept of flipping in a large chemistry
classroom by using a side-by-side comparison of two very large classes, one with
320 students and the other with 415. The intent was to compare the final grades
of the two classes, keeping all materials and actions the same with the exception
of an in-class lecture versus recorded lectures available through the university’s
Webcourses (Learning Management System) site. The goal in this study was to
evaluate the effectiveness of flipping to improve the DFW rate for this course.

Methods
Description of the Classes
This study took place at the University of Central Florida (UCF) Chemistry
Department. UCF is a large public institution with over 63,000 students, 86% of
whom are undergraduates. Many of our undergraduate students transfer to UCF
from regional state colleges.
2
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Fundamentals of Chemistry II is the second-semester course in a two-semester
sequence of the pre-requisite chemistry courses for most science, health, and
many engineering majors. The level of college experience of the students in this
class varies as shown in Table 1 with sophomore, junior, and senior level students
comprising approximately equal populations in the class and with freshman
students making up only 8-10% of the class. Fundamentals of Chemistry I is
a prerequisite course that introduces students to the theories of chemistry and
some simple calculation problems, but is not as mathematics-dependent as the
second semester course. Based on past student perception of instruction survey
comments, students find the math in Fundamentals of Chemistry II challenging
and believe that more examples and help with problem solving would improve
their grades.
It is not uncommon to have completely full classes with as many as 450
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

students enrolled at the beginning of the semester. The environment is not ideal
for significant interaction with the professor, particularly during lecture. It is
taught in a large stadium-seating auditorium using a computer projection onto
one or more very large screens, depending on which auditorium is used, with the
instructor using a wireless microphone for communication. This does allow for
some instructor movement about the classroom, but clarity of voice can diminish
due to limited microphone range. There are opportunities for questions from
students during class; however, the interaction is limited. Because the auditorium
is large, the distance between the instructor and many of the students can cause
those students to feel dissociated from interaction with the class. Homework
problems are suggested and examples are worked in class by the instructor.
Further examples are often uploaded to the class website on the university
Webcourses learning management system, as are copies of the lecture slides.
The classes are 50 or 75 minutes, depending on the scheduled days
(Monday/Wednesday/Friday or Tuesday/ Thursday) that the classes are taught.
Grades are determined by four multiple choice exams, the best 10 of 14 quizzes,
a final exam (ACS two-semester general chemistry 2011 version), and up to
3% attendance credit. The course is known for having a high DFW rate, so
outside the classroom, help is available to students including supplemental
instruction, group tutoring through the Student Academic Resource Center, and
a department-supported Chemistry Tutoring Center.
In order to understand the effect of flipping, the researchers changed only one
aspect of the flipped class and kept all other variables constant. Therefore, only the
lecture delivery mode was changed for the test class and problem solving periods
were used to replace lectures during class time. The specific problems addressed
in the flipped class were uploaded to the class website for the traditional class to
access so that both classes had the ability to review and study the same worked
examples. The traditional and flipped classes had 320 and 415 enrolled students,
respectively. Students registered for the classes prior to knowledge of the study and
were comprised of overwhelmingly science and engineering majors. The efficacy
of using the flipped instructional method was evaluated using two classes of very
high enrollment, taught by the same instructor, with only one variable changed,
and comparing 1) quiz and exam grades, 2) distribution of final grades, and 3)
responses from end-of-semester surveys. Final grades were assigned based on a

3
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 standard 10-point grading scale of 90-100% = A; 80-89.9% = B; 70-79.9% = C;
60-69.9% = D; and below 60% = F. Percentages are calculated based on total points
earned divided by total possible class points (800) multiplied by 100.
The slides used for the flipped class were identical to those used in the
traditional class with the exception of the voice-recording (using a plug-in
microphone headset) over PowerPoint slides. One could argue both for and
against video recording, but the time and location flexibility provided in preparing
slides with voice recording was an important benefit for the instructor. The slides
and time periods spent on each chapter were the same. The problems worked
out during class time for the flipped class were made available to the students in
the control class. The quizzes and exams were of equal difficulty, covering the
same topics from the chapters with the same number of applied and conceptual
problems. Based on the idea that long modules would lead to bored listeners who
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

might procrastinate listening to lectures, all recorded modules were 18 minutes or

less. This equated to one 50-minute lecture for the traditional class and three to
four recorded modules for the flipped class for each class period. The recorded
modules were then uploaded to the course website. Only the flipped class could
access the recorded lectures but both classes could access the slides without
the recorded lecture. Each chapter was covered in seven to twelve recorded
modules. Dates were assigned for students to complete specific modules and the
course calendar was used to communicate these dates. During class time, either
the instructor or the students (in small groups or individual) in the flipped class
worked on end-of-chapter problems from the course text that corresponded to the
material covered in the appropriate lectures. Of the time spent on problem-solving
in class, approximately 40% was instructor-led, 40% small-group, and 20%
individual work.

Surveys

During a two-week period near the end of the semester, both classes
completed Student Perception of Instruction (SPOI) surveys, administered online
and mandated by the university. The SPOI surveys include general questions
regarding professionalism of the instructor, timeliness of assignments and grading,
respectfulness of the instructor towards students, and open-ended questions for
the students to express their likes and dislikes of various aspects of the course.
A second survey was developed specifically for this study and was
administered to both classes during class time at the end of the semester. This
survey queried students on instructional components that were specific to
these courses, including the usage of online materials (both recorded slides for
the flipped class and the materials posted for the traditional class), students’
anticipated grade for the class, satisfaction with the course format, and other
general likes and dislikes of the course and/or its format. There was no extra
credit or incentive offered to students for completing the survey and no penalties
for those who did not participate. Participation was voluntary and students’
survey data were aggregated into the data for the study as a whole.

4
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Student demographics and academic ability levels (as indicated by aptitude
test scores) for each of the sections were compared from data obtained from the
student information system (SIS).

Results
Student Demographics

Academic experience of the students enrolled in these classes is distributed

mostly across the sophomore, junior, and senior level with 8-10 percent at the
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

freshman level. Table 1 illustrates the breakdown of student academic level.

Table 1. Academic level of classes (%)

Traditional Flipped
(N=320) (N=415)
Non-degree seeking student 0 2
Freshman 8 10
Sophomore 32 36
Junior 32 28
Senior 27 21

Table 2 illustrates the proportion of males and females in each section. Both
sections of chemistry had a higher proportion of females, but were similar overall.

Table 2. Gender distribution of classes (%).

Gender Traditional Flipped
(N=320) (N=415)
Male 46 40
Female 54 60

Table 3 lists the distribution of ethnicity, which varied slightly for each of
the courses, with the flipped class enrolling more Asians, while the traditional
section had slightly more Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and White/
Caucasian students.

5
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 3. Ethnicity distribution of both classes (%).
Ethnicity Traditional Flipped
(N=320) (N=415)
Asian 8 18
Black/African American 12 9
Hispanic/Latino 23 20
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0 0.2
White/Caucasian 52 48
Multiracial 4 4
Other 1 1
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

This research did not examine differences in demographics. Students were

unaware that they were registering for a flipped or traditional course and it is
possible that the disparity in ethnicity is due to day or time of each class and how
they fit with the particular student’s schedule. This, however, is outside the scope
of this research.

Students’ Prior Academic Ability Measures

Table 4 illustrates the differences across the two classes in prior academic
ability measures—namely, college entrance exam scores (SAT and ACT) and high
school grade point average (GPA). Independent t-test analyses comparing these
averages across the two classes found no significant differences (p<.05).

Grades

Final grades in the course were calculated based on the assessments listed in
Table 5. Fourteen quizzes were administered over the course of the semester, each
with five questions with the 10 highest scores used for calculating the final grade.
Four exams with 20 questions each were administered approximately every three
weeks over the semester. Values listed in tables for quizzes and exams are the
mean of the raw score for the number of correct answers.
The grading rubric shown in Table 6 illustrates the calculation of student
grades. This was identical for both traditional and flipped sections.

6
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 4. SAT, ACT, HS GPA
Traditional Flipped
(N=320) (N=414)
Mean SD Mean SD t df
SAT Total 986.82 412.21 990.77 407.75 -0.13 687
SAT Verb. 491.14 208.67 484.74 202.94 0.41 687
SAT Math 495.69 209.79 506.03 210.97 -0.64 687
ACT Total 17.84 11.22 19.04 10.82 -1.42 687
ACT Engl. 17.41 11.17 18.69 10.97 -1.51 687
ACT Math 17.78 11.25 19.19 10.94 -1.66 687
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

ACT Sci. 17.22 17.94 18.53 10.59 -1.58 687

HS GPA 3.34 1.19 3.47 1.17 -1.50 720

Table 5. Assessment tools used for both classes.

Assessment Frequency How it was used
Quizzes 14 Used best 10 for final grade
Exams 4 Replaced lowest with final exam % if higher
Final Exam 1
Attendance Quizzes 3 Added 1% to final grade % for each one taken

Table 6. Grading rubric for courses.

Assessment Value Each Total Value Notes
(pts.)
Quizzes 20 pts. 200 14 total, drop lowest 4
grades
Exams 100 pts. 400 4 total, lowest score replaced
with final exam % if higher
Final Exam 200 pts. 200
Total possible points 800
Extra Credit Attendance 1% 3% added to final grade percent
Quizzes

7
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Scores on all graded work, quizzes, and exams were compared for each
section. Students in both classes were given 14 quizzes through the semester, of
equal difficulty and question type, with five questions each. The mean raw score
for each of the quizzes along with statistical analysis of the differences in the
scores between classes is listed below in Table 7. Independent samples t-tests
were used to examine whether there were significant differences between the
various assessment metrics. Of all graded materials, the quizzes showed the most
variability with the flipped class having significantly higher scores for seven of
the quizzes, the traditional class having one quiz with significantly higher scores,
and the other quizzes having no significant difference between the two classes.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

Table 7. Analyses of flipped vs. traditional quiz scores.

Traditional Flipped
(N=269) (N=369)
Mean SD Mean SD t df
Quiz 1 2.68 .87 2.69 .88 -0.21 636
Quiz 2 2.46 1.43 2.85 1.31 -3.52a 636
Quiz 3 2.55 1.32 2.70 1.29 -1.42 636
Quiz 4 2.05 1.36 2.24 1.58 -1.60 636
Quiz 5 3.13 1.43 3.86 1.36 -6.54a 636
Quiz 6 2.94 1.61 3.24 1.52 -2.41b 636
Quiz 7 2.85 1.45 3.50 1.63 -5.17a 636
Quiz 8 3.29 1.53 3.85 1.60 -4.40a 636
Quiz 9 4.08 1.40 4.17 1.43 -0.82 636
Quiz 10 2.08 1.42 1.83 1.36 2.24b 636
Quiz 11 3.86 1.69 3.86 1.84 -0.05 636
Quiz 12 2.72 1.71 3.45 1.82 -5.12a 636
Quiz 13 2.39 1.65 2.51 1.71 -0.92 636
Quiz 14 3.52 1.78 3.34 1.97 1.21 636
a p<.01. b p<.05.

Exam scores shown in Table 8 present no consistent increase in achievement

for either method of instruction with the traditional class scoring higher on two
exams and the flipped class scoring higher on one. The scores for the final exam,
the American Chemical Society two-semester general chemistry exam (2011) are
similar for both classes. The overall (composite) scores for all quizzes and exams
were not statistically different for the two classes.

8
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 8. Analyses of flipped vs. traditional exam scores.
Traditional Flipped
(N=269) (N=369)
Mean SD Mean SD t df
Exam 1 10.90 3.70 12.96 3.25 -7.31a 531
Exam 2 14.45 3.96 13.80 4.11 2.02b 636
Exam 3 13.70 4.31 12.15 3.92 4.72a 636
Exam 4 11.60 4.67 11.78 4.74 -0.46 636
Final exam 40.24 12.28 41.47 13.15 -1.21 636
Exams + quizzes 68.90 15.27 70.64 15.04 -1.43 636
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

a p<.01. b p<.05.

Discussion and Conclusion

To encourage attendance for class time, attendance quizzes were given three
times during the semester, unannounced, and each counted for one percent added
to the final calculated percentage grade for the class. This provided an opportunity
to increase the final grade by up to three percent in both classes. Figure 1
shows the distribution of final grades without attendance credit for both classes
involved in this experiment. This data represents solely student performance on
assessments and allows for direct comparison of the different teaching modes
used. The percentages of D and F grades (and withdrawals) remained almost
the same in the flipped class as in the traditional class. This outcome was
disappointing since part of the motivation for testing the flipped modality was
to ascertain if this teaching style could reduce the number of lower-performing
students. Also, this outcome is not in agreement with other studies that found a
significant decrease in DFW grades using the flipped teaching method (5–7). One
reason for this could be due to the fact that great care was taken in this study to
only evaluate the effect of moving the lecture content to online access. Further
efforts to add more student-involved experiences during the problem solving
session held during class time may have improved the success of the students who
earned a DFW final grade. The percentage of C grades in the traditional lecture
class was almost six points higher than the flipped class, while the number of A
and B grades are three percent higher in the flipped class. One might conclude,
therefore, that those students who would otherwise be performing at an average
level were aided in improving their grades with the flipped teaching mode. It is
also logical that the more highly motivated students who might otherwise earn a
B in the class were helped to improve their grade to an A. The option of listening
to lectures multiple times through the online lectures and having more instructor
and peer-led practice in class most likely helped those who had improved grades;
however, data and the lack of survey questions directly associated with the
students’ grades cannot substantiate the validity of that speculation.

9
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

Figure 1. Comparison of final grades for both classes without points for
attendance included.

The results of the final grade comparison changes slightly with the addition
of the attendance credit (Figure 2). Students in the traditional class had an average
of 2.1 points for attendance and the flipped class had an average of 2.2 points for
attendance. With the exception of the percentage of students earning a C grade,
the distribution appears to have moved towards higher grades with a decrease in
D and F grades and an increase in A and B grades. The comparison of B grades
for the traditional class is higher than that of the flipped class but A grades still
are higher for the flipped class. The differences between the two sets of data are
mostly greater than three percent which suggests that many students were close to
a higher grade without the added point(s).
Furthermore, the consistency of improvement in grades with attendance credit
could be viewed as a valuable tool for the course given that students across grades
A through F were still coming to class.

10
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

Figure 2. Comparison of final grades for both classes with points for attendance.

Student Surveys

Student surveys provided valuable information on their perspectives and

experiences given the particular instructional method they experienced. One
survey was the standard Student Perception of Instruction survey (SPOI) offered
to all UCF students enrolled in a class and administered automatically by the
university within a two week period near the end of the semester. Students are
reminded that the survey is open when they enter the university portal. Response
rates for this survey were 58% in both the traditional (N=185) and flipped (N=239)
sections. The second survey was administered in each class and was developed
specifically for this research. Response rates were high for both courses, with 253
students (61%) completing the survey for the flipped section and 320 students
(68%) who responded to the survey for the traditional course.

11
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Student Perception of Instruction (SPOI)

Based on positive anecdotal feedback from students in class, it was expected

that the overall SPOI ratings would be similar for the two sections. However, those
who completed the SPOIs for the traditional class responded with higher overall
satisfaction and seemed to have more of a connection with the instructor than the
flipped class (Table 9). Possibly, this might have been influenced by the comfort
and experience of the instructor with the traditional lecture teaching format. Using
the 50-minute class period for problem-solving/small-group or individual work
was a new teaching mode and the instructor may not have been as approachable for
student interaction. The flipped class had the opportunity and flexibility to watch
and learn from the online lectures when it was convenient for them. They could
also review the lecture more than once, if desired, which led to high favorability
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

for the online component.

Table 9. Selected Survey Results

SPOI Survey Questions Traditional Class Flipped Class Response
Response
Overall evaluation of the 72% very good or 66% very good or
course excellent excellent
What did you like most Most common response: Most common response:
about the course (open ended 78% mentioned 54% mentioned online
question) professor characteristics component

Class-Specific Surveys

Several questions on the research-specific surveys revealed remarkably

similar attitudes among students from both classes. Students were asked what
grade they expected to make in the course and the percentage responses were
almost identical across the two sections (Table 10). If students were accurate
regarding their grade, then respondents’ grades deviate widely from the actual
overall class final grades, possibly reflecting a potential bias in who completed the
survey. Better-performing students often have better attendance and involvement,
and are likely to be a larger proportion of the respondents. If so, the survey will
not capture feedback from students who may not be as successful in the class
and have either dropped out or rarely attend. As the survey was anonymous,
researchers could not corroborate expected grade with students’ actual grades to
determine if their expectations were accurate.

12
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 10. Students’ expected grade in the course (%)
Traditional Flipped
(N=215) (N=250)
A/A- 23 25
B+/B/B- 38 37
C+/C/C- 36 36
D+/D/D- 3 2
F 1 0
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

When asked to rate the quality of the course, the responses from both classes,
shown in Table 11, were also very similar, χ2(4,469) = 0.55, p=.97. Overall, the
majority of students rated both sections as good or better.

Table 11. Students’ perceptions of overall course quality (%)

Traditional Flipped
(N=217) (N=253)
Poor 2 2
Fair 14 19
Good 35 30
Very Good 33 35
Excellent 16 15

The results in Table 12 show that both the traditional class and the flipped
class overwhelmingly chose the flipped mode when asked which teaching mode
would be more effective in helping them learn.

Table 12. Format students indicated helped them learn more (%)
Traditional Flipped
(N=215) (N=250)
Flipped 70 80
Traditional 30 20

13
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 However, if a department depends heavily on SPOI surveys to analyze
teaching for promotion, tenure and awards, switching to this method may be
preferred, and possibly benefit some students but could harm the instructor
if students rate non-tenured faculty lower in a flipped mode class. Certainly,
research is warranted to determine how best to utilize class time when using the
flipped method in order to maximize the benefit for students while minimizing
any burden or adverse effect on the instructor.
The flipped teaching mode requires students to be self-disciplined regarding
listening and watching modules each week prior to the live session in order to
prepare for in-class problem solving. Table 13 illustrates that 74% of students
indicated that they watched the recorded lectures in the same week it was covered
in class. This is certainly an important aspect of student success for the flipped
teaching mode. Another important advantage of the flipped class is being able to
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

watch and listen to lectures more than once. Table 13 shows that 86% of students
watched at least some lectures more than once.

Table 13. Students’ interaction with videos in flipped course (%).

Nev=Never, R=Rarely, S=Sometimes, M=Most of the time, A=Always
N Nev R S M A
Watch video in same week material
251 1 4 21 46 28
was covered
Wait to watch the videos close to
249 14 30 34 19 3
exam
Watch videos more than once 248 14 17 33 23 13

Table 14 illustrates a significant difference in the amount of homework that

students in the two sections indicated they completed: χ2(5,467) = 12.50, p=.03.
In the flipped section, 27% of students indicated that they completed 75% or more
of their homework, while in the traditional class 34% of students completed that
amount. This is a concern based on the difficulty of the class and the importance
of the homework toward successfully completing the class. Perhaps the students
in the flipped class believe they have mastered the concepts because they are
either watching the instructor work out problems or were involved in peer-problem
solving during class time.

14
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 14. Homework completed by students (%)
Traditional Flipped
(N=216) (N=251)
0-None 19 13
1-24% 12 14
25-49% 13 22
50-74% 22 25
75-99% 20 19
100%-All 14 8
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

Responses to students’ opinions of various class aspects and teaching formats

are shown in Table 15. At least 80% of respondents in both classes found the
lectures helpful to their understanding of chemistry with 10% more students in
the flipped classroom strongly agreeing to this. Chi square analysis indicated
a difference between the two classes in this regard χ2(4,469) = 12.67, p=.01.
Regarding homework, 66% (traditional class) and 74% (flipped class) found it
helpful. This 8% difference in attitude towards homework may help to explain the
higher grade distribution in the flipped class. However, the respondents from the
flipped class may consider the class time problem solving as equivalent to their
solving homework problems, and therefore spent less time on their own working
problems. Chi square analysis indicated no difference between the two classes on
their perceptions of the usefulness of homework χ2(4,470) = 3.63, p=.46.
The next two questions queried students from the traditional class on the use
of online lectures; 53% of those students thought they would benefit from online
lectures, which is remarkably similar to the responses from the flipped class for
the open-ended question ‘what did you like most about the course?’ from the
SPOI (see Table 9). Many students asked if the in class lectures could be posted
online. The concern of course is whether or not students would still come to class
if they know they can listen to lectures online. This professor has considerable
doubt that students would attend in-person lectures unless the class-time is very
different from the online component or specific incentives, such as extra credit or
quizzes, compel them to come to class. The final question in Table 15 presents
an important summation of student attitude toward the teaching style of the class
in which they participated and Chi square analysis illustrates the difference in the
courses χ2(4,464) = 25.12, p=.00. Students in the flipped class (68%) agreed or
strongly agreed that they would take another class using that format of teaching
and 74% of students in the traditional class were comfortable with the standard
lecture teaching mode. The traditional response was predictable given it is the
teaching mode with which they are familiar. While not quite as positive, the 68%
positive response for the flipped class indicates students were comfortable with
this style of teaching and found value in it after experiencing it.

15
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 15. Student opinion of the following statements (%). SD=Strongly
Disagree, D=Disagree, U=Unsure, A=Agree, SA=Strongly Agreea
SD D U A SA
T F T F T F T F T F
The lectures helped my 0 2 7 6 13 8 56 50 24 34
understanding of chemistry
The homework problems 1 1 7 4 26 22 42 46 24 28
helped my understanding of
chemistry
It would be helpful if the 1 - 6 - 10 - 31 - 53 -
lectures were videotaped and
made available online
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

I would still come to class if 3 - 6 - 21 - 36 - 34 -

lectures were videotaped and
made available online
I would take a class with this 1 6 9 7 17 19 51 31 23 37
format again
aNote: a dash (-) indicates the question was only available to the traditional class.
T=traditional section; F=flipped section.

Challenges, Benefits, and Helpful Hints: Advice from the Author

This section is largely directed towards faculty who would try to flip a class
for the first time. The biggest challenge for me was to convey the same information
to the flipped class using slides and voice that I provide in person using physical
movements to the traditional class to make my point understandable. I quickly
learned to hear my own words from a different perspective and realized this
teaching mode creates student vulnerability. When words are recorded, using
incorrect terminology, omission, skipping a phrase, etc. could handicap some
students, especially those whose major mode of learning is listening to lectures.
I recorded many slides, multiple times, before I was satisfied with the clarity
of the message. I also incorporated some links for students to view videos of
demonstrations from the internet and made them available to both classes. The
recording process was definitely more difficult than I had imagined but it was also
a very useful exercise in self-awareness of my communication style. Increased
planning time for the flipped lecture is absolutely necessary.
Voice control when recording also involves practice: too monotone and your
students will fall asleep; too animated eliminates effectiveness when changing tone
to stress a point.
Early in the semester, students in both classes thought the other class had the
advantage. I expected this response from both classes. This would not be an issue
unless a professor chose to use both modes of teaching in the same semester or
frequently alternates teaching modes over semesters.
I strongly recommend weekly quizzes for using the flipped mode for a
chemistry course as encouragement for staying up to date with the lectures. For
16
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 this particular course, if a student gets behind by even one week it will likely alter
the level of his/her success. I kept an online calendar noting dates when each
lecture should be finished (for the flipped class) and which lectures or chapter
sections (for the traditional class) would be covered on the weekly quiz. Many
students commented on how much they appreciated the calendar.
I focused problem solving in class on material covered in the most recently
assigned lectures to encourage students to maintain the lecture schedule. This
allowed more time for students to work problems and help each other master the
challenging problems. While this peer instruction can create chaos in a large class,
students asked questions and engaged in discussion more after peer instruction than
when I worked out the problem.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

Conclusions
This study was an attempt to investigate one change in the traditionally taught
general chemistry class at UCF. Based on the final grades of the two classes, the
flipped mode may be of use to some students in the class as more students in that
class made an A or B. Some motivated students can use this change in teaching
style to improve their grades, but from this limited experiment it would appear
that students who are not performing at a high level may not be helped by this
method. The material covered in the course is difficult for some students and
simply flipping the lecture content may not have been enough intervention to help
these students. More improvement in grades may be achieved by using the online
component for other materials, possibly recorded problem-solving sessions posted
online, or having some lectures in class and others online. Using the flipped mode
for teaching does not have to be all or nothing and may be most beneficial to large
classes with a hybrid approach. Student perceptions of the flipped method were
largely positive. The majority of those surveyed expressing willingness to take
another flipped class indicates a reason to attempt further efforts.
Using the flipped method is more time-consuming for the instructor, at least
for the first semester during the change. However, once the recorded lectures
are made, improving/updating the lectures for future use will require much less
time. The process of making the recordings is an excellent self-evaluation of one’s
teaching and lecturing styles.
Certainly, more research to examine the nuances of which students might best
be helped by the flipped method is needed. Given the recent advances in analytics
for lecture-capture platforms, this may also be a new source of data to allow for
precise documentation of how students interact with the videos, rather than relying
on student anecdote and memory.

References
1. Alvarez, B. Robert Townsend. NEA Today 2012, 27–29.
2. Bergmann, J.; Waddell, D. To flip or not to flip? Learn. Leading Technol.
2012, 6–7.
17
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 3. Abeysekera, L.; Dawson, P. Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped
classroom: definition,rationale and a call for research. Higher Educ. Res.
Dev. 2015, 34, 1–14.
4. Saitta E.; Waldrop J.; Bowdon M. Joining the Flipped Classroom
Conversation. In Best Practices for Flipping the College Classroom;
Waldrop, J., Bowdon, M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, 2015; pp 1−16
5. Flynn, A. B. Structure and evaluation of flipped chemistry courses: organic &
spectroscopy, large and small, first to third year, English and French. Chem.
Educ. Res. Pract 2015, 16, 198–211.
6. Weaver, G. C.; Sturtevant, H. G. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation
of a Flipped Format General Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92,
1437–1448.
7. Ryan, M. D.; Reid, S. A. Impact of the Flipped Classroom on Student
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001

Performance and Retention: A Parallel Controlled Study in General

Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 13–23.
8. Schneider, J.; Munro, I.; Krishnan, S. Flipping the Classroom for
Pharmacokinetics. Am. J. Educ. Res. 2014, 2, 1225–1229.
9. Waldrop, J. Flipping the Graduate Course in Nursing: Application to Solve
Patients’ Health Problems. In Best Practices for Flipping the College
Classroom; Waldrop, J., Bowdon, M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY,
2015; pp 44−54.

18
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Chapter 2

The Effectiveness of Course Flipping in General

Chemistry – Does It Work?
Dominick Casadonte*
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Texas Tech University,

1 Memorial Circle, Lubbock, Texas 79409
*E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

The author has been involved in flipping classes in both on-line

and face-to-face formats since 2008. In this study, I have
flipped the Honors General Chemistry course sequence at
Texas Tech University from the fall of 2010 through the fall
of 2015. All of the pre-class lectures were recorded using the
Mediasite platform and placed on Blackboard for students to
watch in advance of class time. Online web learning homework
assignments were used to determine if students had watched
the lecture. Class time was used 1) in a discussion format to
summarize lectures and clear up muddy conceptual points, and
2) to work advanced problems using a variety of active learning
modalities. The efficacy of the method was determined by
giving exams that had been given to other honors classes 5 years
previously as a baseline and comparing exam results, as well
as through standardized ACS content exams. I was especially
interested in the pre-post differential percentile rankings as
an indication of improvement in student learning outcomes
over time. A 40-question Likert assessment and a 40-question
free-response assessment were also given to the students in a
pre-post format. Results of the various assessments, as well as
the effectiveness of the method for different student cohorts,
are discussed.

© 2016 American Chemical Society

Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Introduction
The Concept of Course Flipping

The beginning of the terminology associated with “course flipping” can be

traced to Lage’s discussion of the “inverted classroom” in the early 2000’s (1).
In its most general concept, the inverted classroom allows for the movement
of learning activities which have historically occurred inside the classroom
and during class time to be recontextualized as activities to be conducted in an
extramural or asynchronous setting, freeing up classroom time for alternatives
to the traditional lecture. The inverted classroom was designed to provide
flexibility with regard to students’ differing learning modalities as well as to
accommodate the variety of teaching styles used by faculty. The idea of using
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

technology to move lecture content outside of the physical classroom in order to

allow for greater discussion and more engaged and active learning strategies in
the classroom environment has been dubbed, in different settings, “time-shifted
(a term that has been co-opted from the video industry during the court battles
between Universal and Sony in 1984) instruction” (2), “reverse instruction”
(3), and “naked teaching” (4), and has been particularly effective in terms of
increasing the amount of time in the classroom that can be devoted to discussion
in the arts, humanities, and professional schools (5–10).
Although the concept of moving the traditional lecture outside of the
classroom in order to provide learning space during class time for active learning
strategies has been around for more than a decade, the application and coining of
the term “course flipping” to a chemistry classroom environment is credited to the
pioneering work of two high school chemistry teachers, Jonathan Bergmann and
Aaron Sams, in 2012 (11). They began by asking the question, “how can we use
our in-class time more effectively to teach our students chemistry?”. This query
led them to the use of technology to flip the traditional lecture-homework-test
paradigm so common in the traditional chemistry course at the high school level.
Shortly thereafter the term “flipped classroom” was applied at the university
level. Since the advent of course flipping in particular in the university chemistry
course environment, the number of cases where flipping has been examined as
an alternative and perhaps superior pedagogy has substantially increased. The
flipped chemistry classroom has been tried and evaluated in general chemistry
classes (12–18), in organic chemistry classes (19–23), in physical chemistry
lecture courses (24, 25), in analytical chemistry classes (26), in biochemistry
classrooms (27), and in chemistry laboratory classes (28–30). The flipping of
chemistry classes both at the K-12 and university levels has been the subject of
reviews (31, 32) and at least two ACS symposia (33, 34).

Advantages and Disadvantages of Course Flipping

Many potential advantages, both with regard to student learning outcomes as

well as for the instructor, exist in the flipped pedagogy compared to the traditional
classroom. Some of these include:

20
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 For the Student:
1. Students are more engaged in their own learning
2. There is the real potential for more engaged time on task
3. Students can review the lecture as often as they would like or need
4. Students can watch the lecture when most convenient between real-time
interaction with the instructor
5. Better scheduling of class; students know what to study
6. It allows the students to learn at their own pace
7. Flexibility of the platform: Students can use computers or portable
devices (smart phones, etc) to watch the videos, and are hence not tied
to the classroom or technology class setting
8. Potentially less time required for exam preparation
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

For the Instructor:

1. The instructor can produce specific, targeted lecture topics and materials
2. It allows the instructor greater design and control of the classroom setting
3. It provides more flexibility in designing classroom interaction
4. It provides for increased interaction with students in the classroom
5. The instructor has time to use guided inquiry in the classroom if desired
6. A better understanding of student’s thinking often emerges
7. It puts the responsibility for learning significantly into the hands of the
students
8. It can (depending upon the design of the course) allow more time on task
for the student
9. It allows for the identification of groups of students during the classroom
session in need of remediation and the consequent development of peer
or teacher-led mini-tutorials.
10. It potentially saves time by not having to repeat lectures or topics from
year to year
11. Since the assignments are placed on the internet, various educational
platforms (e.g., Blackboard) allow the instructor to determine whether
or not students have watched the videos
12. Assessments can be built in prior to class attendance
13. Chat rooms can be set up and out-of-class discussion with the instructor
or teaching assistant can occur to facilitate understanding during the pre-
class experience
14. It can potentially improve exam and class performance
15. Asymmetric learning situations are possible
16. Can be done in a purely online format, if there is real-time instructor
interaction online
17. Flipping has value added relative to online classes, in that there is face-
to-face in-class active learning to complement video presentations. The
instructor is a necessary component to the success of student learning and
student learning outcomes (SLOs).

21
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 There are, to be fair, some disadvantages that have been identified to flipping
a course, especially the first time that the course is taught (31, 32, 35). These
include:

1. Time-intensive to set up
2. Can lead to poorer class attendance
3. Can cause students to disengage
4. Takes more time for the student
5. Potentially more difficult for ESL students?
6. Requires responsible student
7. Works well for majors and honors students, but may not be as effective
for lower-performing students
8. May not be as effective for lower socioeconomic groups who do may not
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

have access to technology

Items (4)–(8) require some additional commentary. The existing literature

concerning ESL students tend to indicate that, contrary to anecdotal belief, the
use of a flipped classroom setting actually increases the verbal fluency and use
of language of ESL students (5). With regard to the level of engagement, prior
knowledge, or performance level of the students within a class, the data are mixed.
Some studies have indicated that there is statistically little difference in learning
outcomes between upper and lower performing students (12, 13), while others
have observed that the learning improvements occurred for the higher-performing
students. With regard to weaker students in the class, some studies have shown
little or no improvement (15), while others have shown substantive learning gains
by previously bottom performing students (36). It has been suggested by a number
of practitioners that the improvements that occur in the flipped setting depend,
to a certain extent, on the nature of the active learning strategies involved (12).
In studies at both open-enrollment colleges (37) as well as for primarily HBCUs
(38), significant learning gains have been observed by the use of course flipping
techniques.

The Flipping Components

As Bergmann and Sams have pointed out (11), there is no specific way to flip
a class, and, in fact, the ability to flip a classroom in a variety of ways is one of the
strengths of the pedagogy. It is useful, however, to consider the flipping process
in terms of five possible components that may be blended to provide the actual
flipped environment:
• Pre-Class Instruction: This can take the form of instructor-prepared online
videos , textual, or multimedia presentations as well as those that can be found
online (such as those produced by the Khan Academy) (39). Depending upon
the context, students can either access the online information separately or work
together in groups using various collaboration software.
• Pre-Class Assessment: This is often done using a web-based assessment
package from either professional content managers or through learning

22
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 management systems. It could also include active learning assessments such as
Just-In-Time Teaching (40), POGIL, or hands-on activities.
• In-Class Discussion: This methodology is often used to help the students
recap the material from the pre-class instruction. It is also useful to clear up muddy
points or misconceptions. Case studies have also been used as a vehicle for in-class
discussion of topics (41).
• In-Class Active Learning Activities: This, again, can take many forms,
including POGIL, Think-Pair-Share, Clickers, Active Response Systems, etc.
One of the hallmarks of the flipped classroom is that the active learning strategies
implemented are dependent upon the needs of the students and the ability and
imagination of the instructor.
• In-Class Assessment: Many possibilities exist here, including short quizzes,
authentic activity assessements, online quizzing, etc.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

These components within the pre-class and in-class activities may, to a certain
extent, be mixed and matched according the needs of the students and instructor
and the effectiveness of the pedagogies that one employs. As new technologies
and strategies for active learning unfold, the opportunities for even richer flipped
environments will appear.

Definition of Course Flipping

For the purposes of the rest of this chapter, I will define course flipping as the
process by which the typical lecture-homework-lecture-homework-test-lecture-
homework paradigm is altered so that the lecture content is delivered outside of
class, typically in an online or multimedia setting. The “in-class” time (whether
face-to-face or in real-time online interaction, usually through video) can be spent
having in-depth discussion for mastery or by engaging the students in any number
of active learning strategies. This is the working definition employed in this study
of the efficacy of the flipped class.

The Study
Concurrent with many of the studies cited, I have recently completed a
five-and-a-half year longitudinal study concerning the effectiveness of course
flipping in a moderately-sized honors general chemistry class. My fundamental
research question was whether or not course flipping would provide significant
improvements in learning outcomes in a general chemistry classroom setting.
The following will discuss the manner of the study as well as the outcomes. This
study was approved by the Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board.

The Course of Instruction

The author began course flipping in the spring semester of 2009 in an on-line
graduate conceptual chemistry class taught at Texas Tech University as part of
a multidisciplinary master’s science degree. The methodology was borne from
much the same motivation that Bergmann and Sams had for flipping at the high
23
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 school level, i.e., to be able to maximize teaching effectiveness during the limited
time available with the students. By 2010 it was clear to the author that “course
flipping” (as the term had been coined) could potentially provide a more effective
means of improving SLOs in the general chemistry classroom than through the
normal lecture-homework-exam paradigm. A study was begun to evaluate the
efficacy of the pedagogy. The first classes involved were the Honors General
Chemistry courses for F 2011 - S 2012 at Texas Tech University (CHEM 1307,
Principles of Chemistry I (Fall) and CHEM 1308, Principles of Chemistry II
(Spring)). The courses contained 75 and 70 students, respectively, and met T Th
9:30 AM – 10:50 AM. In 2015 the class size was increased to 96 students to cover
an increasing population of honors students.
All of the lectures for each course were pre-recorded in the summer of 2011
(for CHEM 1307) and the fall of 2011 (for CHEM 1308) using a Mediasite®
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

recorder, a document camera, and a video camera. The Mediasite® recorder

had picture-in-picture capabilities. All of the lectures were composed of class
notes with strategic blanks for examples to be worked. The notes were provided
to the students, who could then fill in the blanks while watching the lectures.
This allowed for a tactile component to the learning process as well as the visual
and audio representations in the recordings. The lectures were subsequently
re-recorded in the summer of 2015 in high definition. Table 1 shows the
characteristics of the lectures. Although the average lecture time was over 30
minutes, in a free-response survey given at the end of the first year of flipped
instruction in CHEM 1308, 67% of the students thought that the videos were not
too long. The author has polled the students in the CHEM 1308 classes every
year from 2012-2015 concerning the length of the videos and has found a similar
response. The main comment was that the students could pause the videos if they
wanted to parse the time spent in viewing. There have been limited studies in the
STEM disciplines concerning video length as it relates to improved SLOs (42).
The author is currently performing a study of video length as it relates to course
flipping in general chemistry.

Table 1. Lecture Characteristics

Lecture Times
No. of Videos Shortest Longest Average
CHEM 1307 26 3:40 64:35 33:20
CHEM 1308 27 19:27 47:17 31:25

The syllabus carefully listed the lecture number and the topic for each class.
Each lecture was correlated to a folder on the Learning Management System
(LMS; here, Blackboard) that contained the videotaped lecture, a set of notes to be
filled in, and a link to the Cengage online learning platform OWL for post-video
quizzing. After watching each lecture (homework), the students then worked
6-10 homework questions using the OWL format (Mastery question bank). The

24
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 scores were then recorded, and counted for 150 points out of a total of 800 points
allotted for the course. This allowed for a determination of who had watched the
videos each week.
Class time was divided into two parts:

- First half: Review of the lecture material. During this time, the instructor
checked (in a discussion format) for main ideas and was able to clear up
any misconceptions. In this way the instructor could determine what the
class had learned by watching the videos, and could provide additional
information and insight, as well as prevent any misconceptions or
muddiness from propagating through the curriculum. This review often
involved a variety of techniques, including having the students “act out”
molecular-level processes.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

- Second half: This involved problem solving, using problems from the
textbook (Oxtoby, Gillis, and Campion/Butler, Principles of Modern
Chemistry. 7th and 8th Eds., Cengage Learning, 2012 and 2015) (43, 44)
which had been previously indicated in the syllabus, so that the students
could try the problems before coming to class, if so desired. Problems
were worked in a variety of formats, depending upon the material and the
class including group work, going to the board, modeling the answers,
think-pair-share, etc.)

In addition to class time, the class was roughly divided in half and attended
one of two zero-credit hour 1.5-hour discussion sections. The discussion section
had additional interaction with the course material as well as preparation for a
quiz given during each of the sections (one quiz per week per student). Three
exams were given during the semester, as well as a final exam (cumulative). An
ACS End-of-Term exam was administered as a pre- and post- test. As a way on
incentivizing the exam, students were told that if they scored at or above the 90th
percentile in the post-test, they did not have to take the class-based final exam.
An additional item that is often discussed is the number of contact hours in
the flipped model compared to course credit hours, so that the students are not
engaged for longer than the number of credit hours mandate. This is not really an
issue, as in a traditional lecture-homework format, the out of class homework can
take a variable number of hours, depending on the number and level of difficulty
of questions asked. Care is often taken in the development of flipped classes
so that if there is out-of-class assessment, the number of questions is relatively
small (here 6-10 low to moderate-level questions, to assess initial understanding
of the lecture material only). Given the in-class time constraints, the number of
advanced problems worked is usually small (in this study, typically 3-5, after an
initial discussion).

Evaluation of the Model: Methods of Assessment

Four methods of assessment were involved to determine whether or not
course flipping in the method described above would be able to improve learning
outcomes. These include:
25
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 • Method I: Class-based Exam Score Comparisons
• Method II: ACS End-of-Term Exam Score Comparisons
• Method III: 40 –Question Likert Scale Questionnaire
• Method IV: Free-Response Questionnaire (Spring, 2012)

Evaluation of the Model: Results and Outcomes

The author has been the only teacher of the Honors sections of CHEM 1307
and 1308 since 1998, and, as such, has access to data for relatively homogeneous
student populations over time (the average SAT scores (verbal + math; pre-2012
scale) over the period of study was 1350 ± 50). Consequently, a historical approach
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

has been used for comparison. The demographics of the study group are shown in
Table 2.

Table 2. Demographics of Study Group

Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Spring Spring Spring Spring
2006 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2007 2012 2014 2015
Male
44 58 45 58 49 43 35 53 43 38
%
Female
56 42 55 42 51 57 65 47 57 62
%
White
93 84 88 80 78 79 88 77 69 72
%
Hispanic
4 5 7 7 7 12 7 7 19 7
%
Asian/
Other 2 11 5 12 14 9 2 14 11 20
%
Black
0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 1
%

Table 3 provides the average scores for the three exams and final exam that
were given in the fall of 2006 in CHEM 1307 (pre-flipped) as well as the fall exam
periods from 2011-2013, the years in which the study was conducted. For each
comparative data set, a 1-tailed heteroscedastic t test was performed to determine
the statistical significance.

26
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 3. Exam Score Comparisons, CHEM 1307, Fall, 2011 - 2015
Exam I Signifi-
Exam II Exam III Final Average
(Std Dev) cance
F 2006 -
77.8(14.8) 77.9(12.8) 79.9(11.2) 78.8(12.0) 78.6(12.7)
(n= 45)
F 2011 (p =
87.5(9.2) 85.4(10.3) 85.8(10.0) 92.4(14.9) 87.8(11.1)
(n = 73) 0.0011)
F 2012 (p =
92.6(6.3) 85.8(7.7) 84.5(11.9) 90.6(10.3) 87.6(9.1)
(n = 75) 0.0026)
F 2013 (p =
90.2(7.1) 87.4(12.2) 83.2(12.3) 89.8(13.4) 87.7(11.3)
(n = 76) 0.0022)
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

F 2014 (p =
90.6(5.8) 90.4(7.2) 87.2(8.8) 88.1(10.1) 89.1(8.0)
(n = 74) 0.0023)
F 2015 (p =
90.9(10.1) 86.7(11.8) 88.8(7.8) 87.8(12.9) 88.6(10.6)
(n = 89) 0.0024)
Average (p =
90.4(8.9) 87.1(10.3) 85.9(10.3) 89.7(12.3) 88.3(10.5)
Score 0.00008)
Average
12.6 9.2 6.0 10.9 9.7
Δ

It is important to note that the exams given in the flipped classes were the exact
exams given in 2006. Consequently, in this part of the study, the same instructor,
same content, and same exams were used. As Table 3 demonstrates, the average
increase in the exam scores as a result of using the course flipping pedagogy is more
than nine percent. Each of the increases for each set of exams in the flipped class
years relative to the pre-flipped year for CHEM 1307 are statistically significant
at the p < 0.01 level. This is especially notable, given that the number of students
taking the course increased by nearly 70% from 2006 to 2011. The more effective
use of classroom time seems to be one reason for the increase in test scores. A
similar effect was seen during the second semester of general chemistry, as noted
in Table 4. The author did not teach this course in 2013.
As in the case with CHEM 1307, the 2012 and 2007 exams were the same.
Again, each of the increases for each set of exams in the flipped class years relative
to the pre-flipped year for CHEM 1308 are statistically significant at the p < 0.01
level. The largest effect during the three years of the study was observed in the
final exam statistics for CHEM 1308. There are several possible reasons why this
might be the case. The ability to review the material due to the recorded nature
of the lectures has been cited by the students (vide infra). Also, the continual
preparation afforded by additional active learning during class time provides for a
stronger ability for synthesis (the final exams were, in all cases, cumulative).

27
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 4. Exam Score Comparisons, CHEM 1308, Spring, 2012-2015
Exam I Signifi-
Exam II Exam III Final Average
(Std Dev) cance
S 2007
84.6(12.2) 81.4(9.5) 83.6(8.0) 72.8(13.8) 78.6(10.9)
(n = 43)
S 2012 (p =
91.2(6.5) 84.7(7.9) 86.2(10.5) 87.4(14.1) 87.3(9.8)
(n = 70) 0.0015)
S 2014 (p =
89.6(8.3) 84.5(8.3) 86.4(12.5) 87.9(17.5) 87.1(11.7)
(n = 75) 0.0020)
S 2015 (p =
90(5.6) 86.7(6.7) 88.8(7.2) 87.9(10.5) 88.4(7.5)
(n = 82) 0.0016)
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

Average (p =
90.3(8.2) 85.3(8.1) 87.1(9.6) 87.7(14.0) 87.6(10.0)
Score 0.0017)
Average Δ 5.7 3.9 2.5 14.9 9.0

In an attempt to mitigate any instructor bias in the preparation of the

assessments, the 2005-2006 American Chemical Society First and Second Term
General (EOT I and II) algorithmic exams were administered to the students
(except in 2007, when a shorter, conceptual test was given; these results are not
reported, due the differing nature of the test). The results of the exam scores for
students scoring over the 95th and 80th percentiles on the 2005 ACS First Term
General Chemistry exam over a ten-year period are shown in Table 5. It is striking
that in the pre-flipped 2009 class only two students scored at or above the 80th
percentile. Once flipping began in earnest in 2011, the number of students scoring
above this benchmark began to significantly increase (an average of 16.0% ± 6.2
scored above the 80th percentile pre-flipping, while 23.2% ± 4.2 scored above the
80th percentile post-flipping (p = 0.09)). Given that the exam was administered to
a relatively homogeneous student population with the same instructor teaching
the class each year, it is strongly suggestive that the enhanced student attention
and time on task provided in the flipped environment is a likely cause of the
improvement.
Similar results were observed for the two most recent years in which CHEM
1308 was taught by the author, using the 2006 ACS Second Term General
Chemistry Exam as a comparison with the spring semester of 2010 (Table 6).
Spring of 2010 was the last semester that CHEM 1308 was taught in a non-flipped
format.

28
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 5. 2005 ACS First Term General Chemistry Exam Comparisons for
CHEM 1307
F 2005 F 2006 F 2008a F 2009 F 2010
Above 95th %ile 3 3 0 0 2
80-94th %ile 5 9 6 2 6
Total >80 %ile (%) 8 (18.6) 12 (26.1) 6 (13.6) 2 (4.2) 8 (17.4)
F 2011 F 2012 F 2013 F 2014 F 2015
Above 95th %ile 5 4 1 4 9
80-94th %ile 10 9 7 11 22
Total >80 %ile (%) 15 (20.0) 13 (18.3) 8 (23.5) 15 (20.3) 31 (33.7)
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

a In 2007 a short form of the ACS End-of-Term Exam was used

Table 6. 2006 ACS End-of-Term II Exam Comparisons for CHEM 1308

Sp 2010 Sp 2014 Sp 2015
Above 95th %ile 3 3 10
80-94th %ile 2 9 13
Total >80%ile(%) 5 (10.4) 12 (16.4) 23 (27.7)

Several other studies have used the ACS-end-of term exam average percentile
rankings as indicators of overall improvements in SLOs using the flipped course
format compared to a traditional lecture format (12, 14). One criticism that
could be raised about using percentile averages is that it does not provide an
indication of overall learning gains throughout the course of the semester, merely
an indication of the relative content knowledge of the students at the end of the
course of instruction only. If the students entered the course with significant prior
knowledge, then a marginal increase in percentile score might be expected using
either a traditional or a flipped course approach. This would still be recorded as
a significantly high score.
In an attempt to determine whether the flipped course of instruction resulted
in significant increases in content knowledge (at least in an algorithmic sense, as
the conceptual ACS exam was not routinely administered), we performed a pre-
post differential analysis for CHEM 1307 comparing F 2008 with F 2015. These
were the two years with the largest differentials between pre- and post-flipping
percentiles within the data set. The results are shown in Figure 1. The histograms
are presented as the percent of students within each class that achieved the pre-post
differential within the given bin. Percentages are used to normalize to class sizes.
The normal distribution is superimposed for each year.

29
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

Figure 1. Percentile Differentials for 2008 and 2015 ACS EOT I Exam

The average normal differentials are 35 and 42 for 2008 and 2015 respectively.
The results are significant at the p < 0.01 level. A similar and more compelling
result is seen for the spring 2010 and spring 2015 pre-post percentile differentials
(Figure 2). The average normal differentials are 27 and 34 for 2008 and 2015
respectively. The results are significant at the p < 0.001 level. These data tend to
indicate that the use of the flipped class pedagogy significantly increases student
learning outcomes compared to the traditional lecture format throughout the course
of an entire semester of study for honors students. Since the students in this study
were honors students who were pre-selected by the Honors College to be placed
in the class, we can add little to the question of whether or not a flipped class
environment will be of benefit to lower-level students.

Figure 2. Percentile Differentials for the 2010 and 2015 ACS EOT II Exam
30
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 It should be noted that only small variations in the average pre-test percentile
scores were noted between the years shown in Figures 1 and 2 (EOT I Exam, 2008,
21.4 ± 8.9; 2015, 23.2 ± 11.5; EOT II Exam, 2010, 16.4 ± 9.2; 2015, 16.8 ± 8.75),
further indicating the significance of the pre-post differential.

Likert Questionnaire

A questionnaire was administered to the students in each class over the course
of the 2011-2012 academic year. The number of students responding in the fall of
2011 (CHEM 1307) was 63, while 43 provided responses in the spring of 2012
in CHEM 1308. The following are some of the significant responses (score >
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

3.0) using a 1 (disagree; negative) to 5 (agree; positive) Likert scale for the fall,
2011 CHEM 1307 class. The numbers in parentheses refer to the positive response
percentage in the spring 2012 CHEM 1308 class, and the number in brackets refers
to the average score for the spring class.
• 52 (70) % [3.50 ± 0.55] of students thought that they spent more time in the
flipped course
• 78 (86) % [4.05 ± 0.93] of the class felt that time shifting put more of the
responsibility for learning the material on the student
• 57 (77) % [3.65 ± 0.61] of the class agreed that there was increased
interaction between the professor and class in the time-shifted format compared
to other classes
• 75 (91) % [4.03 ± 0.88] of the class felt that the instructor worked an adequate
number of examples in class.
• 78 (90) % [4.34 ± 1.16] of students believed that the instructor was a partner
in their learning of chemistry.
• 69 (67) % [4.03 ± 0.91] of students liked the use of OWL to test their
understanding after watching the lecture
• 77 (93) % [3.26 ± 0.20] of students, knowing what they know now, would
NOT have taken a different section.
• 37 (72) % [3.90 ± 0.92] of students would take another time-shifted course
again while 23% felt that this was n/a.
• 55 (84) % [3.57 ± 0.66] of the students felt that the time-shifted lecture/
discussion section format was useful, while 22 (7) % of the students did not.
It should be noted that the increase in positive responses during the spring
semester is most likely due to the fact that the majority of the students who took
CHEM 1308 took CHEM 1307 the previous semester in a flipped format.

Free-Response Questionnaire

In addition to the Likert-scale questionnaire, a free response section on the

questionnaire given after the CHEM 1308 course was complete provides some
useful information with regard to some of the mechanical aspects of the course.
Some of the relevant data include:
31
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 • How many lectures per week did you actually watch? 79% of the students
watched all of the lectures.
Commentary: This tends to indicate that the students did not pick and choose
which lectures to watch.
• How many classes per week did you actually attend? 86% of the students
attended every class.
Commentary: This allayed some of the fear that students would believe
that watching the out-of-class videos was sufficient to provide all of the relevant
content for the course.
• When watching the lectures did you actually watch it as if you were actually
attending class? 74% of the students watched the lectures as if actually attending
class.
Commentary: The students tended to treat the videos in an analogous fashion
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

to actually attending the lecture. The use of a notebook with blanks that could be
filled in while watching the video probably enhanced this effect.
• Did you watch the video lectures as review for quizzes and exams? 60% of
the students did NOT watch the video lectures as review for quizzes and exams.
Commentary: Although the students did not watch the entire video lecture
set as a review for exams or quizzes, they reported that they spot-watched the video
as a review for topics that were somewhat unclear for them.
• Did you think this method of teaching left more time for procrastination
between tests compared to a traditional lecture style? 53% of the students said
that this method did not leave more time for procrastination.
Commentary: The pace of the course was designed to relatively closely
match the number of contact hours relative to the traditional lecture course.
How many hours per week on average did you study for this class? 76% of
the students studied between 2-4 hours per week. 17% of the students studied
more than 4 hours. 7% of the students studied less than 2 hours.
Commentary: The reduction in the number of hours on average that the
students “studied” for the course is most likely due to the increased repetition
(albeit in different formats) with which they worked with the various topics in
the course. They studied less because their study time was used more efficiently.
• How many hours do you prepare for each test? 36% of the students prepared
1-2 hours; 20% of the students prepared 3-4 hours; 27% of the students prepared
5-6 hours; 17% prepare 7 or more hours.
Commentary: The reduction in the number of hours on average that the
students “studied” for exams is again most likely due to more efficient time on
task.
• When you attended class, on a scale of 1-5 did you actually work the
problems with the professor (5) or just simply write the answers down (1)? Those
answering 3-5: 81%. Those answering 0-2: 19%.
Commentary: This is almost of necessity, as the problems were worked using
active and engaged learning strategies.
• On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being no, 5 being very important) did you think you
actually needed to watch the lectures to earn a good grade in this class? 79% of
the students answered 4-5.

32
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Commentary: This partially speaks to the effectiveness of the video
presentations as well as its initial use in terms of providing content.
• Did you think this was an effective way to teach? 88% of the students
thought this was an effective way to teach.
Commentary: This is a compelling response.
• Did you think discussion sessions were useful in this teaching style? 98%
of the students thought the discussion sessions were useful.
Commentary: It is not surprising that in an Honors class more time on task
would be welcome.
• What do you think about the length of the videos? Too long, too short, just
right? 67% of the students said the length was just right.
Commentary: The students also indicated that they appreciated having
control of how to parse the videos. One aspect of other studies related to flipping
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

(11) indicate that seeing one’s instructor on a video or multimedia presentation

helps to provide buy-in for the students. Flipping is less effective when there is
a disconnect between the instructor and the content.
• What do you think about the quality of the video? 64% of the students said
the quality was fine. The other responses mentioned that the handwriting was
sometimes hard to read.
Commentary: This was remedied in 2015 when the videos were re-recorded
in HD format with superior recording equipment. Another important aspect of the
flipping experience is the quality of both the out-of-class instruction as well as the
engagement mechanism during class time.
• Would videos of misconceptions be useful or can they be covered in
class? 50% of the students said that misconceptions could be covered in class.
40% of the students did not comment. 10% of the students said that videos of
misconceptions would be useful.
Commentary: It is important that the instruction not rely solely on videos
or video capture. There is research data that suggest that internet videos alone
can actually reinforce scientific misconceptions, as, even though the students
feel comfortable that they have learned the material, there is not the depth of
interaction or reflection in the one-way transmission of information for the
student to understand that what is presented may differ from the prior knowledge
(misconception) that they may have. However, research also suggests that
discussion of misconceptions in the flipped classroom setting is effective both in
terms of removing the misconceptions as well as significantly improving learning
outcomes (45). One of the value-added components of the time-shifted classroom
is enhanced interaction between the faculty member and students in real time
during what was formerly the lecture period.
• On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being no, 5 being very important) did you think
watching the lectures was a major factor in how you performed on tests and
quizzes? 69% of the students answered 4-5: watching the videos was a major
factor in performance
Commentary: Both aspects of the flipping paradigm (out-of-class content,
in-class active learning) are important.

33
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Advantages and Disadvantages of Flipping a Course: Student Responses

As part of the evaluation of course flipping, the students in the CHEM

1308 spring 2012 class were asked to assess various perceived advantages and
disadvantages of the flipping paradigm. The results are given below:

Advantages Identified
1. Work at own pace: 39% of those responding
2. Material availability: 23% of those responding
3. Self-directed learning: 23% of those responding
4. More ways to learn: 16% of those responding

The major advantage reported by a group of exceptionally bright students

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

taking general chemistry at a public university was the ability to work

asynchronously. This is not surprising, given the abilities of the class. The access
to on-line homework and being able to have more independence with regard to
their own learning outcomes was also reported as strengths of the pedagogy.
Somewhat more surprising is the notion that less than 20% of the students
identified the variety and diversity of learning types (e.g, think-pair-share, group
work, work at the board, etc) available in the flipped environment as seminal to
and a real advantage of the method of instruction.

Disadvantages Identified:
1. Procrastination: 46% of those responding
2. More time and effort required of the student: 42% of those responding
3. Felt disengaged: 12% of those responding

Although 53% of the students in the free-response section indicated that

they believed that the flipped classroom did not allow for procrastination, when
asked about it as a potential disadvantage to the methodology, almost half of
the respondents indicated that being able to watch videos on their own time
rather than in a more conventional, fixed-time classroom setting could lead to
inappropriate time management.
A significant number of students indicated that a flipped class requires more
time and effort than a traditional lecture-homework classroom. It is interesting to
note, however, that 36% of the respondents indicated that they spent only 1-2 hours
preparing for each test. The “additional time and effort” involved in watching the
lectures, doing the out-of-class homework, and participating in class translated into
fewer hours actually studying for the exams and, on average, significantly higher
exam scores.

Conclusions
The results of this study indicate that course flipping in the honors general
chemistry classroom can lead to significant improvements in learning outcomes.
Some general conclusions from this study include:
34
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 • Course flipping can be an effective modality for teaching general
chemistry
• Course flipping provides enhanced learning outcomes
• Course flipping generates greater learning gains over the course of a
semester of study
• Course flipping provides for more teacher – student interaction
• Course flipping is more work (initially) for everyone

Course flipping provides the freedom that students often want in terms
of learning content with the value-added component of a face-to-face active
learning classroom experience. In concept, it appears to be superior to either the
instructor-centric traditional lecture-homework paradigm or the student-centric
online experience. In one sense, it provides optimum flexibility for allowing
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

the teacher to do their best teaching and the student to have the richest learning
environment possible through multiple modalities. It is liberating for student
and teacher alike, and empowering for both. Through refinements such as
flipped-mastery teaching (11), the future of the flipped classroom is bright indeed.

References
1. Lage, M. J.; Platt, G. J.; Treglia, M. Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway
to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment. J. Econ. Educ. 2000, 31,
30–43.
2. United States Supreme Court, SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY
STUDIOS, INC. (1984, January 17). [Link]
supreme-court/464/[Link] (accessed March 8, 2016)
3. Martin, J. Reverse Instruction: Dan Pink and Karl’s “Fisch Flip”; November
7, 2010; [Link] (accessed
March 8, 2016).
4. Bowen, J. A. Teaching naked: How moving technology out of your college
classroom will improve student learning; John Wiley & Sons: New York,
2012.
5. Leis, A.; Cooke, S.; Tohei, A. The Effects of Flipped Classrooms on English
Composition Writing in an EFL Environment. Int. J. Comput.-Assisted Lang.
Learn. Teach. (IJCALLT) 2015, 5, 37–51.
6. Berrett, D. How ‘flipping’the classroom can improve the traditional lecture.
The Chronicle of Higher Education 2012, 12, 1–14.
7. Barkley, A. Flipping the College Classroom for Enhanced Student Learning.
NACTA J. 2015, 59, 240.
8. Roehl, A.; Reddy, S.; Shannon, G. The flipped classroom: An opportunity
to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. J. Family
Consumer Sci. 2103, 105, 44–49.
9. Critz, C.; Knight, D. Using the flipped classroom in graduate nursing
education. Nurse Educator 2013, 38, 210–213.

35
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 10. McDonald, K.; Smith, C. The flipped classroom for professional
development: part I. Benefits and strategies. J. Contin. Educ. Nurs. 2013,
44, 437–438.
11. Bergmann, J.; Sams, A. Flip your classroom: Reach every student in
every class every day; International Society for Technology in Education:
Alexandria, VA, 2012.
12. Weaver, G.; Sturtevant, H. Design, implementation, and evaluation of
a flipped format general chemistry course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92,
1437–1448.
13. Ryan, M.; Reid, S. Impact of the Flipped Classroom on Student Performance
and Retention: A Parallel Controlled Study in General Chemistry. J. Chem.
Educ. 2016, 93, 13–23.
14. Hibbard, L.; Sunf, S.; Wells, B. Examining the Effectiveness of a Semi-Self-
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

Paced Learning Format in a College General Chemistry Sequence. J. Chem.

Educ. 2016, 93, 24–30.
15. Yestrebsky, C. Flipping the classroom in a large chemistry class-research
university environment. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 191, 1113–1118.
16. Smith, J. Student attitudes toward flipping the general chemistry classroom.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14, 607–614.
17. Eichler, J.; Peeples, J. Flipped classroom modules for large enrollment
general chemistry courses: a low barrier approach to increase active learning
and improve student grades. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2016, 17, 197–208.
18. Belford, R.; Stoltzfus, M.; Houseknecht, J. Confchem Conference on Flipped
Classroom: Spring 2014, ConfChem Virtual Poster Session. J. Chem. Educ.
2015, 92, 1582–1583.
19. Trogden, B. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Reclaiming Face
Time: How an Organic Chemistry Flipped Classroom Provided Access to
Increased Guided Engagement. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1570–1571.
20. Rossi, R. D. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Improving
Student Engagement in Organic Chemistry Using the Inverted Classroom
Model. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1577–1579.
21. Fautch, J. The flipped classroom for teaching organic chemistry in small
classes: Is it effective? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 179–186.
22. Rein, K.; Brookes, D. Student Response to a Partial Inversion of an Organic
Chemistry Course for Non-Chemistry Majors. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92,
797–802.
23. Cavazos, Jr. R.; Petros, A.; Petros, R. Successfully Flipping the Classroom
for Organic Chemistry. In Innovations in College Science Teaching; Society
for College Science Teachers: Washington, DC, 2015; pp 79−91.
24. Seery, M. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Student
Engagement with Flipped Classroom Lectures. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92,
1566–1567.
25. Goss, L. Flipping the Physical Chemistry Lecture Course: Making More
Time for Understanding. Abstr. Pap. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 248−249.
26. Fitzgerald, D.; Li, L. Using Presentation Software to Flip an Undergraduate
Analytical Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1559–1563.

36
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 27. Ojennus, D. Assessment of learning gains in a flipped biochemistry
classroom. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2016, 44, 20–27.
28. Devine, T.; Gormley, C.; Doyle, P. Lights, Camera, Action: Using Wearable
Camera and Interactive Video Technologies for the Teaching & Assessment
of Lab Experiments. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ. 2015, 23, 22–33.
29. Fung, F. Using First-Person Perspective Filming Techniques for a Chemistry
Laboratory Demonstration To Facilitate a Flipped Pre-Lab. J. Chem. Educ.
2015, 92, 1518–1521.
30. Teo, T.; Kim Tan, K.; Yan, Y.; Teo, Y.; Yeo, L. How flip teaching supports
undergraduate chemistry laboratory teaching. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
2014, 15, 758–768.
31. Seery, M. Flipped learning in higher education chemistry: emerging trends
and potential directions. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 758–768.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch002

32. Boesdorfer, S. B. Review of Chemistry Education: Best Practices,

Opportunities and Trends. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1975–1976.
33. Casadonte, D. Flipping the Classroom Symposium. Abstr. Pap. Am. Chem.
Soc. Dallas, TX, 2014,
34. Luker, C.; Muzyka, J.; Belford, R. Introduction to the Spring 2014 ConfChem
on the Flipped Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1564–1565.
35. Kim, M. The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university:
an exploration of design principles. Internet Higher Educ. 2014, 22, 37–50.
36. Ryan, M. D.; Reid, S. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 13–23.
37. Butzler, K. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Flipping at an
Open-Enrollment College. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1574–1576.
38. Talley, C.; Scherer, S. The Enhanced Flipped Classroom: Increasing
Academic Performance with Student-recorded Lectures and Practice Testing
in a “Flipped” STEM Course. J. Negro Educ. 2013, 82, 339–347.
39. Khan, S. Let’s Use Videos to Reinvent Education. Presented at
TED2011, Long Beach, CA, March 2011. [Link]
salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education (accessed December
15, 2015).
40. Muzyka, J. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Just-in-Time
Teaching in Chemistry Courses with Moodle. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92,
1580–1581.
41. Herreid, C.; Schiller, N. Case studies and the flipped classroom. J. Coll. Sci.
Teach. 2013, 42, 62–66.
42. Zappe, S. “Flipping” the Classroom to Explore Active Learning in
a Large Undergraduate Course. Proceedings, American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition; Atlanta, GA,
2009; 14.1385.1–14.1385.21.
43. Oxtoby, D. W.; Gillis, H. P.; Campion, D. Principles of Modern Chemistry,
7th ed.; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, 2012; ISBN: 0-840-04931-5.
44. Oxtoby, D. W.; Gillis, H. P.; Butler, L. J. Principles of Modern Chemistry,
8th ed., Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, 2015; ISBN: 978-1-305-07911-3.
45. Muller, D. A. Designing Effective Multimedia for Physics Education. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Sydney, Australia, 2008.

37
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Chapter 3

Less Class Time, More Learning: The Evolution

of a Hybrid General Chemistry Course for
Science Majors
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch003

Margaret D. Haak* and Michael W. Burand

Department of Chemistry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331

*E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

A hybrid (“flipped”) general chemistry sequence for science

majors was designed at Oregon State University and
implemented beginning in the winter term of 2014. The goal
of this project was to increase student success and improve
learning outcomes. Preliminary exam and student survey data
suggest that these goals have been met. Over the course of the
two and one-half years this course has been taught, a number of
refinements have been made to its structure; these changes are
discussed. In addition, the logistics of successfully engaging
students in a hybrid course as well as the factors that have
been most important to the success of the class are described to
assist faculty interested in designing and implementing a hybrid
course format in their classrooms.

“I was a little weary [sic] about the hybrid course but I found it to be
exceptional. The group work with all the TAs and professors’ help was
awesome and effective!”

“I really enjoyed this course and that I was able to learn so much more;
I received my first A on a chemistry test! YAY!”

“This course basically taught me to never take a hybrid course ever

again. I have never had such little understanding on concepts and

© 2016 American Chemical Society

Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 received such low scores, not because of the instructors, this format is
not suitable to my learning style that is best for me.”

“Out of all of my classes this term the Chem [231] Hybrid was perhaps
the most stressful, awkward and unproductive class I have ever had the
misfortune of taking. […] This course has caused me mental, physical
and emotional harm…”

–CH 231 students, March 2014

Introduction
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch003

Lecturing has long been considered the gold standard in teaching, especially
at post-secondary institutions. Even today, in the face of much research showing
that active learning pedagogies increase student performance and decrease failure
rates (1–4), traditional lecture remains the most common teaching style. There is,
however, significant movement at many institutions toward more active learning
pedagogies ranging from the use of clickers to pose questions during a lecture
to completely flipped classrooms where the “lectures” are online and viewed
outside of class time, and in-class time is devoted to problem-solving activities,
discussions, and writing. There is no one definition of what constitutes an
active learning strategy, but most definitions include descriptors such as “doing”,
“discussing”, and “reflecting.” One of the earlier definitions describes active
learning as “involving students in doing things and thinking about what they are
doing” (5).
A flipped classroom involves a redefining of the roles of instructors and
students. A traditional lecture instructor typically explains concepts, provides
definitive answers, and tells students if they are right or wrong. Conversely, an
instructor in a flipped classroom asks questions designed to lead students to define
concepts in their own words, guides students to find answers for themselves,
and encourages students to determine on their own if their answers are right or
wrong. The student role also changes dramatically; instead of passively accepting
information, students become active participants by discussing information and
concepts, drawing conclusions, and thinking critically about their answers (6, 7).

Background
The journey into a flipped general chemistry classroom at Oregon State
University (OSU) began in 2012 when Haak modified the format of a traditional
general chemistry sequence for science majors. OSU operates on the quarter
system. The regular academic year consists of three 10-week terms, so general
chemistry is a sequence of three courses. Historically the first course in the
sequence, CH 231, met for three 50-minute lectures per week and one recitation
led by a graduate teaching assistant (TA). This was changed to a “semi-studio”
format where two class periods remained as traditional lectures but the Friday
40
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 class was reenvisioned. On Fridays students worked together in small groups to
solve more challenging problems than usually encountered in a general chemistry
course. Both group members and seats were assigned on Fridays and this setup
was quickly dubbed “Friday Friends”. This new format was possible largely
because of the construction of a new science building at OSU with a classroom
designed to facilitate active learning pedagogies. The room seats 180 students
and has two rows of seats on each level. The seats in the front of each row swivel,
allowing students to face each other when working in groups (see Figure 1).
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch003

Figure 1. Photograph showing a section of the seating arrangement in the

classroom, where students are able to face one another when doing group work.

A major limitation was noted almost immediately—50 minutes was not

enough time to conduct in-depth problem-solving activities. In 2013 the third
class period was moved to Thursdays and increased to 80 minutes. The move to
Thursday was necessary because of classroom availability limitations. Having an
80-minute class period for problem-solving and critical thinking activities allowed
sufficient time for students to work through the difficulties they encounterd while
solving problems and still allowed 10 to 15 minutes at the end of class for wrap-up
activities. Understanding the time needed to allow for effective problem solving
was critical in the design of the hybrid course in 2014.
OSU began a Hybrid Course Initiative in 2011. The Hybrid Course
Development Pilot Program was established as a joint initiative between OSU
Extended Campus (Ecampus) in the Division of Outreach and Engagement and
the Center for Teaching and Learning in the Office of Academic Affairs.
41
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Haak was a member of the Spring 2013 Hybrid Faculty Learning Community.
Members of the Learning Community were chosen through a competitive proposal
process and came from a diverse set of departments: Business, Chemistry, New
Media Communication, Public Health, and Women’s Studies. The Learning
Community operated as a hybrid course, with some face-to-face meetings and
other activities completed online using the OSU Learning Management System
at that time, Blackboard. This was very helpful, allowing faculty a glimpse into
the student experience in a hybrid course. It was also helpful to have discussions
with faculty from such a wide array of disciplines. For some departments, such as
New Media Communications, making the move to a hybrid format was not nearly
such a major logistical and institutional undertaking as it was for Chemistry.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch003

Development of the Hybrid Course

In the six months prior to teaching the first completely hybrid CH 231 course,
we made over 50 topical videos that students would be assigned to watch outside
of class in accordance with the “flipped” classroom structure. Our initial intent
was to make videos 3–5 minutes in length, as recommended by OSU Ecampus at
the time. Upon beginning the video recording process, however, it quickly became
apparent that this length of time was impractical for our videos as it was simply
too short. Thus, the majority of our videos were 15 to 20 minutes in length.
For the video recordings, we were fortunate to have a room equipped with
a large whiteboard, two moveable, high-quality cameras on tracks, a system
that allowed us to easily integrate camera shots, a document camera view, and
a computer monitor view (8). The videos would typically begin with one of the
instructors standing in front of a whiteboard to introduce the topic, then transition
to a document camera view as notes were written. Occasionally a view of the
computer monitor was also shown so images could be displayed. Some videos
also included demonstrations filmed using the second camera. Both instructors
were present when the videos were recorded. This was important since oftentimes
the instructor watching the video being created noticed speaking or writing errors
that were not obvious to the instructor being recorded.
The videos were not meant to replicate a typical 50-minute course lecture,
but rather were designed to be smaller units to allow students to master one topic
before moving on to the next. For example, the videos for the chapter on the
quantum-mechanical model of the atom included:

The Nature of Light (Electromagnetic Radiation)

The Bohr Model
The Double Slit Experiment
The Wave Nature of Matter
The Uncertainty Principle
Quantum Mechanics of Atoms
Quantum Numbers
Electron Transitions
Quantum Numbers and Orbitals

42
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Another crucial aspect of the hybrid course was the development of
appropriate in-class problem sets. Problem sets must be “group worthy,” meaning
that it will take a group effort to solve the problems. If the problems are too
simple there is no need for groups to work collaboratively; students can solve
them on their own without input from others. The design and optimization of the
problem sets is an ongoing process.

Hybrid CH 231 Goes Live – Winter 2014

Course Setup
Each class consisted of approximately 160 students, with the two instructors
and four TAs present at each class meeting. (There were two sections of the hybrid
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch003

course offered; although each instructor was listed as the instructor of record for
only one course, both instructors were present at all class meetings.) During the
first term the courses met twice per week, 80 minutes the first day and 50 minutes
the second day. These times were chosen because of OSU rules governing hybrid
courses: To officially be considered “hybrid”, a course must have at least 40%
less face-to-face meeting time than the traditional course. A traditional CH 231
class would have three 50-minute lectures and one 50-minute recitation per week,
so the hybrid course should meet for only 120 minutes each week. To accomplish
this the recitation was dropped, and two class meetings of unequal length were set.
This was still 10 minutes over the allowed time, but given OSU’s class scheduling
constraints—courses can meet for 50 minutes, 80 minutes, or 110 minutes—this
slight deviation was allowed. We found, however, that as before in the semi-studio
class, 50 minutes was simply too short to encompass dedicated student group work
and a “wrap-up” session at the end. Thus, in the second term this was changed and
the class met for 80 minutes on both days.
Group membership was determined by the course instructors. Efforts were
made to ensure that each group had both high- and low-achieving students as
well as a mix of majors and a balance of international and domestic students.
Determination of student achievement was based on math placement exam scores
as well as any previous chemistry experience. Because this course was taught
off-sequence, meaning the first course in the sequence was not taught in the first
term of the academic year, there were a significant number of students who had
taken CH 231 or another general chemistry course the previous term.

Pre-Class Preparation
Prior to class students were responsible for watching two to five videos and
completing a reading assignment from the textbook. There was no system in place,
however, to ensure students were watching the videos as instructed.

Class Time (during class)

Attendance was required and recorded at the start of each class period, and,
in some cases, recorded at the end of the class period as well. Since classroom
43
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 seating was assigned, collecting attendance data was a straightforward matter of
simply checking names on the seating chart, expedited with the help of the TAs.
In addition, attendance was verified after class via the student names included
on their submitted problem sets. Students were informed that as their attendance
was a crucial part of the course, and it would be counted towards their final
course grade. A typical class would start with general announcements (about two
minutes), after which students would pick up the day’s problem set. Students
would then work on the problems in their group with support from instructors and
TAs. With approximately 25 minutes remaining, the full class would reconvene
to discuss selected problems.
Several different approaches were used for the “wrap-up” session at the end
of class. In some cases, student groups were randomly chosen to come to the front
of the classroom and explain their solution to a particular problem to the rest of
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch003

the class. This provided strong motivation for students to solve the problems and
to be ready to present their solutions to their classmates; unfortunately, in many
cases the chosen students were not good presenters and this led to confusion.
Another option explored was the use of Learning Catalytics. Learning
Catalytics is “[a] ‘bring your own device’ student engagement, assessment,
and classroom intelligence system” (9). A wide variety of Learning Catalytics
problem formats was implemented, which included multiple choice, many choice,
numerical, matching, and composite sketch items. Students would enter their
answers and the instructors would review and discuss them. In cases where a
significant number of students submitted an incorrect response, students would
be told to discuss the problem within their groups and then re-enter an answer.
Learning Catalytics worked well for problems with fairly simple answers, but was
found to be impractical in cases where more detailed answers were warranted,
such as for short essay-type responses, etc.
A final option utilized was simply to have the instructors explain the
solutions at the end of the class period. This provided the students with very
clear explanations, but did not provide as much impetus for students to solve the
problems. We also found that this approach could give students a false sense of
their understanding of the concepts.
Prior to leaving, students would submit one problem set per group. Submitted
problem sets were used to verify student attendance. They were not scored.
Problem set solutions were posted online the following day.

Quizzes
Once per week, students were required to complete an online quiz outside
of class. Initially the quizzes had been administered on paper during class, but
this was found to be too much of an encumbrance to the class time available,
hence the move to online quizzes fairly early in the term. The online quizzes
were administered via Blackboard and were accessible to the students Wednesday
evenings between 5:00 pm and 11:59 pm. The number of problems per quiz
varied from two to five, and students were typically given 10 minutes to complete
each quiz. A variety of problem formats were used, including those in which
students were required to enter a numerical answer as well as multiple-choice
44
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 and multiple-answer items. To the extent possible, the quizzes were set up such
that partial credit was given when applicable. Although the online quizzes could
not be proctored nearly as effectively (i.e., although students had a time limit,
there was nothing to stop them from using their notes and/or other resources,
including assistance from others), this was not of great concern since the quizzes
were viewed as a formative assessment. The extra class time and drastic reduction
in instructor grading time were considered well worth the trade-off regarding the
move to online quizzes. Although 13 quizzes were given throughout the term, only
a student’s eight highest quiz scores were used in that student’s final course grade
calculation. Students were informed of this policy at the outset of the term.

Homework
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch003

We administered a weekly homework assignment via the online platform

Mastering Chemistry and each assignment was designed to take approximately
three hours for a student to complete. There were several unique features to the
way we structured the homework. The homework score comprised about 9% of
the total points in the class and the full 50 points were awarded to all students
who earned 80% or more of the total assigned points for the term. We structured
it this way because we view homework as a formative assessment. We expect
students to make mistakes as they work to master the concepts and we want
them to learn from their mistakes. We feel that putting too high a premium on
getting homework problems correct on the first try, every time, increases students’
stress levels and makes them unwilling to risk entering an answer they are not
completely sure is correct. It also encourages cheating. Taking risks, making
mistakes, and learning from those mistakes are behaviors we strove to encourage.
When constructing the homework assignments we used the principles of
interleaved practice (10). From the second homework assignment forward
about 25% of the problems come from prior chapters, and these problems were
scattered randomly throughout the assignment. This served two purposes—it
helped students continuously review prior concepts and it helped them develop
problem-recognition skills. In our previous experiences it is not uncommon to
hear students say things like, “Oh, if I had known that was what the question
asked in this problem I could have answered it.” Many students seem to be very
dependent on using the previous problem to give them clues on how to solve the
next problem, and also on searching in the current chapter in the textbook for a
similar example problem to use as a template to solve the homework problem.
When some problems are not from the current chapter, at a minimum students
must determine what type of question it is before they can go look in the book
for an example. Once they have thought deeply enough about the problem to
determine what the relevant concepts are, they can solve it without referring to a
worked example in the book. Furthermore, these are the skills students need to
become better problem solvers, which helps them perform better on exams where
they are also asked to read a question and determine the best strategy to answer it
without knowing that, for example, “It’s from chapter 6 section 5 because that’s
what we covered in class today.”

45
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Exams

Two midterm exams were administered, the first in the fourth week of the
term and the second in the eighth week of the term. A cumulative final exam
was also administered in each course. The exams were comprised exclusively of
written response items; there was no multiple choice component to these exams.
About 75% of the exam problems were categorized as “C-level”, i.e., problems
students had seen in class, in the videos, and on the homework assignments. In
other words, a student who was to earn a passing grade in the course should have
been able to answer these problems. Approximately 15% to 20% of the problems
were “B-level”; these were problems involving concepts the students had seen
before, but presented in a different way. The remaining one or two problems were
“A-level” problems. These were typically multi-concept problems that required
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch003

the students to apply their knowledge in a novel way to find the solution.

Course Grading

Table 1 shows the course grading scheme used in the winter 2014 hybrid
course. The detailed grading policies governing quizzes and online homework
have been described (vide supra).

Table 1. Winter 2014 hybrid course grade components

Component Points
Midterm Exam One 100
Midterm Exam Two 100
Final Exam 200
Quizzes (Best Eight) 40
Online Homework 50
Exam Wrappers 10
Participation 50
Total 550

If a student’s percentage on the final exam was higher than that student’s
average percentage on the two midterm exams, the final exam percentage replaced
the scores for the two midterm exams in the final course grade calculation. Our
justification for this policy was that a student’s percentage on the final (cumulative)
exam reflects that student’s level of understanding at the end of the term, and the
goal for students in the course was to demonstrate knowledge of the material by
the end of the term. Accordingly, final exam scores were always included in each
student’s final course grade calculation. This exam policy was neither new nor

46
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 unique to the hybrid general chemistry course; it was a longstanding policy in the
traditional general chemistry course at OSU.
Also factored into a student’s final course grade calculation were two “exam
wrappers” (11) assigned during the term, one following each midterm exam. Each
exam wrapper was worth a maximum of five points. To complete an exam wrapper,
students were tasked to reflect on their exam performance and the effectiveness of
their exam preparation by describing what went wrong regarding any points they
missed on the exam, as well as what they intended to do differently to prepare
for the next exam. The 50 points attributed to “participation” in Table 1 were
essentially for class attendance.
Students were provided a scheme (Table 2) in the course syllabus showing
the correlation between overall percentage in the course and letter grade. The final
course grades were derived from this table with only minor deviations, i.e., final
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch003

grades were based on a slight grading curve.

Table 2. Winter 2014 hybrid course final letter grade scheme

A 93.0% and higher
A− 90.0 – 92.9%
B+ 87.0 – 89.9%
B 83.0 – 86.9%
B− 80.0 – 82.9%
C+ 77.0 – 79.9%
C 73.0 – 76.9%
C− 70.0 – 72.9%
D+ 67.0 – 69.9%
D 63.0 – 66.9%
D− 60.0 – 62.9%
F < 60.0%

Laboratory

There was a separate laboratory course associated with the hybrid course.
The hybrid course was required as either a pre- or corequisite for the laboratory
course. Although a detailed description of the laboratory course setup is beyond
the scope of this chapter, it is important to note that the accompanying laboratory
was taught in an exclusively guided-inquiry format. The overall philosophy of
the laboratory is an active learning model in which students design their own
experimental procedures, thus the laboratory complements the lecture pedagogy.
Students worked in groups of four, which were not necessarily the same as their
lecture groups.

47
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Year One Exam Performance and Student Survey Results

Data from the initial term of hybrid CH 231 in the winter of 2014 were
analyzed for comparison to previous iterations of the course when it was taught
as a traditional lecture. To ensure an accurate comparison as feasible, the two
midterm exams from the initial term of the hybrid course were designed to be
identical in rigor to those of previous years with changes to the details of the
problems only. The final exam was wholly identical to those of previous years,
since, unlike the midterm exams, final exams were never returned to students and
keys were never posted. The data are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Winter 2014 hybrid course exam scores as compared to previous

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch003

years’ traditional course exam scores

Median Score Scores below 60%
Midterm Exam One 9% higher than traditional 12% fewer than traditional
Midterm Exam Two No statistical difference 8% fewer than traditional
compared to traditional
Final Exam 7% higher than traditional 10% fewer than traditional

In addition, the DFW rate for the traditional course was 12% lower than in
previous terms. Clearly, these data strongly indicate that student performance did
indeed increase as a result of the change to a hybrid course format.
At the end of the second term of implementation of this hybrid sequence of
courses (spring 2014), we conducted a survey of the students, initially intended
for our own internal review and improvement. The survey was handed out in class
and 152 students responded. A standard Likert scale was used with the options
“strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “neither”, “agree”, and “strongly agree”. Figures
2–6 show the distribution of student responses to certain survey statements.

Figure 2. Student responses to the statement, “I feel comfortable working in a

group to do in-class problems.”
48
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch003

Figure 3. Student responses to the statement, “I felt my in-class group members

worked well together.”

Figure 4. Student responses to the statement, “I participated actively within my

in-class group.”

Figure 5. Student responses to the statement, “I feel I learned more under the
hybrid model than I would have under a traditional model.”
49
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch003

Figure 6. Student responses to the statement, “I feel I learned a lot in this

course.”

From the data shown in Figures 2 and 3, it is clear that most students felt
comfortable working in a group, and likewise felt that the members of their
in-class group worked well together. Most students also felt they were active
participants in their in-class group (Figure 4). Regarding responses to the
statement, “I feel I learned more under the hybrid model than I would have under
a traditional model,” students were clearly split (Figure 5), but more students
(52) agreed or strongly agreed than those who disagreed or strongly disagreed
(42). Interestingly, in response to the statement, “Given a choice, I would prefer
to take a traditional course instead of a hybrid course,” 79 students indicated
“yes” whereas 64 indicated “no”. This result, in conjunction with the data
shown in Figure 5, appears to show that several of the students who indicated a
preference for the traditional model nonetheless acquiesced that they felt they
learned as much or more under the hybrid model. When only the responses
of the 64 students who indicated “no” (i.e., those students who indicated they
would prefer to take a hybrid course) were totaled regarding their responses to the
statement, “I feel I learned more under the hybrid model than I would have under
a traditional model,” a strong majority (47) agreed or strongly agreed, whereas 13
indicated “neither” and only four disagreed or strongly disagreed. Thus, perhaps
unsurprisingly, this provides clear evidence that those students who favored the
hybrid model of instruction felt that they learned more under it than they would
have under a traditional model.
Despite the split in total responses regarding their preference for the course
model, a significant majority of students nonetheless indicated that they felt they
learned a lot in the course (Figure 6).

Year Two – Winter and Spring 2015

Few significant changes were implemented in the second year of this course.
Unlike year one, at the start of the first term of year two a deliberate effort was
made to tell students why we decided to teach using the hybrid format. Data from
50
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 year one which showed significantly better exam performance under the hybrid
model were also shared with students. Although students were not specifically
surveyed about the impact of this, it certainly appeared that students had a greater
willingness to accept the hybrid model when they were told of the rationale for
implementing it and some of the successful results.
During year one we noticed that in-class groups that were (inadvertently)
made up of students with the same major appeared to work together quite well
within their group. Thus, in year two groups were formed with students from the
same major and with less emphasis on distributions of gender and prior chemistry
success. Interestingly, this was very successful with certain majors, most notably
Chemistry and Food Science & Technology, and less successful with others, such
as Biology and Exercise & Sport Science.
To foster better participation and engagement of students in the accompanying
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch003

laboratory course, the group size was changed from four students to three.
For laboratory sections whose enrollments precluded the formation of only
three-student groups, groups of two were implemented as necessary.

Year Three – Winter 2016

Further refinements to the course in the third year included the addition of
pre-class online quizzes, due at 10:00 pm the day before class. (These are in
addition to the regular online weekly quizzes.) These pre-class quizzes were
“unlockable” such that students would have to view the assigned videos for the
upcoming class period in order to access the pre-class quiz. The 10:00 pm due
time (as opposed to 11:59 pm for the regular weekly quizzes) was set so that the
instructors would have time to review the results before the upcoming class period
and adjust the focus accordingly if there were widespread student misconceptions
or lack of understanding of a topic. At the time of this writing data have not yet
been analyzed to assess the impact of the pre-class quizzes; however, anecdotal
evidence strongly suggests that student compliance with watching the assigned
videos is indeed much higher under this new model.
Another change planned for the second term of year three is to link a portion
of a student’s score on selected quizzes with his or her other group members’
performance on that quiz, to foster group cooperation and to incentivize students
to help their group members learn. At the time of this writing this has not yet been
implemented (it will be put in place in the spring term of 2016), but Institutional
Review Board approval has been granted to study the impacts of this change via
both student performance analysis and a student survey.

Summary and Lessons Learned

Numerous refinements have taken place during the development and
implementation of the hybrid course described here. The following points are,
we believe, particularly important facets to the successful implementation of a
hybrid course.
51
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 • Videos need to be more than 3–5 minutes long. A length of 15–20 minutes
was a more appropriate length of time to cover a single topic.
• Videos must be custom-made for the hybrid course.
• Instructors get to know the students far better under the hybrid model.
• A 50-minute class period is not long enough for students to accomplish
a reasonable amount of group problem solving while still allowing for a
“wrap-up” discussion of selected problems at the end of class. An 80-
minute class period works far better.
• It is important to have a sufficient number of TAs and instructors present
during class time so that students can receive timely guidance when
needed. Clearly, the number of TAs and instructors needed will vary
depending on the course size; we have found that two instructors and
four TAs works well for a class of approximately 160 students.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch003

• TAs need training, as do faculty. It is important to guide students to find

the answers to their own questions rather than to simply tell them the
answers, and the entire staff needs to be onboard with this. Students are
very quick to target any staff member who will give direct answers to
their questions, rather than hints and guidance. It is very helpful to discuss
beforehand, as a group, some potential hints to give to students when they
get stuck on the problems they are solving.
• Students who have successfully completed and enjoyed the hybrid
sequence make excellent undergraduate TAs/Learning Assistants for
subsequent years.
• It is very important to explain to students why we have chosen to teach
using the hybrid model and what benefits they can expect from actively
engaging with the course material, because a flipped classroom is
definitely not what they expect in college.
• Student attendance and active participation are critical. “Unlockable”
pre-class quizzes appear to help motivate students to watch the assigned
videos before coming to class.
• Students may not be amenable to taking a hybrid course, and many
students would prefer to simply attend a traditional lecture. Nonetheless,
we have seen (and described here) evidence to suggest that students
learn more in a hybrid course. In fact, our survey data have shown that a
certain number of students who indicated a preference for the traditional
model did nonetheless admit that they felt they learned as much or more
under the hybrid model.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Jenna Moser for her assistance with survey
data collection, Kim Thackray and Raul Burriel for their assistance with video
production and editing, and Rich Carter for his support of the implementation of
the hybrid courses.

52
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 References
1. Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.;
Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active learning increases student performance
in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
2014, 111, 8410–8415 and references therein.
2. Froyd, J. E. Evidence for the Efficacy of Student-active Learning Pedagogies;
Project Kaleidoscope: Washington, DC, 2008.
3. Bowen, C. W. A Quantitative Literature Review of Cooperative Learning
Effects on High School and College Chemistry Achievement. J. Chem.
Educ. 2000, 77, 116–119.
4. Oliver-Hoyo, M. T.; Allen, D.; Hunt, W. F.; Hutson, J.; Pitts, A. Effects
of an Active Learning Environment: Teaching Innovations at a Research I
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch003

Institution. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 441–448.

5. Bonwell, C. C.; Eison, J. A. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in
the Classroom ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.1; The George
Washington University, School of Education and Human Development:
Washington, DC, 1991.
6. Spencer, J. N. New Directions in Teaching Chemistry: A Philosophical and
Pedagogical Basis. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 566–569.
7. Lawson, A. Science Teaching and the Development of Thinking; Wadsworth:
Bellmont, CA, 1995.
8. The technically-minded reader may be interested to know that we used
Sony pan-tilt-zoom cameras which ran on a Telemetrics robotics system
and were controlled via a Crestron touch panel. The cameras fed into
a central digital media switch which subsequently fed into a Crestron
CAPTURE-HD-PRO recorder that recorded the video presentations to a
thumb drive. The recordings were edited with iMovie and uploaded and
distributed via Kaltura.
9. Learning Catalytics. [Link] (accessed Feb. 2016).
10. Brown, P. C.; Roediger, H. L., III; McDaniel, M. A. Make It Stick: The
Science of Successful Learning; Belknap Press of Harvard University Press:
London, 2014.
11. Ambrose, S. A.; Bridges, M. W.; DiPietro, M.; Lovett, M. C.; Norman, M.
K. How Learning Works: 7 Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching;
John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco, 2010.

53
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Chapter 4

Partial Flipping To Support Learning in

Lectures
David Read,*,1 Jonathan K. Watts,1,2 and Thomas J. Wilson1
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

1Faculty
of Natural and Environmental Sciences (Chemistry), University of
Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom
2RNA Therapeutics Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School,

368 Plantation St., Worcester, Massachusetts 01605, United States

*E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

This chapter outlines and expands on content presented at the

Biennial Conference on Chemical Education in 2014. The
use of the flipped classroom model to develop understanding
and to enhance subsequent in-lecture learning is discussed,
with a focus on supporting incoming students in adapting to
the demands of studying at a research-intensive university in
the UK. ‘Partial flipping’, whereby part of a lecture is made
available in video form prior to the scheduled session, has
been employed to free-up time in class for more effective
learning activities. Two case studies are described, including
evidence regarding student engagement and their response to the
interventions. The second study involves interactive pre-lecture
videos which feature multiple-choice and open-answer
questions. The latter approach provides valuable learning
analytics to support the integration of just-in-time support into
the framework of a lecture in order to meet the needs of students
effectively and provide targeted, timely feedback.

Prologue
“Why don’t they know how to learn, David?” was one of the first questions
posed to me by an academic colleague when I first moved from a high school
classroom to take up a position as a School Teacher Fellow in Chemistry at
the University of Southampton, UK, in 2007. This somewhat multi-faceted

© 2016 American Chemical Society

Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 question summarized the challenge facing me in supporting staff and incoming
first year students to ensure that the latter made a smooth transition from
school-to-university. This chapter describes a journey, in the context of the
UK education system, which has led to the ‘partial flipping’ of lecture content
to support the implementation of active learning approaches in lecture-based
courses. The approach was conceived specifically to counter the challenges posed
to students in adapting to learning from lectures and engaging in independent
study when their prior experience of teaching was very different. These challenges
are by no means unique to the UK and the discussion will hopefully be of interest
to educators everywhere.

Overview
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

This chapter starts with an outline of some of the reasons why many UK
students arrive at university not knowing ‘how to learn,’ based on the nature
of the education system they have experienced alongside consideration of the
university level education system they are entering. This includes brief discussion
of government-funded national interventions which ran between 2005 and
2012 with the aim of supporting recruitment of students to STEM disciplines
at university level, and their retention in degree programs once at university.
Although the problems outlined are not unique to the UK, discussing them
provides context for the work outlined herein by framing the objectives of those
seeking to innovate in order to support students in adapting to a new learning
environment. Flipped learning strategies have been used to support students at
the University of Southampton in the first year of their studies, and these are
outlined later in the chapter. Finally, in the conclusion there is some discussion of
the potential of the flipped classroom to enhance university teaching in the future,
helping to fend off the challenge of non-traditional approaches to the delivery of
higher education, such as massive open online courses (MOOCs), and potentially
leading to substantial change in the practice of those delivering teaching in a
higher education environment.

Introduction: The UK Context

After a decline which reached crisis point in the middle of the last decade,
chemistry student numbers at UK universities have been growing consistently in
recent years (1). The resurgence in interest in the discipline has been encouraged
by a series of government-funded interventions to support ‘Strategically Important
and Vulnerable Subjects’, which included the Royal Society of Chemistry’s
(RSC) ‘Chemistry for our Future’ (CFOF) program (2) and the National HE
STEM programme (3). The CFOF programme disbursed around $8M to UK
universities between 2006 and 2009, part of which was used to support outreach
activities designed to enthuse a new generation of youngsters about chemistry
with the aim of encouraging wider uptake of related degree level courses (4).
Most of the remaining money was used to support curriculum development,
primarily at university level.
56
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 One significant strand of activity under CFOF was the appointment of a
number of School Teacher Fellows, based on a model pioneered at the University
of Bristol where a highly experienced secondary school teacher had been
appointed to such a position to develop an outreach programme and build links
between the university and local schools (5). It should be noted that in the UK,
secondary schools typically serve students aged 11-18 (i.e. Years 7-13), although
some regions differ in having 11-16 secondary schools and separate ‘Sixth Form
Colleges’ to serve students aged 16-18. During the period 2007-2013, a total of
12 School Teacher Fellows were recruited by the RSC from secondary schools
and placed in local university chemistry departments where they undertook a
range of different projects based on local needs (6). The corresponding author of
this chapter was also recruited to an equivalent post, funded through a separate
strand of CFOF activity based on higher education curriculum development, with
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

a particular focus on the school-to-university transition. Bearing in mind that

there were fewer than 40 university chemistry departments across the country at
this time, this significant cohort of School Teacher Fellows was able to have a
broad impact in the sector (6). One of the main objectives set for these individuals
was to help university staff to better understand the capabilities of incoming
students based on their prior experiences at school level, and to tailor the delivery
of university courses accordingly (7). In order to understand the value of utilizing
school teachers in this way, it is important to briefly consider the nature of the
education experienced by UK students during their time at secondary school.

The Impact of Testing and School Accountability on Student Preparedness

for University Study
In the UK there is a National Curriculum (8), which is essentially a set of
subjects and standards used by schools to ensure that children learn the same
things, with some flexibility in subject selection at age 13/14. The National
Curriculum covers schooling up to age 16, when the overwhelming majority of
students sit GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) examinations in
core compulsory subjects and any permitted options. After this, youngsters may
elect to continue an academic education for a further two years, which typically
involves the study of three or four subjects at A-level (Advanced level). There
are numerous other educational options open to students at 16, but these will
not be considered here since most students who progress to university to study
chemistry come through the A-level route. Although there are several different
A-level chemistry specifications available for teachers to select from, these differ
little in terms of content (9) and as a result students arriving at university to study
chemistry will have very similar subject backgrounds.
Another factor which acts to homogenize the pre-university experiences of
UK students is the examination system, which sees youngsters assessed against
national standards at periodic intervals between the ages of 7 and 16. Pupil
performance data underpins school performance tables (rankings of schools,
often referred to as ‘league tables’) which are published by the government (10)
for scrutiny by members of the public, and draw attention from local and national
media. Schools are also subject to regular inspections by OFSTED (Office for
57
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Standards in Education, Childrens’ Services and Skills), a government body
responsible for ensuring a high standard of provision in state maintained schools
along with other childcare services (11). The percentages of students achieving
high grades in examinations are used by OFSTED inspectors in determining the
effectiveness of a school and in judging its standing relative to other institutions.
Since schools are accountable for the performance of their students in such a
quantitative fashion, there is great pressure on teachers to ensure that examination
outcomes are maximized. The importance of high grades in determining the
future success of an individual is also a driver for parental pressure and the student
behaviours it underpins, pushing teachers to excessively focus lessons towards
exam preparation. According to a recent study by Dorling, the UK, along with
the US, leads the world in such “teaching to the test (12, 13),” with detrimental
long-term impacts on learning and capability.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

Considering all of the above, it should be no surprise that many UK

students arrive at university with a strong focus on grades and the importance
of examination performance. As Dorling suggests (13), such an attitude is
grounded in a rote-learning mentality and it is clear that this is not conducive
to the long-term, meaningful learning required to master a complex discipline
like chemistry (14). In order to be able to apply subject knowledge and skills to
solve the challenging problems that chemists face daily, students need to develop
a confident grasp of the discipline, and for many this requires something of a
paradigm shift in their view of their studies and their approach to them, presenting
a significant challenge to those responsible for curriculum delivery at university
level.

The Transition to University-Level Teaching and Learning

Beyond the ubiquitous teaching laboratory, lectures remain a cornerstone
of the teaching of chemistry at university level in the UK, and are usually
supported by problem-solving sessions in the form of small group tutorials
(typically 6-10 students) and/or workshops (typically 20-30 students) (15).
Lectures have previously been criticised as being outmoded and ineffective due
to low levels of interactivity and the limited attention spans of the audience
(16). However, it should also be noted that some authors, such as Matheson
(17), have suggested that lectures can be effective at supporting learning if
interactive elements are incorporated and there are opportunities for students to
ask questions and consolidate understanding. This latter point is supported by
extensive empirical evidence suggesting that active learning has a positive impact
on student performance in comparison with traditional lecturing (18). Whatever
the format of a lecture, the pace of delivery and sheer volume of content covered
present great challenges to first year students, who may be accustomed to school
lessons which were broken up into manageable chunks, with new learning being
constantly reinforced by questioning and related activities. Another issue is
the significant reduction in feedback provided at university level in comparison
to that received at school, as previously reported by Yorke and Longden (19).
A reduction in direct teacher support and the accompanying expectation that
students will independently make meaning of lecture material during subsequent
58
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 private study significantly add to the challenges facing students in making the
transition from school-to-university.
With the above in mind, it is not surprising that the issue of enhancing learning
in lectures was one that was pursued by a number of the School Teacher Fellows
mentioned previously (6). From the perspective of the corresponding author as a
school teacher observing students in chemistry lectures in the early part of their
time at the University of Southampton, it was clear that learning during many
lectures was limited. In informal discussions with students, many suggested that
their note-taking skills were insufficiently well-developed for them to be confident
that they had an accurate record of what had been taught. Moreover, many students
reported that lectures felt passive from their perspective and even when they had
questions, they lacked the confidence to ask them in a large group setting. On the
other hand, students frequently commented that they enjoyed lectures, particularly
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

the fact that they were being taught by people who were renowned leaders in their
field, and this chimes with previous suggestions that good lectures do have value
in providing motivation and inspiration to those in the audience (20).
In order to promote learning in chemistry lectures at Southampton, clickers
were used initially in the 2007/8 academic year as a means of introducing
interactivity into lectures, and these were well-received by students and academics
alike (21). However, one of the problems encountered was a lack of available time
during lectures for clicker questions to be posed to students, particularly as there
was little appetite for the removal of lecture content. This meant that the delivery
of remaining lecture content was often rushed in order to accommodate the use of
clickers, and explanations to answers tended to be covered in little detail. This
had a detrimental impact on the value of using this technology, bearing in mind
the comments of Beatty (22), who suggested that inserting “occasional audience
questions into otherwise traditional lectures, to quiz students for comprehension,
or to keep them awake” is “a waste of the system’s potential.” Nonetheless,
clickers were used by numerous chemistry lecturers at Southampton over the
next few years, normally in a manner which was intended to identify gaps in
understanding which could then be addressed by rapid feedback. At the time of
writing (academic year 2015/16), several academic colleagues in chemistry at
Southampton are continuing to use clickers in their lectures, providing evidence
of a long-term beneficial impact of the work of a School Teacher Fellow in this
particular institution.
The work of other School Teacher Fellows placed at UK universities is
also pertinent to this discussion. Turner experimented with the use of ‘starter’
activities at the beginning of lectures during her fellowship at the University of
Manchester in 2011/12, setting the scene for the new material to be covered and
making links to previous learning (23). Such starters are commonly used in school
lessons in the UK, but the main problem reported by Turner was the difficulty of
engaging 200+ students in such activities in order for them to complete the tasks
in a timely fashion without impacting on the delivery of the lecture itself. Smith,
who completed her fellowship at the University of Leicester in 2011/12, worked
with academic colleagues to trial a number of approaches taken directly from
the school classroom, including the use of individual whiteboards onto which
students could draw diagrams and write equations before showing them to the

59
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 lecturer, and sets of short questions for students to complete throughout the lecture
to assist with self-monitoring (24). Smith also shared clear and specific learning
objectives (25) at the beginning of lectures so students were clear on what they
were learning, and also provided handouts outlining how new material related to
previous learning. These approaches were well-received by students, but were
not widely adopted by other colleagues for continued use after the completion of
the fellowship, in part due to the time required both in terms of contact time and
prior preparation of materials.
These examples indicate that one of the main impediments to the introduction
of approaches aimed at enhancing learning in lectures is the lack of available time
due to the pressures of content delivery. One solution would be to move away
from the traditional model of lectures, perhaps using a flipped learning approach,
as outlined by Bergmann and Sams (26). As the majority of chemistry lectures
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

for students in their 1st year at the University of Southampton have been recorded
since 2010 (27), it would be straightforward to repurpose taught modules so
that the delivery of lecture content was entirely in the form of videos, releasing
scheduled teaching slots for more active modes of delivery, an approach which
had already been trialled locally (28). However, this is a challenge at a time
when much of the existing teaching infrastructure (e.g. large lecture halls with
tiered seating) is geared towards the lecture. Furthermore, when this idea was
first proposed, colleagues expressed concern about the time required to develop
material for modes of delivery other than the lecture, and many report a lack of
confidence in their ability to do so due to their lack of experience in this area. As
such, a compromise was sought whereby lectures would remain the primary mode
of delivery for taught material, while allowing some time to be freed up in lecture
slots by making portions of lectures available to students in video format prior to
the scheduled teaching slot. Two different case studies where partial flipping was
employed in this manner are outlined in the subsequent discussion.

The Rationale for Partial Flipping of Lecture Content

If a student’s working memory, i.e. their ability to handle, manipulate, and
ultimately store their immediate experiences, is exceeded during a lecture, this
will limit or inhibit their learning (29, 30). This so-called high cognitive load
is a real concern, especially for students with limited prior-knowledge of the
underpinning concepts, and presents a barrier to deep learning during lectures.
An approach taken by Seery and Donnelly utilized cognitive load theory to reduce
the strain on students’ working memory through the provision of pre-lecture
resources (31). This work was informed by that of Sirhan and Reid (32), who
reported the benefits of such approaches in reducing the cognitive load of learners
during the lecture by providing an introduction to key terms in advance of the
timetabled session. Seery and Donnelly’s approach (31) involved the creation of
interactive resources in which information was presented using text and diagrams
accompanied by a synchronised audio narration. In planning these resources,
each lecture was examined to identify terms which would be unfamiliar to
students in order that these could be defined and explained in the resource. Each
resource included a quiz which was intended to reinforce understanding and boost
60
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 confidence, with the marks being reported to the virtual learning environment
(VLE) in order that they could make a summative contribution to the module’s
assessment. Usage of resources was high, with the key outcome being that
students who didn’t have prior knowledge of chemistry quickly caught up with
those who had some experience of the subject, which contrasted with the situation
observed in previous years. The success of this approach provided inspiration for
the design and implementation of a partial flipping approach at the University of
Southampton.
The combination of pre-lecture resources with interactive in-class activities
is consistent with Bergmann & Sams’ model of flipped learning (26) whereby
students acquire content knowledge out of class and then undertake activities
in which they apply this knowledge during scheduled teaching time. Such an
approach is becoming increasingly popular in chemistry and has been successfully
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

applied in all areas of the subject (33). Of particular relevance to the second case
study is work done on the application of flipped learning to organic chemistry
teaching in separate studies by Christiansen (34) and Flynn (35). Eichler and
Peeples have recently reported that the use of the flipped classroom model in the
teaching of a general chemistry course genuinely leads an improved grade point
average (36), and it is clear that this will be an area of great interest to chemistry
educators and education researchers for a long time to come.

Partial Flipping in Practice: Case Studies

1. Supporting the Teaching of a Foundation Year Chemistry Course

Outline

The foundation year program at the University of Southampton is a one

year course, technically a ‘Year 0’, for students who don’t have the appropriate
prerequisite qualifications and knowledge for direct entry onto the degree program
of their choice. The chemistry module in the foundation year (titled Fundamentals
of Chemistry) is taught entirely by the corresponding author of this chapter, and
covers similar content to that taught at A-level (broadly equivalent to content
covered in General Chemistry I and II in the US). At the time of implementation,
the author had been teaching at university for 6 years, with 4 years of prior
experience as a teacher at an 11-18 school. The case study took place in the
second year that the author had taught on the programme.
During the first year of the program’s delivery (2012/13), lectures were
delivered using a tablet PC (Dell XT3) displaying PowerPoint slides which were
duplicated onto paper and distributed to students as gapped handouts (37). The
slides were populated with most of the key text required to get the main learning
points across. Some gaps were left in the notes for keywords with the intention
that these would be added by students during the lecture. Spaces were also left in
the handouts for diagrams, equations, mechanisms etc., which could be added by
annotation during the session. By minimizing the amount of writing that students
would need to do, it was possible to use every gap as an opportunity to pose a
61
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 question or to elicit discussion in a manner inspired by the Socratic Method, as
discussed previously in a chemistry context by Heeren (38) and Holme (39).
It had been the intention that clickers would be used in the majority of
lectures during 2012/13 to test understanding and support learning by facilitating
feedback provision. However, the pressures of content delivery meant that there
simply wasn’t ample time during lecture slots for clickers to be used, much to the
disappointment of the students who found them to be engaging and effective on
the small number of occasions that they were deployed. In module evaluations,
some students were vocal in requesting more interactivity in lectures, and this
provided motivation to seek innovative ways of accommodating this request.
There was little scope for reducing the content covered in the chemistry
module, bearing in mind that its purpose is to ensure that students who complete
the foundation year have comparable levels of knowledge and understanding
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

to those who have studied A-level chemistry, so an alternative approach was

required if more interactivity and variety were to be introduced into lectures.
All of the 66 lectures had been recorded over the course of 2012/13, providing
a total of 60 hours of content. With 36 students in the program, they streamed
a total of around 1200 hours, revealing that they used the resources heavily.
Additionally, many students commented on the value of these recordings in
supporting their independent study. As it had already been seen that students
would make extensive use of recorded lectures, it was postulated that a short
section of a lecture could be made available to students prior to the timetabled
slot in a partial flipping approach, freeing up time for more effective learning
activities. This process is illustrated in Figure 1, where an interactive segment is
shown at the beginning of a lecture slot. Of course, this could be placed at any
point in the timetabled slot, or the interactive elements can be broken down and
interspersed amongst the rest of the material being delivered. The key point is
that the entire lecture slot is no longer committed to entirely to content delivery,
thus allowing the integration of active learning approaches which encourage more
effective learning (18).

Figure 1. Freeing up time in a lecture slot by moving some content online

62
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Methodology

Since our early work on lecture recording at Southampton in 2009/10 (27),

the lecture capure system, Panopto (40) has been adopted at the institution. This
was used to capture all of the lectures in the Fundamentals of Chemistry module
during the first year of delivery, and the availability of these recordings meant
that there was an option to edit these and use them as part of a flipped learning
project. However, it was decided that these ‘live’ recordings, with the voices of
the previous year’s students clearly audible in their responses to questions and
other discussions, were not appropriate for this purpose. Instead, it was decided
that pre-lecture videos would be recorded afresh.
The typical format for pre-lectures was that the first 3 or 4 slides of a lecture
(most lectures had 9-11 slides in total) would be recorded with annotations and
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

narrations, and a gapped handout created for distribution to students. An example

of an annotated slide is shown in Figure 2. The structure of the original lectures was
such that the first slide or two would relate the content to prior learning, before the
introduction of key concepts which would then be built on subsequently. As such,
the early slides from any given lecture provided a sound basis for the creation of
partially flipped lectures, with some of the characteristics of Seery and Donnelly’s
pre-lecture resources (31).

Figure 2. An example of an annotated slide from a partially flipped lecture

63
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 In the first instance, the partial flipping approach was applied to one of the
three weekly lectures, typically that which took place on Friday morning. The
preceding lecture was on Tuesday morning, with partially flipped recordings being
made available on Wednesdays in most cases, giving students at least 36 hours in
which to watch the flipped recordings prior to the face-to-face session. Students
were issued a hardcopy of the gapped handout for the flipped pre-lecture at the
end of the Tuesday lecture and were told that it was compulsory to watch the
recording and fully annotate the handout. For the first few weeks that the approach
was employed, students were asked to bring their annotated handout to the Friday
lecture in order to demonstrate that they had completed the work. The Panopto
system also logged data regarding the number of views by each student and which
parts of recordings were viewed most/least frequently.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

Making Use of in-Class Contact Time Freed up by Partial Flipping

In most cases, several clicker questions were used at the start of the lecture
to test comprehension of material covered during the pre-lecture, to provoke
discussion about what was challenging, and to identify which points needed
further clarification. This approach had the additional benefit that any students
who had not had the chance to watch the pre-lecture would be able to catch up
to some extent through discussions with their peers. In a number of lectures,
the peer-instruction approach, first proposed in the context of physics teaching
by Mazur (41), was used to provide a focus for discussion. This involves a
clicker question first being posed to students to answer independently before
being posed for a second time, at which point students are able to discuss their
answers with peers prior to polling. Crouch and Mazur (42) demonstrated that
peer-instruction led to significant learning gains when used with physics students,
and the use of this method in chemistry teaching, to capitalize on the use of
the flipped classroom, has been reported previously (28). Additionally, the
increased availability of time in face-to-face sessions meant that there was more
opportunity for students to ask questions orally, and it was also possible to use
demonstrations to illustrate chemical phenomena, which had not been possible
during the previous year of teaching.

Student Engagement and Evaluation of Impact

As mentioned above, the Panopto system provides data regarding student

usage of recordings. After the first flipped lecture, students were shown the data for
that particular recording, and they also presented their completed lecture handouts.
In total, 26 students out of 35 present had watched the recording, and the 9 that
had not could clearly see that they were at a disadvantage in comparison to those
who had completed the work. Subsequent inspection of viewing statistics for the
21 flipped pre-lectures released during the year showed that > 90% of students

64
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 typically viewed these recordings, a considerably higher proportion than those who
viewed recordings made of scheduled (i.e. non-flipped) lectures.
It should be noted that the evaluation methods employed here (and in the
second case study) were approved by the University of Southampton’s Ethics and
Research Govenance body (ERGO). Students were surveyed at the end of the 2013/
14 academic year to probe their use of pre-lecture recordings and their perception
of the impact they had on their learning. The survey, which was not validated, was
designed to probe the student response to partial flipping in terms of the impact on
confidence, and perceived impacts on learning. Seventeen students completed the
survey, a response rate of over 50% of the 32 students who took the final exam.
Data relating to Likert scale response items is illustrated in Table 1. Key points are
the fact that students report increased confidence in a range of different contexts,
most notably with regard to answering questions orally in class. Of particular
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

importance, bearing in mind the overarching objectives of this work, is the fact
that a large portion of students report increased confidence in studying chemistry
independently.

Table 1. Students’ views regarding the value of flipped lectures on the

Fundamentals of Chemistry module in 2013/14a
SA A N D SD
The flipped lectures meant I spent more time studying
6 3 2 5 1
chemistry than I otherwise would have.
The flipped lectures have increased my confidence
5 5 7 0 0
when solving problems.
The flipped lectures have increased my confidence
6 4 6 1 0
when asking questions in class.
The flipped lectures have increased my confidence
10 3 3 1 0
when answering questions (verbal) in class.
The flipped lectures have increased my confidence
4 6 7 0 0
when discussing chemical concepts with my peers.
The flipped lectures have increased my confidence
6 5 5 0 0
when studying chemistry independently.
a SA = strongly agree; A = agree; N = neutral; D = disagree; SD = strongly disagree

Some insightful qualitative data was also collected through open response
questions in the survey, pointing to a number of key benefits from the perspective
of the students, which are summarized in Table 2 in the form of extracts from
students’ comments. These data indicate that students were able to see the value of
the partial flipping approach, and it is particularly gratifying that many of the points
made refer to benefits which the educator had hoped to achieve. An additional
benefit of analyzing such data is that it supports the implementation of refinements

65
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 in future years, and can also be very persuasive in encouraging colleagues to
experiment with similar innovations, as evidenced in the second case study. One
particularly eloquent student quote sums up the success of this trial, and is included
in its entirety below as a compelling piece of evidence that the partial flipping
approach used in this case did indeed achieve its objectives.

“I have found the flipped lectures implemented into the syllabus to be an

incredibly valuable resource over the last several months.
“They are an ingenious way to convey the information prior to a main
lecture, giving the students relevant background and understanding in
order to constructively contribute in class.
“Utilising technology for this purpose allows me time to pause,
comprehend and think about how the information being conveyed fits
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

into what has been learnt previously."

2. Enhancing the Flip: Adding Interactivity to Pre-Lecture Videos Using

Simple Web Software
Outline

The positive response to the previous case study encouraged other colleagues
to consider utilising partial flipping to support their own teaching. In this case
study, a research-focussed academic (JW) worked with the corresponding author
and a chemistry education research student (TW) to integrate the partial flipping
approach into an organic chemistry module. The instructor (JW) was relatively
inexperienced in terms of teaching, having only delivered lectures in organic
and bioorganic chemistry during the two preceding academic years. These
lectures had generally been delivered utilizing a ‘chalk-and-talk’ approach (43),
with students annotating gapped handouts and recording additional notes. The
instructor was keen to free up time for more interaction with students during
the lectures, prompting the adoption of the partial flipping model for the 14/15
academic year. A further motivation was the fact that junior academics in UK
universities are encouraged to implement and evaluate innovative approaches as
part of the training they undergo at the start of their teaching career. The case
study outlined herein formed part of this process, and contributed to the instructor
winning a Vice Chancellor’s Teaching Award in 2015.
A further innovation was introduced here in that pre-lecture recordings were
augmented with interactivity using the web platform Zaption (44), which allowed
the placement of multiple choice and open answer questions at appropriate points
in the video. These questions were designed to prompt students to think about
key aspects of the theory being taught and to provide the educator with valuable
learning analytics and information regarding students’ understanding to guide just-
in-time teaching during timetabled lectures. Additionally, the time freed up by the
flipping of content allowed the introduction of activities to enhance learning during
the scheduled lectures, including formative assessment tasks based on concepts
covered in pre-lectures.
66
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 2. Evidence extracted from student responses to the questions “What
are the advantages and disadvantages of using the flipped videos at home as
opposed to being taught the material in class?” and “Do you have any other
comments on flipped teaching and its effectiveness in helping you to learn?”
Benefit Evidence extracted from student comments
“…you arent as overwhelmed as perhaps you would have been without
them.”
“…its nice to not feel rushed or get information overload during the
lecture.”
Reduced “I can pause (when my brain has an overload moment)…”
cognitive “[it is better than] having to continue with no hope of comprehending
load the material as you have not grasped a central concept of the topic…”
“It feels good to come into class and starting off by feeling content
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

instead of puzzled.”
“…Id had an insight into the topic so felt more comfortable in the
lecture.”
Better “I can rewind [and] look up in textbook for deeper understanding and
preparation I feel very well prepared...”
for scheduled “It allows you to put in some extra research into points…”
lectures “…it gave us chance to be ready and also study further…”
“…flipped lectures have changed my confidence regarding clicker
Confidence
questions and intellectually grasping what is going on…”
“The availability of time to ask questions is key I think…”
“…gave us more time [to] answer and get immediate feedback on
questions relating to the topic.”
“Using the time freed up in the lectures to do more [clicker] questions
More time
was really helpful…”
available in
“…has created more time to explain harder content/work through
lectures
more examples etc.”
“…more actual lecture time to learn the harder bits.”
“…more time in chemistry lectures to go into more detail or for better
explanations.”
“…this tool is very useful for me and I really enjoy [it]…”
Enjoyment “I have loved it, it was a revelation to me and a huge help.”
“I really like the idea of teaching via flipped lectures.”

This innovation involved a first semester course in introductory Organic

Chemistry which is compulsory for all first year students (~180 in 2014/15).
A number of distinct concepts are covered during the course, all of which are
underpinned by the concept of electron flow. Although students encounter curly
arrows in their pre-university chemistry studies in the UK, our experience is that
many lack confidence in using the concept of electron flow to describe and explain
mechanistic processes, and often rely instead on rote-memorization (45). A key
aim of this module is to provide students with a common foundation of knowledge
and skills from which to progress in their future studies, by developing the skills
required to derive mechanisms from first principles rather than attempting to
rote-learn mechanistic processes.

67
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 A Role for Learning Analytics in Enhancing Lecture Delivery and Feedback

An educator who is able to interact with their students and collect data
regarding what they are (and are not) learning can adjust their teaching style
and provide improved feedback to students, as discussed by Toto and Nguyen
(46). The principle of Just-in-Time Teaching, as defined by Novak et al. (47),
can be supported by the use of learning analytics, helping an educator to adjust
their teaching to give more attention to areas in which students demonstrate
weaker understanding. The key consideration, of utmost relevance for organic
chemistry, is that if students misunderstand important pieces of knowledge or
earlier learning outcomes, they may fail to progress in grasping higher-order
concepts. The use of learning analytics can help to identify misconceptions and
gaps in knowledge which can be immediately addressed before progressing to
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

more advanced material, and this was instrumental in informing the design of the
interactive pre-lecture videos.
The reduction in the amount of feedback students receive when they progress
to university has already been discussed as one of the barriers that hinders a smooth
transition to university (19). As such an additional aim of this work was to use
learning analytics to enhance the feedback provided to students, and this was
achieved in a number of ways as outlined in the implementation section below.
Improved feedback can empower students to manage their own thought processes
(48) and generate feedback for themselves or their peers (49), while meaningful
group discussion and reflection may also be encouraged (50). The preceding points
were important in ensuring that students were well-prepared to engage with the
in-class activities being introduced as part of this project. Enhanced feedback can
also help students to become more aware of their own learning, helping them to
develop skills of metacognition (51), and supporting the key objective that this
work would assist students in becoming the effective independent learners they
need to be in order to succeed at university.
In the example outlined in this case study, interactive online pre-lectures
were created which were based on existing material and did not require extensive
preparation time. Usage data and the responses to Zaption questions posed during
pre-lectures formed the basis of the analytics which were collected and analyzed
by the instructor to support teaching and learning as outlined below.

Methodology

Pre-lecture videos were again prepared using Panopto (40) on a tablet PC.
The instructor annotated PowerPoint slides using a stylus to add structures and
mechanisms while explaining his actions verbally, as illustrated in Figure 3.

68
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

Figure 3. An example of a Zaption pre-lecture video based on annotation of

PowerPoint slide. (Zaption images reproduced with permission from reference
(44). Copyright 2016 Zaption.)

The videos were uploaded to YouTube for online hosting, after which Zaption
(44), a piece of web-based software running in the browser, was used to add
interactivity to the videos. Videos augmented with Zaption can be made to pause
at any point in order that questions can be posed to the viewer. In these examples,
multiple choice questions (MCQs) were used to probe students’ understanding
of key concepts, with Zaption providing instant feedback to students on their
answers. Open response questions were also employed to gain an understanding
of students’ thought processes, while giving them opportunities to reflect on the
reasoning behind their responses. This meant students could evaluate and refine
their understanding prior to the face-to-face session. In some cases, explanations
of answers were included as part of the flipped lecture so as to provide additional
feedback. Students’ responses to all questions, along with viewing statistics, were
subsequently available for download as .csv files.

69
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Implementation of Zaption Pre-Lecture Videos in Practice

The first pre-lecture video that was shared with students introduced the
fundamental concepts that govern the strength of organic acids, which came at the
beginning of a four-lecture unit on this particular topic. During the video, students
were taught the definitions of acids and bases in the context of organic chemistry,
and were also shown the convention for drawing acid-base reaction mechanisms
using curly arrows. At the end of the video, students were asked three questions.
In the first (Figure 4a), they were shown a curly arrow mechanism and asked if it
was correct. In the second question (Figure 4b), they were asked to draw a curly
arrow mechanism themselves. Since there was no straightforward way for them
to input molecular structures and curly arrows into the online platform, the video
was automatically paused at this point so students could draw the mechanism. The
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

students then un-paused the video to view the instructor drawing the mechanism
so they could check their work. They could then select a response to a multiple
choice question which indicated how close they had been to the correct answer.

Figure 4. a and b: examples of questions presented to students during a Zaption

pre-lecture. (Zaption images reproduced with permission from reference (44).
Copyright 2016 Zaption.)

70
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Finally, to assist them in moving to higher-order thinking, students were asked
to consider two molecules, ethanol and acetic acid. These are similar molecules
chemically, each containing two carbon atoms, one of which is attached to oxygen,
but they have different acid-base properties. The information that ethanol is a
weaker acid than acetic acid was provided to the students, and they were then
asked to consider why this is the case. Students gave their responses to this prompt,
which were then reviewed to inform the preparation of the scheduled lecture, with
some correct and incorrect example answers incorporated into lecture slides for
review purposes. The overall result was that students received immediate feedback
on their grasp of basic concepts and skills (curly arrow mechanism), and also then
had some time to consider a deep learning level question on the application of
this concept to explain a physical phenomenon with which they are all familiar,
i.e. the different properties, including taste, of alcohol and vinegar. This was then
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

followed by further feedback in the scheduled lecture slot, which was particularly
timely in view of the fact that most students watched pre-lectures videos in the 24
hours preceding the scheduled lecture.
The remaining videos were produced in a similar format, with the rich
data collected being analyzed by the instructor prior to each scheduled session.
Another approach used was to follow up a multiple choice question (e.g. “Which
of these compounds will react fastest?”) with an open response question in which
students were invited to explain their answer. This helped to ensure that students
were thinking on a deep level rather than simply ticking an answer, and also
provided insight regarding whether or not they were using the correct reasoning.
The process of skimming through the students’ answers could be completed
surprisingly quickly, and it soon became clear whether or not students were on the
right track and what the predominant points of confusion were among the cohort.
Towards the end of the semester, an unexpected outcome illustrated the value
of this approach. During one of the pre-lectures, the students were asked three
questions. Almost all of the students got the correct answers to the first and last
questions, but very few answered the middle question correctly. This was very
surprising, since the question was not expected to be more challenging than the
others. Moreover, the most popular answer selected was the most incorrect of the
options available, indicating a fundamental misunderstanding of the way electrons
are shared within molecules. Having access to these learning analytics allowed
the adjustment of teaching to address this fundamental misunderstanding during
the scheduled lecture. Without analysis of the data, the misconception would
have gone undetected, potentially for some time thereafter, with consequences for
understanding of more complex concepts.
As well as providing further opportunities for feedback, the scrutiny of
analytics also allowed the instructor to moderate the pace of delivery to meet
the needs of students, with higher-order concepts only being covered once
students had grasped the underpinning material. Additionally, the lecture time
freed up by partial flipping also allowed the implementation of in-class self- and
peer-assessment activities, and clicker quizzes. These activities were designed
to build on concepts covered in the pre-lecture videos, and again were adapted
to take account of the misconceptions and misunderstandings uncovered through
scrutiny of the learning analytics.

71
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Student Engagement with Flipped Lectures and Zaption Questions

Analytics indicated that approximately 50 % of the cohort students made use

of the flipped lectures throughout the module, which was perhaps a reflection of
the fact that these were short pre-lecture videos which some students evidently felt
they were able to miss. This contrasts with case study 1, where engagement was
typically > 90%, which is perhaps a result of the smaller class size in that case,
meaning that the instructor was better placed to incentivize individuals who may
otherwise have attempted to hide in the shadows. Fortunately, the nature of the
formative in-class activities meant that students who missed pre-lectures would
be able to pick up some of what they missed, even if they didn’t gain as much
benefit as their more engaged peers.
Interestingly, students who answered all of the open answer questions
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

throughout the sequence tended to provide more detailed responses, marking

these out as a more engaged group. Analysis of these students’ responses showed
that the quality (in terms of correctness) was variable, indicating that it wasn’t
necessarily the highest attaining students who were most engaged. The active
approaches employed in-class were evidently well received, with the instructor
reporting excellent engagement during scheduled lectures which provided further
valuable insight regarding students’ progress.

Enhanced Provision of Feedback

As discussed in the introduction, it has been reported previously that one of

the impediments to a successful transition to university learning is the reduction
in the amount of feedback students receive in comparison to their experience
at school (19). The challenges associated with providing such feedback are
clear, particularly in the large-class lecture setting, where it is difficult for a
single instructor to provide personalized feedback to individual students based
on knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses. As described above, the use
of interactive pre-lectures of the type outlined above can go some way towards
addressing the problem, as students receive instant feedback on their answers to
closed-response questions through Zaption, as well as further feedback during the
scheduled lecture. It may be the case that such feedback results in more effective
metacognitive processes in students, thus helping them to understand what they
need to focus on in their private study. This could represent a real breakthrough
in terms of supporting students in making a smooth and effective transition from
school-to-university, but thorough research would be required to confirm whether
or not this is the case.
Perhaps the most valuable impact on feedback provision is that fact that
data collected regarding student’s responses to Zaption questions (both open and
closed) can be viewed by the instructor at any time. As discussed above, the use
of such data enabled the pace and structure of individual lectures to be adjusted in
a just-in-time manner to suit student needs. Time was explicitly allocated in the

72
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 lectures to provide feedback on students’ responses to Zaption questions, and this
information was also used to design clicker questions, providing further feedback
opportunities to promote increased metacognition.
There were also positive impacts on the instructor, who was in effect receiving
feedback from students via the mechanisms outlined above. Importantly, having
identified common misconceptions by scrutinizing responses to Zaption questions,
he was able to directly address these before moving onto more advanced material.
On the other hand, where most students had responded correctly to questions, this
resulted in a feeling of security about their level of understanding, allowing the
instructor to confidently introduce more stretch and challenge where appropriate.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

Evaluation Data

As with the first case study, the evaluation data presented is relatively limited,
but does provide valuable insight, and has informed research which is currently
being undertaken to ascertain the true impacts of partial flipping with interactive
pre-lecture videos on student learning and metacognition. There were some
positive outcomes which can be reported here, including a 10% increase in the
average mark achieved on a mid-term exam. The prior attainment of students
in the two cohorts (2013/14 and 2014/15) was broadly similar, and both tests
targeted the same material. The module was taught to both cohorts by the same
instructor, and the only material change to delivery was the use of the partial
flipping approach, accompanied by enhanced interactivity in the scheduled
sessions. This provides evidence that the novel approach was indeed beneficial
to student learning, although the usual caveats apply when considering such data
as evidence of impact.
In order to evaluate student perceptions of the value of the partial flipping
approach, an in-class clicker survey, which was not validated, was used in the
final lecture of the module to investigate students’ usage of the pre-lecture videos,
and also their opinions regarding the value of different elements of the teaching
and learning associated with the module, as documented in Table 3.
It is particularly noteworthy that students were almost as positive in their
view of the impact of pre-lectures on their understanding as they were about the
lectures themselves. The data relating to the active learning elements introduced
into timetabled lectures are a little less positive, but are still indicative of a
favorable response. The same clicker survey also probed students’ attitudes
regarding the value of the more traditional teaching resources which supported
the module, with interesting results. Large numbers of students didn’t use
these resources, with 52% reporting that they didn’t do the recommend reading
from the textbook and 72% reporting that they didn’t complete any of the
problems from the textbook. Surprisingly, 42% of students did not make use of
practice worksheets on Blackboard despite the fact that these represented a good
opportunity to become familiar with exam-style questions.

73
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 3. Students’ views regarding the value of pre-lecture and in-class
elements of teaching (n = 110)a
VH H N NH DNU
How helpful were pre-lectures in
improving your understanding of 37% 43% 9% 1% 10%
material?
How helpful were lectures in improving
47% 34% 9% 1% 9%
your understanding of material?
How helpful were clicker questions
in improving your understanding of 28% 40% 18% 7% 7%
material?
How helpful were in-class
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

peer-assessment tasks in improving 16% 36% 23% 12% 14%

your understanding of material?
a VH = very helpful; H = helpful; N = neutral; NH = not helpful; DNU = did not use

In addition to this, students were surveyed using a Zaption video containing

text response questions which probed how they felt the videos had impacted their
practice. Although this provided richer data, the response rate (approximately 40
students) was lower than in the case of the clicker survey. Evidence has been
extracted from students’ comments and is linked to the benefits of the approach as
inferred from analysis of the data (Table 4).
These comments provide evidence that, in some cases at least, students’
perceived improvement in understanding is related to reduced cognitive load
during the scheduled lecture, in accordance with Seery and Donnelly’s earlier
findings (31). The data also show that students felt that they were better prepared
for lectures as a result of the approach, and there is evidence that this provided a
structure within which students could study more effectively outside class.
If the flipped lecture structure is reducing cognitive load, we might also expect
students to feel more comfortable with the amount of material covered in a lecture
course. Gratifyingly, in the final course evaluation questionnaire for this module,
there was a significant jump in the score for responses to the statement “I was
comfortable with the amount of material covered” (3.9/5 in the previous year,
rising to 4.3/5 when the flipped structure was introduced), despite the fact that
there was actually a small increase in the amount of content covered in the module.
This effect may be explained by reduced cognitive load, with students comfortably
able to assimilate more information when their minds are suitably prepared prior
to scheduled lectures. Overall, this data is very encouraging indeed, seems to point
to positive impacts similar to those reported by others such as Eichler and Peeples
(36).

74
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 4. Evidence extracted from student responses to the questions “What
are the advantages and disadvantages of using the flipped videos at home as
opposed to being taught the material in class?” and “Do you have any other
comments on flipped teaching and its effectiveness in helping you to learn?”
Benefit Evidence extracted from student quotes
“…undoubtedly aided my understanding of the topics involved.”
“It made what was being taught in the lectures easier to understand.”
“…I like how I am able to pause when I want and go back on content
Reduced which I may otherwise miss in the lectures.”
cognitive “…made me think about the material before the lecture which gave
load me a greater understanding and allowed me to take more from the
lecture.”
“…gave me a greater understanding and allowed me to take more
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

from the lecture.”

“Really good as I can briefly see whats coming…”
“…impacted positively as I was more prepared for the lectures and
Better they provided a good structure for studying the material.”
preparation “Meant I had to do work before lectures, but that meant I felt more
for scheduled prepared for the lectures.”
lectures “The pre-lectures prepared me for the next lecture and made me think
about the material before the lecture…”
“Forced me to be more systematic.”
“…it was good practice especially the questions when you would give
Feedback
feedback in the lecture.”

Conclusions
Both case studies provide evidence that the partial flipping approach has
led to beneficial outcomes from the perspectives of students and educators alike.
Students have reported that they are better prepared for the face-to-face lecture,
and that they are able to get more out of the lecture as a result of their pre-lecture
work. Furthermore, some students have indicated that the approach has provided
a structure for their independent study, helping them to develop a systematic
approach, something which can be difficult when one is first faced with many
pages of hastily written notes after attending a lecture as a novice student. This
suggests that partial flipping of lecture content can be effective in supporting
students who are making the transition from school-to-university, ensuring that
they are better prepared for overcoming some of the hurdles that traditionally
present themselves to students embarking on study at degree level.

75
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 From the staff perspective, partial flipping represents an achievable first step
towards a different way of teaching. The approach outlined in the first case study
has been used in each academic year since the trial, and this will continue for
the foreseeable future. As indicated previously, the positive student response
to the initial implementation was enough to persuade a busy, research-focused
academic that there was value in testing the approach in their own teaching, with
evidently similar favorable outcomes. This has since resulted in more colleagues
at Southampton adopting partial flipping for themselves, potentially leading to
impactful, long-term changes to practice. The use of Zaption in the second case
study adds another dimension in terms of learning analytics which can provide
direction for just-in-time teaching in the following lecture, but this admittedly
also adds to workload, with scrutiny of data expanding to fill the time available.
However, creative approaches to teaching, perhaps involving more staff sharing
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

teaching of modules and thus shedding some of the extra responsibility, may
overcome such issues. Furthermore, the provision of enhanced feedback and the
discussion permitted by the freeing-up of face-to-face contact time give students
some of the support that is missing in comparison with their days at school.
Universities need to be dynamic to respond to the changing experiences and
expectations that students bring with them, particularly in the face of challenges
such as the MOOC. The key asset that universities have is their people, and the
accessibility of those people to students. Cramming students into lecture halls
and bombarding them with content in a didactic fashion is certainly outmoded in
the view of these authors, but that doesn’t mean the lecture is necessarily dead.
By adopting innovations such as the flipped classroom, universities can make
better use of the that precious face-to-face contact time to ensure that the students
get the experience they are seeking and that their learning is maximized. This
will be something that will be difficult to replicate in a MOOC, and since most
humans are social animals at heart, real personal interactions would seem to be a
very important component of an effective education. However, there is no doubt
that MOOCs do have a lot to offer, and are a fantastic resource for those who
are unable to attend campus-based courses, and as Zaption shows, an interactive
online experience can be highly engaging for those who are amenable. It will be
interesting to see how this situation evolves over time.
Discussion with colleagues at Southampton and elsewhere indicates that there
is a general acceptance of the suggestion that active learning is more effective than
traditional lecturing (18), but many are unsure how best to incorporate it into their
teaching. In particular, many colleagues indicate that they lack the confidence and
expertise needed to make the leap to fully flipped teaching, given that this requires
wholesale changes to the planning and delivery of taught sessions. A key benefit
of the partial flipping model is that it provides a stepping stone which allows those
who wish to experiment with alternative methods to do so while keeping one foot
firmly in their comfort zone. Ideally this will lead to improved confidence and will
help colleagues to develop their expertise in an iterative fashion as they experiment
further. Such a process has the potential to engage greater numbers of teaching
staff in the implementation of active learning in otherwise traditional lectures. If
nothing else, such activities may challenge seasoned practitioners to reflect on their

76
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 practice and think about what they can do to refresh or even reboot their teaching.
These will be exciting times for those who are willing to embrace change.

References
1. Scott, A. Chemistry Makes A Comeback In U.K. Universities, Schools.
Chem. Eng. News 2013 (Mar 18), 79–82.
2. National Foundation for Educational Research. Evaluation of Chemistry for
our Future. Extension phase report. [Link]
CFF01/[Link] (accessed 14th May 2016).
3. Grove, M. National HE STEM Programme Final Report. http://
[Link]/Documents/college-eps/college/stem/additional/
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

[Link] (accessed 14th May 2016).

4. Read, D. A UK approach to counter declining enrollment in chemistry and
related disciplines at the university level. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 898–900.
5. Shallcross, D. E.; Harrison, T. G. A secondary School Teacher Fellow within
a university chemistry department: the answer to problems of recruitment
and transition from secondary school to University and subsequent retention?
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8, 101–104.
6. Shallcross, D. E.; Harrison, T. G.; Read, D.; Barker, N. On the Impact
of School Teacher Fellows in Chemistry Departments within UK Higher
Education Institutes, from 2005-2013. Higher Educ. Stud. 2014, 4, 7–17.
7. Tunney, J. A legacy for chemistry education. New Dir. Teach. Phys. Sci.
2009, 5, 7–11.
8. UK National Curriculum. [Link]
overview (accessed 14th May 2016).
9. Read, D.; Barnes, S. M. Review of A-level Chemistry Content [Online].
[Link] (accessed 14th May 2016).
10. School and college performance tables, Department for Education. http://
[Link]/schools/performance/[Link] (accessed 14th May
2016).
11. OFSTED. [Link] (ac
cessed 14th May 2016).
12. Stotesbury, N.; Dorling, D. Understanding Income Inequality and
its Implications: Why Better Statistics Are Needed [Online], 2015.
[Link]
[Link]
(accessed 14th May 2016).
13. Vaughn, R. UK is a world leader…in ‘teaching to the test’. Times Education
Supplement 2015 (Dec 18), 6–7.
14. Bretz, S. L. Novak’s theory of education: Human constructivism and
meaningful learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1107.
15. Higher Education Academy. Review of the Student Learning Experience
in Chemistry. [Link]
[Link] (accessed 14th May 2016).
16. Bligh, D. A. What is the Use of Lectures?; San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
77
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 17. Matheson, C. The educational value and effectiveness of lectures. The
Clinical Teacher 2008, 5, 218–221.
18. Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.;
Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active Learning Increases Student Performance
in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
2014, 111, 8410–8415.
19. Yorke M.; Longden B. Retention and student success in higher education;
McGraw-Hill Education: 2004.
20. Cardellini, L. Deep thinking: What lectures are for. J. Chem. Educ. 2014,
90, 1418.
21. Page, E. M.; Read, D. Electronic Voting Systems in Undergraduate Teaching.
[Link]. 2010, 47, 183–186.
22. Beatty, I. D. Transforming Student Learning with Classroom Communication
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

Systems. Educause Centre for Applied Research [Online]. https://

[Link]/ir/library/pdf/[Link] (accessed 14th May 2016).
23. Turner, K. Teacher Fellowship Report. [Link]
default/files/teacher_fellowship_final_report_k_turner.pdf (accessed 14th
May 2016).
24. Smith, C. School Teacher Fellowship Final Report. [Link]
[Link]/sites/default/files/csmith_fellowship_report.pdf (accessed 14th May
2016).
25. Boniface, J.; Read, D.; Russell, A. E. Sharing learning outcomes in chemistry
teaching at HE level: beneficial or detrimental? New Dir. Teach. Phys. Sci.
2011, 7, 31–35.
26. Bergmann, J.; Sams, A. Flip your classroom: Reach every student in
every class every day; International Society for Technology in Education:
Washington, DC, 2012.
27. Andrews, C. J.; Brown, R. C.; Harrison, C. K.; Read, D.; Roach, P. L. Lecture
capture: Early lessons learned and experiences shared. New Dir. Teach.
Phys. Sci. 2010, 6, 56–60.
28. Lancaster, S. J.; Read, D. Flipping lectures and inverting classrooms. Educ.
Chem. 2013, 50, 14–17.
29. Paas, F.; Renkl, A.; Sweller, J. Cognitive load theory: Instructional
implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive
architecture. Instr. Sci. 2004, 32, 1–8.
30. Sweller, J.; van Merrienboer, J. J. G.; Paas, F. G. W. C. Cognitive architecture
and instructional design. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 1998, 10, 251–296.
31. Seery, M. K.; Donnelly, R. The implementation of pre‐lecture resources to
reduce in‐class cognitive load: A case study for higher education chemistry.
Brit. J. Educ. Technol. 2012, 43, 667–677.
32. Sirhan, G.; Reid, N. An Approach in Supporting University Chemistry
Teaching. Univ. Chem. Educ. 2002, 3, 65–75.
33. Seery, M. K. Flipped learning in higher education chemistry: emerging trends
and potential directions. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 758–768.
34. Christiansen, M. A. Inverted teaching: applying a new pedagogy to a
university organic chemistry class. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1845–1850.

78
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 35. Flynn, A. B. Structure and evaluation of flipped chemistry courses: organic &
spectroscopy, large and small, first to third year, English and French. Chem.
Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 198–211.
36. Eichler, J. F.; Peeples, J. Flipped classroom modules for large enrollment
general chemistry courses: a low barrier approach to increase active learning
and improve student grades. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2016, 17, 197–208.
37. Morgan, J. Lecturing for learning. In A handbook for teaching and learning
in higher education: Enhancing academic practice; Fry, H., Ketteridge, S.,
Marshall, S., Eds.; London: Routledge, 2003; p 75.
38. Heeren, J. K. Teaching chemistry by the Socratic Method. J. Chem. Educ.
1990, 67, 330.
39. Holme, T. A. Using the Socratic method in large lecture courses: Increasing
student interest and involvement by forming instantaneous groups. J. Chem.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch004

Educ. 1992, 69, 974.

40. Panopto ‘Video for Education’. [Link]
(accessed 14th May 2016).
41. Mazur E. Peer Instruction: a user’s manual; Prentice-Hall: San Francisco,
1997.
42. Crouch, C. H.; Mazur, E. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and
results. Am. J. Phys. 2001, 69, 970–977.
43. Shallcross, D. E; Harrison, T. G. Lectures: electronic presentations versus
chalk and talk – a chemist’s view. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8, 73–79.
44. Zaption. [Link] (accessed 14th May 2016).
45. Brown, R. C. D.; Hinks, J. D.; Read, D. A blended-learning approach to
supporting students in organic chemistry: Methodology and outcomes. New
Dir. Teach. Phys. Sci. 2012, 8, 33–37.
46. Toto, R.; Nguyen, H. Flipping the work design in an industrial engineering
course. Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, TX, Oct 18−21,
2009 [Online]. [Link]
5350529 (accessed 14th May 2016).
47. Novak, G. M.; Patterson, E. T.; Gavrin, A. D.; Christian, W.; Forinash, K.
Just-In-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology.
Am. J. Phys. 1999, 67, 937–938.
48. Keeves, J. P. Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An
international handbook; Pergamon Press: Oxford, 1988.
49. Zimmerman, B. J. Development and Adaptation of Expertise: The Role
of Self-Regulatory Processes and Beliefs. In The Cambridge handbook of
expertise and expert performance; Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich,
P. J., Hoffman, R. R., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY,
2006; pp 705−722.
50. Anderson, D.; Nashon, S. M.; Thomas, G. P. Evolution of research methods
for probing and understanding metacognition. Res. Sci. Educ. 2009, 39,
181–195.
51. Flavell, J. H.; Miller, P. H.; Miller, S. A. Cognitive Development; Prentice
Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001.

79
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Chapter 5

Just-in-Time Teaching Organic Chemistry with

iPad Tablets
Justin B. Houseknecht*
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

Department of Chemistry, Wittenberg University, PO Box 720, Springfield,

Ohio 45501
*E-mail: jhouseknecht@[Link]

Just-in-Time Teaching has been used to facilitate in-class

problem solving with iPad tablets for six semesters at a small,
selective midwestern university. Organic chemistry classes of
18-51 students have effectively used this pedagogy to improve
both student learning and success rates. Students prepare for
class using detailed reading objectives and online homework.
They then use a course management system to inform the
instructor of the concepts with which they are struggling the
most. These comments are then used to design each class
session in which the instructor addresses student comments
through short lectures and collaborative problem solving. Each
group of students records audiovisual solutions to each problem
on an iPad; these audiovisual solutions are then used for in-class
discussion and post-class review.

Introduction
Research supporting the effectiveness of active learning in the sciences
is diverse, long-standing, and persuasive. Freeman and colleagues’ 2014
meta-analysis reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
showing an average increase of 6% in exam scores and markedly lower DFW
rates (1) is among the most persuasive for many. Much of these data, including
in chemistry, have been available for years, but the data were not what convinced
me to adopt active learning methods in my courses. The linchpin for me was
a compelling presentation of specific pedagogies that align well with Bloom’s
taxonomy of learning.

© 2016 American Chemical Society

Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 There are a multitude of models by which to understand ways of knowing.
Bloom’s taxonomy of learning (2) and its 2001 revision (3) are popular in large part
because of their simplicity and ease of application. The revised Bloom’s taxonomy
lists six key learning tasks (bold). These are not verbs commonly used in chemical
instruction, so the list below has been augmented with more familiar chemical
terms.

• Remember – define, identify, describe

• Understand – explain, describe, classify
• Apply – solve, calculate, provide, name, predict
• Analyze – compare, contrast, explain, illustrate, differentiate
• Evaluate – choose, predict, rank, explain
• Create – plan, retrosynthesize
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

The most basic level of learning is to remember facts. Understanding builds

upon recollection and application upon understanding. Organic chemistry is
difficult for many students because, unlike in most of their prior experience, the
majority of the course content is in the upper two-thirds of Bloom’s taxonomy
of learning. Even nomenclature, which many consider the easiest component of
organic chemistry, is application of rules. Asking students to explain an organic
process can be at the level of understanding, but is more likely to be analysis or
even evaluation. Retrosynthetic analysis, the heart of organic chemistry, is the
very highest order of critical thinking in the revised taxonomy – creation.
The students we are asking to operate within these higher domains of critical
thinking come from more than a decade of learning, with few exceptions, in
the lower half of Bloom’s taxonomy of learning. They often struggle with
the problem-solving in General Chemistry because even application is more
advanced than the remembering and understanding that they have focused on
previously. Most of our students are capable of developing these higher-order
ways of knowing, but they often require substantial support to do so.
I was finally convinced to abandon lecture when confronted with the
reality that students cannot make appreciable progress on higher-order learning
objectives while listening to a lecture. Lectures can help students remember
facts and understand their context. Brilliant lectures can also model application,
analysis, evaluation, and creation in ways that show students how to engage in
these critical processes. This modeling is often an essential part of instruction,
but it is rarely sufficient to develop new critical thinking skills in our students.
Students must actually go through the hard work of application, analysis,
evaluation, or creation if they are to develop these abilities. The traditional
lecture model assumes that students will be able to do this on their own, between
class periods. The best students – such as those that go on to receive PhD’s in
chemistry and then teach in the discipline – may be successful at this, but the rest
flounder. Active learning pedagogies are successful in large measure because
they allow higher-order learning goals to be addressed in class, where students
are surrounded by their peers and an instructor is available to help.
There are many proven active learning pedagogies described in the
educational research literature. The pedagogy described in this chapter uses

82
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 the framework of Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT) (4–6) to guide both students’
and the instructor’s preparation for class. Physicists developed JiTT in the
mid-1990’s to better support and structure students’ pre-class reading. They
used the then-newly developed Internet to ask their students 2-4 questions before
each class session. Open-ended questions that address common misconceptions
were the most effective. Many JiTT instructors have also found it useful to ask
muddiest point questions that ask students to comment upon the topic they find
most challenging. Students direct their reading to answer these questions and
instructors use student answers to structure the subsequent class session. The
class sessions necessarily focus upon addressing student misconceptions. This
can be accomplished through a series of mini-lectures, but many JiTT instructors
have incorporated problem-solving and other active-learning approaches.
The pedagogy described in this chapter structures pre-class work with detailed
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

reading guides, publisher-supplied online homework, and a single muddiest-point

question completed 6-8 hours before each class session. The instructor then
uses these reflections to develop in-class mini-lectures and activities that address
student misconceptions and difficulties. The in-class problem solving activities
place students in teams of 3-4 to collaboratively create audio-visual solutions
on iPad tablets. These solutions are reviewed both collectively in class and
individually after class. Students consolidate their learning further after class
with individual problem solving.
This pedagogy builds upon decades of education research showing that
collaborative learning and metacognition can promote students’ ability to
construct and retain understanding (7). It also develops skills essential for
success in the 21st century through both scaffolding and daily repetition. Reading
assignments from the textbook improve students’ ability to read informational
text. Well-structured team problem solving builds the skills most sought-after by
employers: leadership, ability to work in a team, written communication skills,
problem-solving skills, and oral communication skills (8). These themes will be
further delineated once the pedagogy has been more thoroughly described.

Methods
Effective implementation of active learning pedagogies requires more than
replacing lectures with activities. Providing appropriate incentive and assistance
for students to address learning objectives outside of class is also essential. This
pedagogy uses three primary resources to effect student learning: the textbook,
Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT), and collaborative learning. The pedagogy described
in this chapter has been used to teach Organic Chemistry at a Midwestern liberal
arts university with class sizes ranging from 18 - 51 students.
The textbook is an essential resource for students with the pedagogy described
in this chapter. Students are expected to read relevant sections and attain lower-
order learning objectives before coming to class. Many, if not most, students
enter Organic Chemistry completely unprepared to effectively read the textbook,
so a guide for reading the textbook and detailed lists of learning objectives are
provided for each class period (Figure 1). These lists are arranged by section of
83
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 the textbook and contain only the learning objectives that students are expected
to make progress on before [Link] lists also direct students to 5-10 minute
mini-lectures on challenging or important topics that they are to watch before
class (underlined text). These pre-class lists of learning objectives don’t contain
some of the more challenging learning objectives, such as stereoselectivity and
synthesis for the material in Figure 1, so a separate list of learning objectives is
provided for each exam (Figure 2). Students find it helpful to have this second
list broken down into reactions that they can just memorize (Reactivity), reactions
they need to know the mechanisms for (Mechanism), and reactions they need to
be able to use in synthesis (Synthesis). Organization of material is a substantial
challenge for many students in active learning classrooms. This difficulty is at least
partially ameliorated by continual referral to relevant sections of the textbook and
the detailed study guides.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

Figure 1. Lists of learning objectives provided to prepare for a 90-minute class

session.

An online homework system (9, 10) (currently OWLv2) associated with the
textbook is also essential both in student preparation for class and consolidation
of material after class. Explanatory / tutorial assignments are due prior to each
class period. These assignments assess lower-order learning objectives and,
sometimes, introduce higher-order learning objectives. They are graded primarily
for completion, typically requiring less than 30 minutes. Online post-class
homework is also assigned weekly to help students review and consolidate their
understanding of the material. The homework assignments are mastery-oriented
in that the emphasis is upon whether students can answer items correctly within
ten attempts.

84
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

Figure 2. Lists of learning objectives provided to prepare for an exam.

Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT) provides the course structure. Students’

preparation for class culminates in their electronic response to a JiTT prompt by
12:30 am before each class session. This is occasionally a topic-specific prompt,
but is more often simply a muddiest point question. Topic-specific prompts
ask students to explain an observation in complete sentences whereas muddiest
point questions ask them to specify clearly what material from the reading they
struggled to understand. The strength of the muddiest point questions is that they
force students to reflect upon their own learning, an important metacognitive task.
The necessary effort is incentivized in two ways. First, JiTT responses, worth 5%
of the course grade, are graded on a 0-5 scale with fairly high criteria (Table 1).
Students receive prompt feedback (within 8 hours) on the quality of their JiTT
responses. Second, clear and concise responses are more likely to be used in class
where the heading of most PowerPoint slides is a JiTT response. Students often
comment that they value seeing their own responses shaping in-class activities.

85
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 1. Rubric used to assess JiTT responses.
5 – Clear articulation of which content was challenging and demonstration of a serious
attempt to grapple with it
3 – Explanation of which content was challenging, but little explanation of how or why
1 – Response demonstrates little effort

Each 90-minute class period is organized around the JiTT responses that
students submit before 12:30 am. There are typically 3-4 response clusters
addressed in a given class period (Figure 3). Several student responses are
displayed via PowerPoint. Some questions are addressed directly with short (3-5
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

minute) mini-lectures and others are addressed via collaborative problem solving.
The audio-visual solutions created by two or three of the teams are then reviewed
as a class before the next cluster of JiTT responses is addressed. This structure
ensures that class time is used to address the material that students are actually
finding difficult and helps students to establish ownership of their learning.

Figure 3. The classroom learning cycle is repeated 3-4 times per 90-minute
meeting.

Collaborative learning is the central component of this pedagogy. The

textbook and JiTT are valuable, but only in-as-much as they enable students to
engage in collaborative learning. Approximately two-thirds of each class period
is spent with students working in teams of three or four. Teams of two tend to
have difficulty gaining the collective understanding to solve problems and teams
larger than four have difficulty keeping all members engaged. This is consistent
with observations in other disciplines (11). Students organize their teams on
the first day of the semester and then reorganize after each exam. Students are
required to form teams containing at least one person that have not previously
been grouped with. This periodic, forced reorganization helps the class become a
86
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 single community of learning rather than several isolated teams. It also increases
the likelihood that each student will have the experience of being in at least one
high functioning team and one that requires effort.
Class time is spent throughout the semester discussing expectations and
characteristics of good teamwork. Students are directed to:

• Work individually on their assigned problem for 1-2 minutes,

• Work as a team on their assigned problem until a solution is understood
by all,
• Ask one another questions and offer explanations to ensure mutual
understanding,
• Discuss challenges within their teams or with the instructor,
• Take turns recording audio-visual solutions on the iPad tablets with no
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

student recording a second solution before each has recorded one,

• Work on additional questions as time allows.

During problem solving periods the instructor circulates through the

teams to ensure that they are working well together and arriving at reasonable
understandings of the material. Students evaluate themselves and their teammates
at the conclusion of each unit of material for 15% of their course grade. Initially
students completed a table on each exam using the rubric shown in Table 2.

Table 2. The teamwork grading rubric is used by students to assess their

own and their teammates’ contributions.
Descriptor Every Day Typically Rarely
Prepared for class and engaged in activities 5 3 1
Asks helpful questions and answers others’ 5 3 1
clearly
Both contributes to solutions and allows others 5 3 1
to do so

More recently this function has been completed electronically using the
CATME website (12, 13). The CATME domains used are: Contributing to the
Team’s Work; Interacting with Teammates; Having Related Knowledge, Skills,
and Abilities. The training / calibration, prompts, and analysis offered by CATME
have led to better student comments and results more consistent with instructor
observations. CATME has many additional functions which have not yet been
exploited.
Students’ JiTT responses determine the problems that teams are assigned
during class. Each cluster of responses typically generates 3-4 problems that are
assigned based upon the randomly distributed iPad tablets (one iPad per team,
5-8 teams per class, Figure 4). Students work individually for 1-2 minutes before
discussing the problem in their teams and recording an audio-visual solution on

87
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 an iPad using the Explain Everything app (14). It is important for both learning
and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance that the audio and
visual portions of the solutions be comprehensible in isolation from one another.
Solutions are placed in a Dropbox folder (as .xpl files) to which each iPad is
linked. Students are encouraged to work on one of the other team’s problems as
time allows once their own is uploaded to Dropbox. Each cycle of teamwork lasts
five to fifteen minutes.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

Figure 4. A typical PowerPoint slide that assigns problems for teamwork. The
bracketed numbers indicate the corresponding sections of the textbook. The text
in the lower right corner indicates the Dropbox folder in which solutions are to
be saved. The red/grey bar is a ten-minute countdown timer.

The uploaded audio-visual solutions are reviewed as a class once time has
expired and at least half of the teams have uploaded their solution. The class is
then prompted to comment upon both strengths and weaknesses of the solution
before another is viewed. Typically two or three of the solutions are reviewed
before the next learning cycle is initiated with new JiTT responses (Figure 3).
The .xpl audio-visual solutions are converted to .mp4 files using the Explain
Everything Compressor and uploaded to the course management system (15) after
class so that they can be reviewed by students on a variety of platforms. It is
technically possible for this step to be completed by students during class, but it
introduces too much delay (Explain Everything on an iPad takes 1-3 times longer
to compress a .xpl file than the recording). It has also been necessary for the
instructor to review each solution and briefly comment upon their accuracy to
increase student perception of their value.

88
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Results
This pedagogy has improved student performance relative to the
teacher-centered instruction previously employed. This improvement has been
most readily observed in the population most difficult to reach – the weaker
students. Seven years of trying every teacher-centered intervention possible
had failed to alter a persistent 26% (± 3%) DFW rate (the percent of students
receiving a D, F, or withdrawing from the course) in Organic 1. The first year
using this active-learning approach saw the DFW rate decrease to 6%. The
average DFW rate over the first three years of this approach was 12% (± 8%).
Exam scores have, likewise, improved by 1-3%, with the largest increase on
the cumulative final exam. Exam scores in Organic 2 have also increased, but
are not considered statistically significant due to a high number of confounding
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

variables. These gains have occurred within the context of falling performance
in General Chemistry where final exam scores have fallen by 2-8% (depending
upon instructor) over the same time frame.
Student response to this pedagogy has been largely positive. There are
certainly students that state their desire to “be taught” the material rather than
having to “teach it to themselves.” This is increasingly a minority of students,
but they have occasionally been quite vocal. There have also, however, been a
significant number of students that emphatically express their appreciation for this
student-centered approach. The majority of comments on the course evaluations
are now strongly in favor of the pedagogy. More gratifying, and important, are the
personal messages former students have begun sending to express their gratitude
for the experience.

Distinctive Characteristics
Development of technical reading skills is necessary in undergraduate
education. Success in the sciences requires the ability to read informational text,
yet students entering college appear to have little experience doing so. This
pedagogy supports student development of reading skills by requiring that they
read and providing instruction on how to do so. The key learning objectives for
each section of the textbook are provided so students know what they should
learn from their reading. Finally, the pre-class online homework helps students
assess whether their reading was effective.
Metacognition, thinking about thinking, has been shown to greatly enhance
student learning (7, 16). Students that frequently assess whether they understand
a passage of text, whether their problem-solving strategy is working, whether
they are ready for an exam, etc. have higher learning outcomes. The pedagogy
described in this chapter promotes metacognitive development from the first day
of class when the rationale for an active learning approach is presented. This
includes improvement in student outcomes, but also a mapping of course learning
objectives to Bloom’s taxonomy of learning. This type of approach has been
shown to promote metacognition and improved outcomes in general chemistry
and more broadly (7, 16).
89
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 A 2012 report of the National Research Council lists “defining learning
objectives, demanding more student responsibility in mastering content, and using
class time for problem solving” as additional means to develop metacognition (7).
The pedagogy described in this chapter provides learning objectives for which
students are responsible each day of class. The muddiest point JiTT question that
students answer before each class provides further opportunity for them to engage
in metacognitive thought. Brief, frequent opportunities for reflection have been
shown to be the type of writing-to-learn exercise most strongly correlated with
increased student performance (17). Likewise, collaborative problem solving
encourages students to reflect upon their own understanding as they work toward
a common solution.
Collaborative problem solving is a powerful component of many
active-learning pedagogies because it can be highly effective (7). It has already
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

been mentioned that collaborative problem solving develops metacognitive skills.

It also places students in the active role of co-constructors of knowledge rather
than that of passive recipients (18).
Collaborative problem solving is more effective when care is taken to ensure
that metacognition and co-construction occur. This pedagogy does so in several
ways. First, the emphasis during problem solving is on effective teamwork,
not obtaining the “right” answer. The ability of teams to work toward a shared
understanding is 15% of the course grade. The actual solutions are reviewed and
commented upon, but not graded. Second, students spend the first few minutes
of each activity working individually so that they each bring something to the
collaborative effort. Third, the product of this collaboration is an explanation,
not just an answer. Decades of talk-to-learn and writing-to-learn research have
shown that students who write and/or talk out their rationale develop stronger
metacognitive skills and learn better (18–20). This pedagogy requires each team
to provide both a complete visual explanation and a complete audio explanation
of their solution. Teams have chosen to divide the responsibilities for this
differently, but the requirement that each team member contribute once before
anyone contributes twice keeps all team members engaged. Finally, when
audio-visual solutions are reviewed in class particular attention is paid to elicit
student feedback on strengths and weaknesses.
Leadership, the ability to work in teams, problem solving, and
communication skills are consistently among the top skills employers seek in
college graduates (8). Collaborative problem solving with electronic whiteboards
provides an excellent opportunity for students to develop and demonstrate each
of these skills. As students work in four different teams over the course of a
semester they are presented with a variety of interpersonal challenges. Some
challenges they overcome easily, others require assistance from the instructor.
Regardless, this experience strengthens their ability to work in a team and be
an effective leader. Problem solving and communication skills are, likewise,
strengthened by practice. Students often resist public speaking, but the use of
electronic whiteboards has been well received. Students take recording their
audio-visual solutions seriously, but without much of the anxiety and flippancy
often seen with live presentations in front of the class.

90
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Future Directions
The basic structure of this pedagogy seems to be working quite well. There
is, however, at least one area in which improvement should be possible - the
problems assigned for collaborative work. It may be valuable to introduce more
real-world problems such as those used in problem-based learning (PBL) (21, 22).
Alternatively, students may be more engaged with the existing problems (both in
class and afterward) if some of them begin appearing on exams. A synthesis of
these options may also further promote student engagement and learning.

References
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

1. Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.;
Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active learning increases student performance in
science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2014,
111, 8410–8415.
2. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.); Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl,
D. R. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational
goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain; David McKay Company: New York,
1956.
3. Anderson, L. W. (Ed.); Krathwohl, D. R. (Ed.); Airasian, P. W.; Cruikshank,
K. A.; Mayer, R. E.; Pintrich, P. R.; Raths, J.; Wittrock, M. C. A taxonomy
for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives (Complete edition); Longman: New York, 2001.
4. Novak, G. M.; Patterson, E, T.; Gavrin, A. D.; Christian, W. Just-in-Time
Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology; Prentice-Hall:
Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999.
5. Lage, M. J.; Platt, G. J.; Treglia, M. Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway
to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment. J. Econ. Educ. 2000, 31,
30–43.
6. Simkins, S.; Maier, M., Eds. Just in Time Teaching: Across the Disciplines,
Across the Academy; Stylus Pub: Sterling, VA, 2009.
7. Singer, S. R.; Nielson, N. R.; Schweingruber, H. A. Discipline-Based
Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in
Undergraduate Science and Engineering; National Academies Press:
Washington, DC, 2012.
8. National Association of Colleges and Employers. Job Outlook 2016:
Attributes Employers Want to See on New College Graduates’ Resumes;
Bethlehem, PA, 2015.
9. OWL, version 1.0; Cengage Learning: Florence, KY, 2001. http://
[Link] (accessed May 3, 2013).
10. OWLv2, version 7.517.1; Cengage Learning: Florence, KY, 2014. http://
[Link] (accessed December 6, 2015).
11. Heller, P.; Hollabaugh, M. Teaching problem-solving through cooperative
grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. Am. J. Phys.
1992, 60, 637–644.
91
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 12. Ohland, M. W.; Loughry, M. L.; Woehr, D. J.; Finelli, C. J.; Bullard, L.
G.; Felder, R. M.; Layton, R. A.; Pomeranz, H. R.; Schmucker, D. G. The
comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: Development
of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self and peer evaluation. Acad.
Manage. Learn. Educ. 2012, 11, 609–630.
13. Loughry, M. L.; Ohland, M. W.; Moore, D. D. Development of a theory-
based assessment of team member effectiveness. Educ. Psychol. Meas.
2007, 67, 505–524.
14. Explain Everything, version 2.66; MorrisCooke: New York, 2015. Mobile
application software retrieved from [Link] (accessed
December 6, 2015).
15. Moodle, version 2.5; Moodle Pty Ltd: Perth, 2014. [Link]
(accessed December 6, 2015).
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch005

16. Cook, E.; Kennedy, E.; McGuire, S. Y. Effect of Teaching Metacognitive

Learning Strategies on Performance in General Chemistry Courses. J. Chem.
Educ. 2013, 90, 961–967.
17. Bangert-Drowns, R. L.; Hurley, M. H.; Wilkinson, B. The Effects of School-
Based Writing-to-Learn Interventions on Academic Achievement: A Meta-
Analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 2004, 74, 29–58.
18. Rivard, L. P.; Straw, S. B. The Effect of Talk and Writing on Learning
Science: An Exploratory Study. Sci. Educ. 2000, 84, 566–593.
19. Reynolds, J. A.; Thaiss, C.; Katkin, W.; Thompson, R. J., Jr. Writing-
to-Learn in Undergraduate Science Education: A Community-Based,
Conceptually Driven Approach. CBE – Life Sci. Educ. 2012, 11, 17–25.
20. Bruffee, K. A. Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence
and the authority of knowledge; John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore,
MD, 1993.
21. Herreid, C. F. ConfChem Conference on Case-Based Studies in Chemical
Education: The Future of Case Study Teaching in Science. J. Chem. Educ.
2013, 90, 256–257.
22. Dochy, F.; Segers, M.; Van den Bossche, P.; Gijbels, D. Effects of problem-
based learning: a meta-analysis. Learn. Instr. 2003, 13, 5633–568.

92
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Chapter 6

Conversion of a Lecture Based Organic

Chemistry Course Sequence to Fully Flipped
Classes with Pertinent Observations from
Other Flipped Chemistry Courses
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

Vincent Maloney*

Chemistry Department, Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne,

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805
*E-mail: maloneyv@[Link]

A largely lecture-based organic chemistry sequence with a

significant active learning component for 80 – 100 biology
majors and pre-professional students was transformed to a
completely flipped classroom format. All traditional lecture was
placed online as video recordings for students to view prior to
the face-to-face class. Students were asked to complete online
homework assignments to demonstrate familiarity with video
topics. In the face-to-face class, the entire period was devoted
to group problem solving. Otherwise, quizzes, exams, and
grading were nearly the same. A student survey was conducted
at the end of each semester to examine attitudes towards the new
format. The responses showed that the students preferred the
flipped classroom. The quiz, exam grades, and performance on
the American Chemical Society Form 2004 Organic Chemistry
Exam were used for assessment. Scores were compared to the
previous two academic years where the course was taught with
a more traditional format. No improvement in learning was
observed. Observations made during these courses and later in
other non-organic flipped courses suggested how learning gains
could be achieved. Based on these observations, adjustments
were made in later flipped courses where there was improved
performance by the students. Recent pedagogical literature
has indicated to what extent learning gains could be expected.

© 2016 American Chemical Society

Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 The lessons learned from them can be applied to future organic
chemistry courses.

Introduction
The following is a chronicle of the conversion of an organic chemistry course
sequence that had already incorporated a significant component of active learning
to one that completely embraces what is often referred to as a flipped classroom
pedagogy (1, 2). The rationale for the change, a description of the structure of the
flipped classes, observations of what happened in them and the lessons learned
will be provided. Student attitudes were examined and the effect on learning
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

was assessed within the limitations described later. After transforming organic
chemistry, the flipped pedagogy was applied to two consecutive sections of a
one semester general chemistry survey course. Although the student populations
between general and organic chemistry were very different, the flipped general
chemistry classes provided insight into what seemed to work and not work in
organic chemistry. The subsequent application of formative classroom assessment
techniques to the lecture portion of the organic chemistry laboratory also aided in
understanding observations from the flipped organic classes.
Before describing the course flip, a few qualifications must be stated. As
with nanotechnology, the term flipping the classroom has obtained a rather elastic
definition. Use of any sort of classroom assessment techniques (CATs) (3, 4),
group problem solving, or methods such as Just-in-Time Teaching (5) could
justifiably be called to a greater or lesser degree a flipped classroom. In this
case, the course flip refers to placing the entire lecture component outside of
the face-to-face class in online videos. The entire face-to-face meetings were
devoted to group problem solving. The problems chosen were those that had
previously been homework and review session questions normally done outside
of class. The observations presented here are inherently anecdotal. Although
further rigorous studies of the impact of the flipped classroom are required, I hope
that the observations and conclusions drawn from the flipped organic chemistry
sequence will be an aid to those considering a flipped classroom for their courses.
Several conclusions could be drawn from the four flipped courses and the
applications of CATs to laboratory lectures. A significant majority of the organic
chemistry students preferred the flipped format. Although evidence of learning
gains was elusive, there was no evidence of adverse effects on the class as a
whole. Observations from the flipped classes and evidence in the literature shed
light onto the apparent lack of learning gains and point to where improvements
can be achieved. As noted by Freeman et al., if a significant component of active
learning is present in a course, then gains may not be observed by adding more
(6). That may be the case for the courses reported here. Some improvement was
finally seen in the last general chemistry course after making adjustments based
on observations from the organic courses.
Organic Chemistry I and II (CHM 25500 and CHM 25600) at Indiana U.
Purdue U. Fort Wayne (IPFW) were transformed to completely flipped classes.
94
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 The courses were predominantly populated by biology majors and pre-professional
students. The courses cover all of the material found in the American Chemical
Society (ACS) Form 2004 Organic Chemistry Exam along with additional topics.
At IPFW, the organic chemistry laboratory component is provided as a completely
separate course sequence (CHM 25400 and CHM 25800) that runs concurrently
with the lecture courses. In fall 2013, Organic I had 98 students enrolled while the
following spring 88 students were enrolled in Organic II. The face-to-face class
periods were conducted in a lecture hall holding 126 students. The room was
tiered and seating consisted of rows of fixed tables and seats. The classroom was
not designed for peer learning. Nonetheless, the students managed. IPFW was at
the time a regional campus of the Indiana-Purdue system with an enrollment of
12,840 students. In 2013, the average SAT score of beginning students was 1478.
The university conferred mostly B.A. and B.S. degrees with a few M.S. programs.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

Rationale for the Course Flip

The main impetus for introducing active learning was the mounting evidence
that it improves student learning and enhances their performance. Recently,
Freeman et al. confirmed such gains with a meta-analysis of 225 studies of active
learning versus traditional lecture (5). Performance on exams, concept inventories
and course failure rates were compared. In their conclusion that active learning
should be preferred over traditional lecture, the authors questioned the use of
solely traditional lecture in the classroom even as a control in research. It should
be noted that courses “with at least some active learning” (6) were compared to
traditional lectures where presumably there was no active learning of any sort. It
is difficult to read such statements and continue to rely on the traditional lecture.
Active learning has been used in IPFW organic chemistry courses since 2000
based on the peer instruction methods developed by Eric Mazur (7). Although
the meta-analysis of Freeman et al. was not available when the courses were
transformed, compelling evidence from Hake (8) and Deslauriers (9) was. These
reports show that students in physics courses with active learning (referred to as
interactive engagement) scored higher on force concept inventories than students
in traditional lectures (8). The performance of the highest scoring traditional
lecture classes was comparable to that of the worst performing active learning
classes. The question then became whether the amount of active learning should
be increased so that it filled the entire face-to-face class meetings for the organic
chemistry courses described here.
Although the primary rationale for attempting an alternative pedagogical
method is improved learning, there are other reasons to do so. Like many other
institutions, retention of students in classes and at the university has become
an issue of concern at IPFW. Improving graduation rates has also become a
consideration. It is imperative to avoid loss of rigor while improving retention.
Learning activities that increase interactions between faculty and students and
among students tend to increase retention (10). Active learning that involves peer
instruction can possibly achieve these ends and enhance learning. The flipped
95
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 pedagogy extends these activities to the entire face-to-face class meeting and
potentially maximizes these interactions.
The media hype surrounding massive open online courses (MOOCs) (11) may
have passed, but they and their providers such as Coursera, Edx, and Udacity have
not. Offering inexpensive courses based on the MOOC format can be imagined.
It could be argued that such courses would not be as effective as one where an
expert in the field is fully engaged with the course and students. However, could
they be good enough so that the cost of an expensive face-to-face course could not
be justified for students of low and moderate incomes? Whether true or not, it does
pose the question of what is the most effective way to spend precious time in the
face-to-face classroom. The evidence indicates that a live lecture with homework
and problem solving done outside of class is not as effective as recorded lectures
(or other forms of course content) viewed before class and problem solving in the
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

form of active learning done in the classroom.

Recorded lectures have existed practically since the technology has made
it possible, but current technology has improved access. Cell phones and tablet
computers make it possible for students to download course content almost
anywhere and anytime. With learning management systems, all course materials
such as the text, notes, other supplemental materials, and the lectures themselves
can be accessed with a portable device. It has always been possible to flip the
course by requiring students to come to class prepared by reading the text and
then doing problem solving. Now it is possible to do the same, but still provide
lectures in the form of online videos. The current state of technology has made
it easier to flip the course.
The potential of improving student learning was the primary motive for
transforming the organic courses. Retention, the challenge of MOOCs, and
the ease of student access to course materials were all important secondary
motivations.

Structure of the Course Flip

To put this implementation of the flipped course in perspective, it will be
necessary to describe the organic chemistry courses at IPFW before fall 2013. A
traditional lecture course may be considered to consist of the following sequence
of events before, during, and after class. The students are assigned a reading from
the text to complete before the class meeting. In class, the instructor lectures on the
topics and assigns homework questions afterwards. Students alone or in groups
work on the homework and may ask the instructor questions about the material
before the next meeting. If some type of CAT is not used during lecture, student
problems with the material are not recognized until a quiz or exam. In practice
many faculty conduct classes that are not just traditional lecture. They incorporate
active learning to greater or lesser degrees. Active learning was used in the organic
sequence at IPFW prior to fall 2013.

96
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 The impact of the flipped organic sequence was examined by comparing it
to the same sequence over the previous 2 academic years. The course topics
were essentially the same. The final exam for the 2nd semester courses was the
ACS Form 2004 Organic Chemistry Exam. The class sizes were similar. In each
course, the class met three times a week for 50 min. For the two years prior
to the complete flip, the course was not a simple traditional lecture. Students
were given assigned readings. In the face-to-face class, the same topics were
described in a lecture format. The lecture notes were provided as PowerPoint
files for the students to print beforehand. In nearly each face-to-face meeting,
questions were posed for all students to answer to assess their understanding of
concepts just presented. A classroom response system (clickers) was used so that
all students would answer. Best practices suggested for clicker use were employed
(12). With each question, the students were given time to discuss their answers in
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

informal groups before entering a response. On average, 3 questions were posed

each day. The number and length of the questions varied with the material. All
class meetings were recorded with a lecture capture program for subsequent review
by the students online. Beyond that, optional review sessions were offered to the
students twice weekly. IPFW doesn’t provide for recitation sections. Although
rarely more than half the class attended these optional review sessions, significant
numbers of students did show up regularly. These sessions involved an hour of
group problem solving. Online homework was assigned after the lecture. Besides
the extensive use of CATs, the flipped pedagogy had been piloted in both courses
with nomenclature topics. At appropriate points, students were asked to watch
lecture capture videos covering nomenclature. Upon arrival, they took a short
quiz to demonstrate that they had learned the basics from the videos. Once the
quizzes were handed in, more challenging nomenclature problems were covered
as group problem solving clicker questions. These pilots of the flipped pedagogy
were positive indicators that the flipping could be extended to the entire course.
Beginning in fall 2013, the sequence was completely flipped. All lecture
content was placed online as videos to be viewed outside of the class. A substantial
portion of the problems covered in the homework and review sessions were moved
into the class periods for group problem solving.
In preparation for the courses, videos of the lectures were recorded. These
videos were created with the same lecture capture program which recorded both
the instructor and whatever was on the computer screen such as PowerPoint slides.
Instead of 50 minute lectures, nearly all of the videos were less than 20 minutes.
Some were as short as 1.5 min. The length of the video was dictated by the time
it took to explain a single topic or concept. This choice was based on the method
known as chunking (13). Reducing the material into manageable pieces helps
students process the material. The lecture content was otherwise largely the same
as those given over the previous two years. The same PowerPoint notes were
used. They were merely broken up into smaller files to match the online video
content. For the entire sequence, 295 videos were prepared: 130 for the Organic I
semester and 165 for Organic II. Despite the difference in number, approximately
17 h of lecture was recorded for each semester. This low total was surprising. With
each class having a length of 50 minutes, 17 h corresponds to 20.4 classes. Each
semester is 15 weeks long with 3 classes per week giving a total of 45 classes.

97
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Subtracting 5 class meetings for exams and quizzes, there should have been 40
classes. Yet the videos amounted to only 20.4. Although some time would have
been taken up with announcements and student questions, it wouldn’t account for
23.6 classes. The bulk of this missing class time time had been spent in group
problem solving instead of lecture. The organic courses prior to fall 2013 already
involved a significant amount of active learning rather than lecture.
An important component to flipping the course was to prepare the students
for the new format. A complete description of the format, student expectations,
and rationale was placed in the syllabus. In particular, it was stated that there
was a significant amount of evidence supporting the use of active learning and
that it should benefit them in increased learning and improved grades. The first
class began with a review of general chemistry. The students were asked clicker
questions to determine what they had retained. They were expected to watch
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

videos after that.

For a typical class, the students were asked to watch a number of videos and
read the corresponding material in the text. The assigned videos corresponded
to the topics planned for the upcoming class. The PowerPoint slides used in
each video were made available to the students online for subsequent study. To
ensure that they had prepared, the students were asked to complete an online
homework assignment before class. These questions were relatively simple and
used to assess their readiness for more complex problems. For Organic I, 162
homework questions were written while 98 were prepared for Organic II. These
question types were those commonly available in learning management systems
rather than chemistry-specific questions that involve students drawing structures.
Commercial online homework products were not found to be suitable since the
questions needed to be directed at specific planned activities in the face-to-face
meeting. The software and site for the recorded videos does allow the instructor
to view whether students had accessed the videos and how many times. A range
of activity was observed. Some accessed the videos numerous times; some didn’t
view the videos at all.
During class, the entire time was devoted to group problem solving using
questions modified from the text and review sessions from previous years.
Initially a review of the assigned topics was provided at the beginning of that
day before the planned CATs. It rapidly became apparent that the students didn’t
need or want it. They wanted to get to answering questions and solving problems.
Many of the questions were short and it was possible to work through 10 to 12
clicker questions per class meeting. The time spent per question varied with their
content and type. Ruder has provided a useful resource for clicker questions to
use in organic (14). The individual questions used for Organic I and Organic II
at IPFW can be accessed at [Link] (15). Typically, the questions
were displayed on a PowerPoint slide to the students. After students took time
to briefly discuss the problem, they entered their answers using their clickers.
Multiple choice, numerical, and text question formats were used. The entire
PowerPoint file without answers was provided online at least one day before
class. The students were allowed to use any resource such as the text, notes and
any device to access information. Some students printed out the questions while
others accessed them with their cellphones and tablets.

98
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Although most questions were answered quickly, more in depth problems
were given. For example, for spectroscopy, the students were given the molecular
formula and IR, 1H NMR, and 13C NMR spectra for a compound. They were asked
to draw the structure for the compound. The correct structure and the four most
common incorrect structures were placed on the board. The students then voted
on the one they thought was correct. Such polling could be used after students
are asked to draw transition states, conformations, and reactive intermediates in a
mechanism. For synthesis, the students were given a table of 10 to 15 reagents.
Each reagent was given a number. They were then asked to propose a synthesis for
a compound from a given starting material. Once they had finished, they entered
the correct order of reagents in the synthesis as a sequence of numbers. Such
problems could take 10 to 20 minutes of class time.
Flipped courses were designed to be time neutral. The time that the students
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

were expected to spend on a traditional course or a flipped course per week was to
be the same. The amount of time that should have been spent on attending lectures,
reading the text, completing homework, studying notes, etc. was estimated for the
previous courses. Then the flipped class activities were designed so that the same
amount of time would be spent in the new course format. In effect the time and
location of course activities were shifted and not increased or decreased for the
flipped courses. The students were expected to spend 12 h on organic chemistry
per week: 3 in the classroom and 9 outside. As in the past, it appeared that some
did more and some less.
Grading for the organic sequence was kept largely the same. The same
schedule of exams and quizzes was used. The pace of the courses were similar
so that much of the same material was covered on each exam. For all three years
the ACS Form 2004 Organic Chemistry Exam was used as the final for the 2nd
semester. The grading between the flipped and previous courses was nearly the
same. See Tables 1 and 2 which outline the grading for Organic 1 and 2 courses.
They show the total number of points a student could achieve in a semester
and what each assessment was worth. For each course, two 50 min. exams worth
100 pt. (200 pt. total) and four 25 pt. quizzes (100 pt. total) counted towards
their final grade. The students actually took three exams and five quizzes with
the lowest grade of each being dropped. The online homework was worth 50
points whether it was post class before the transformation or pre-class after the
complete flip. Two assessments, clicker questions and nomenclature quizzes
require further explanation. In all three years, students were assigned points for
participating in group problem solving and individually answering with their
clickers. Points were only assigned for answering and not for being correct. One
concern that could be raised is that students were potentially given points for
random answers without any attempt to actually work the problems. Although
there was no apparent evidence of this behavior, the more plausible scenario is that
students would answer whatever the “A” student nearby chose. Assigning points
for correct answers would not have prevented students from answering in this
manner. With the policy, group problem solving became formative assessments
for the students and instructor where misconceptions could be addressed without
the pressure of these activities affecting their grades adversely.

99
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 1. Grading for the Organic Chemistry I Courses
Year Quizzes Nomenclature Exams Final Clicker Homework Total
Quizzes Exam
2013 100a 0 200 150 50 50 550
(flipped)
2012 100 25 200 150 25 50 550
2011 100 25 200 150 25 50 550
a All numbers besides those for years represent points towards the course total.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

Table 2. Grading for the Organic Chemistry II Courses

Year Quizzes Nomenclature Exams Final Clicker Homework Total
Quizzes Exam
2014 100a 0 200 200 50 50 600
(flipped)
2013 100 25 200 200 25 50 600
2012 100 25 200 200 25 50 600
a All numbers besides those for years represent points towards the course total.

The nomenclature quizzes previously mentioned for the courses prior to fall
2013 were worth a total of 25 points. Upon transforming the course, it was more
consistent to treat the nomenclature topics in the same manner as the rest of the
course. Also, it was deemed better to use the class time for more active learning
instead of short quizzes. The nomenclature quizzes were no longer given and 25
more points were added to clicker total. It may seem that these points should
have been added to the homework total. Instead they were added to the clicker
total since the students were doing significantly more group work. Assigning
a significant amount of points to these activities helps to convince students of
their importance. Somewhat surprisingly, the nomenclature plus clicker point total
scores were comparable to the clicker point score of the flipped classes.

Assessment
Student attitudes about the flipped courses were assessed by conducting
surveys in the penultimate class of the semester. The survey consisted of 22
statements using a Likert scale where students could respond from 1 strongly
disagree to 5 strongly agree. Of the 22 questions, 7 referred to how well the
software and technology worked for the students. Overall the majority of students
had positive attitudes about the course flip. The majorities were larger in Organic

100
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 I than Organic II. A small percentage of students did strongly disagree. A majority
of students agreed with a statement suggesting that they could be building the
type of relationships that aid in retention in a course and at the institution (10).
Since the primary motivation of transforming the organic sequence to the
flipped format was improved student learning, the grades within the course and
the score on the ACS exam were compared. Comparing quiz, exam, and course
total scores and grade distributions is problematic. Efforts were made to use the
same or sufficiently similar course materials, exams, quizzes, etc. Unfortunately,
ensuring that they are sufficiently alike is difficult. Some decisions were made
to make changes to accommodate the flip or improve an observed deficiency.
For example, a switch from commercial online homework to one specifically
designed for the transformed courses was made. Since exams and quizzes from
the previous year were always made available to the students, they could not be
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

reused. Efforts were made to make them similar, but equivalency between exams
and quizzes in different years could not be ensured. Despite these complicating
factors, it was hoped that some improvement in performance would be observed
after the complete flip. A better instrument for assessment was the ACS organic
exam. It was the same exam for all three years and given under similar conditions.
In examining the overall course and the ACS exam scores, there was not a
significant increase or decrease in performance over the 2 semester sequence.
Given the possible variability affecting scores, it could be said that the three
groups performed comparably. In the ACS exam the flipped class mean score fell
between the means of the 2013 and 2012 classes.
Although it was important that student performance did not decline, it was
discouraging to observe no consistent or reliable indication of improved learning.
It could be said that since there was no decrease in performance and the students
preferred the flipped classes, this outcome would be sufficient reason to continue
with the new format. This result was unsatisfactory however considering the main
goal. It remained then to examine why improvement wasn’t observed. Although
the evidence supports active learning, there certainly would be limits to its benefits.
There are two aspects of this particular course flip that might come up against
potential limits. Freeman et al. did report that the impact does decrease with
increasing class size (6). Active learning had the largest effect for classes with
less than 50 students. However medium (50 – 110) and large classes (>110) still
benefit from active learning, just less so. It was also reported in their analysis that
they were not able to determine what relationship between the intensity of active
learning and student performance existed. Recently Jensen et al. reported that
student achievement in and student attitudes towards a course with some active
learning versus a fully flipped classroom were similar (16). It is then not clear
to what extent more is better. Given the uncontrolled variables, the somewhat
diminished impact of active learning as class size increases, and the high degree
to which active learning was already incorporated in previous years, it may not
be surprising that in the first attempt at a completely flipped classroom at IPFW,
significant gains were not observed. Observations made during the transformed
organic courses, two subsequent flipped general chemistry courses and the addition
of CATs to the lecture portion of an organic laboratory course provide insight to
where adjustments could be made to enhance learning.

101
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Subsequent Adjustments to the Course Flip
Several potential areas for improvement were noted for the organic courses.
First the nature and quality of the pre-class homework needed to be reconsidered.
Gross et al. have reported that this is an important consideration in how the
flipped classroom can improve student performance (17). Although it may be
valuable to evaluate whether students have grasped the most basic information,
more challenging questions indicating what could be expected in class should
be included. It also became apparent that post-class homework that reinforced
the activities in the face-to-face meetings should be added. Since not all aspects
of a topic could be covered in class through active learning, some follow up
questions that stretched the students also seemed worthwhile. These changes were
subsequently incorporated into one semester survey courses in general chemistry.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

Questions of this type will be developed for future organic chemistry classes. The
second adjustment involved the ordering of the concepts chosen and complexity
of the questions. Initially, questions were asked in a semi random order similar
to what is done in an exam or quiz. Realizing that this approach did not seem to
have the expected impact, the choice and order of questions were modified. The
in class questions were initially simple, but each succeeding question involved
concepts that built upon one another and increased in complexity until students
had reached the course goal for a topic. The recognition that this order would be
preferable developed over time and was not fully implemented for the organic
chemistry courses. When it was employed, it was relatively easy to follow the
progression of the video lectures and narrative in the text. Table 3 gives an
example of a progression of question topics on electrophilic addition.
For their first question, the students were asked to predict the product for the
reaction of HX with a symmetrical alkene. For the second they would be asked
about the mechanism and so on. In the text used for the course, electrophilic
addition was split between 2 chapters. The topics in Table 3 represent those in
the first chapter. It could be covered in as little as two 50 min. class periods.
Although changing the homework and in class questions was valuable, two
other problems were recognized and addressing them had a greater impact on
potentially improving the courses. With the report that class size affected the
efficacy of active learning, consideration was given to how to mitigate the effects
of the large class size (6). The other problem was that more interactions between
the instructor and the students was desired in the classroom. Too much time was
spent by the instructor running the clicker software and placing explanations on
the board and not enough time talking with students about their answers.
Due to staffing needs within the IPFW chemistry department, I was scheduled
to teach general chemistry. Consequently, in fall 2014 and spring 2015, CHM
11100 general chemistry was flipped. Although many aspects of teaching general
chemistry and organic chemistry are different, there are some are commonalities.
Those observations and adjustments that are applicable to the flipped organic
chemistry courses will be presented here. CHM 11100 is a survey course that
fulfills a general education requirement for the state of Indiana. For the fall,
there were 96 students while in the spring semester, the population was 76.
Both semesters the students consisted of dental hygiene, engineering technology,

102
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 elementary education majors. The instructor had not taught this course previously
and had not taught general chemistry since 1993. There was no equivalent
course for a comparison for the flipped format. From the fall to the spring,
two changes were made. The instructor took steps to spend more time with the
students. On most questions, the instructor spoke with two or more students (or
groups) and discussed answers that were incorrect. A supplemental instructor
(SI) was attached to the course. Undergraduate students with high GPA’s who
have performed well in the same course or higher can become supplemental
instructors. Normally they attend each class and lead two review sessions a week.
For this course, the SI was asked to engage with the students in the same manner
as the instructor. Increased engagement with the students mitigated the class size.
Simply, two people could reach more students than one.
Improvement was found from the fall to the spring general chemistry courses.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

All quiz and exam averages were higher in the spring to a greater or lesser degree.
Although the rate of D grades, F grades, and course withdrawals was slightly
higher in the spring, among the A, B, and C grades, there was a higher percentage
of A’s and B’ relative to C grades. Unfortunately there is some contradictory
evidence and complicating factors that make such a conclusion difficult to verify.
Both the clicker and homework grades were lower in the spring semester. Clicker
grades are based on the number of responses and students who stop attending will
have very low scores. These are counted into the average and will skew the overall
average lower. In the fall, a commercial online homework product was used while
in the spring the online homework was developed by the instructor. The latter
had more fill in the blank and less multiple choice which may have been more
challenging for the students. For the same reasons as the clicker average, a higher
percentage of students who stopped attending would make the homework average
appear lower. The SI did conduct review sessions which were not available to
the fall students. The attendance was low, but those who did attend should have
benefited in their quiz, exam, and final grades. The instructor taught two sections
of lab to the students unlike the fall. More time spent this way with the students
would have certainly improved engagement. Finally the observed differences in
the grades were not large and could be attributed to unidentified factors and normal
variability.
There was another potential problem to consider. Perhaps the active learning
introduced was conducted in a completely ineffective manner. In fall 2015 CATs
were introduced into the lecture portion of the organic laboratory course to some
topics where it hadn’t been done previously. It was observed that the quiz averages
were higher than they had been in the previous year. Apparently active learning
was implemented properly and improvements could be observed.
For those who are considering flipping their class, there are some final aspects
to contemplate. Compared to a traditional lecture class, a flipped class solely
devoted to peer to peer learning will certainly appear chaotic. The instructor
should be comfortable with the prospect. In all of the flipped classes, informal
groups were used for problem solving. It has been suggested that formal groups
are preferable (18). Finally in the author’s experience, placing all lectures online
provided more flexibility in the classroom. Easier topics can be completely left to
the video lectures and homework. More difficult topics can be addressed as needed

103
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 in class. Student answers to questions readily indicate where more time needs to
spent. It also provided more time to address specific student difficulties.

Table 3. An Example of Increasing the Complexity of Topics for Group

Problem Solving Questions in the Flipped Classroom for Electrophilic
Addition to Alkenes
Question Topics and Their Order
1. Product of the addition of HX to a 11. Carbocation stability:
symmetrical alkene hyperconjugation, polarizability and
alkyl groups
2. Mechanism of addition 12. Carbocation stability: Resonance
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

effects and addition to vinyl halides and

vinyl ethers
3. HOMO and LUMO in each step of 13. Stereochemistry of addition:
mechanism Formation of both enantiomers
4. Acid catalyzed hydration of a 14. Carbocationic polymerization
symmetrical alkene
5. Mechanism of acid catalyzed hydration 15. Carbocationic polymerization: Lewis
acids and initiation
6. Role of the acid catalyst 16. Carbocationic polymerization:
Suitable alkenes
7. Addition of HX to an unsymmetrical 17. Carbocation rearrangements and
alkene: 2-methylpropene addition
8. Regiochemistry and Markovnikov’s 18. Carbocation rearrangements:
rule Preference for more stable carbocation
9. Carbocation stability 19. Carbocation rearrangements: ring
expansion and contraction
10. Carbocation stability: Inductive
effects

Conclusion
Based on the 2013-2014 course sequence, it can be said at the very least that
flipping organic chemistry courses can be achieved without adverse effects to
performance while increasing student satisfaction with their experience. Jensen
et al. have indicated that a full flip may not be necessary to achieve learning gains
(16). Their report may explain the comparable scores between the organic classes
with a significant amount of active learning and the fully flipped courses. Beyond
that there are indications that proper choice of pre- and post-class activities,
appropriate question order and complexity, increased levels of engagement by
the instructor and teaching assistant(s) can potentially lead to improvements in
learning.

104
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Freeman et al. were strong in their statements about the value of active
learning over traditional lecture (6). It is clear that a significant component
of active learning should be present in any class. A complete flip may not be
necessary, but to those who prefer the classroom environment and engagement
with students that it provides, it will work.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Gail Rathbun, Director of the Center for the
Enhancement of Learning and Teaching and the Department of Chemistry at IPFW
for their support.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

References
1. Bergmann, J.; Sams, A. Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in
Every Class Every Day; International Society for Technology in Education:
Washington, DC, 2012.
2. Morgan, R. K.; Mitchell, N. G.; Chapman, N. To Flip or Not to Flip; Is
That My Only Choice. In It Works for Me, Flipping the Classroom: Shared
Tips for Effective Teaching; Blythe, H., Sweet C., Carpenter, R., Eds.; New
Forums Press: Stillwater, OK, 2015; p 2.
3. D’Angelo, T.; Cross, K. P. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook
for College Teachers; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 1993.
4. Nilson, L. B. Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College
Instructors, 3rd ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2010; pp 273−280.
5. Novak, G. M.; Gavrin, A.; Christian, W.; Patterson, E. Just-in-Time Teaching
: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology; Prentice Hall: Upper
Saddle River, NJ, 1999.
6. Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.;
Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active Learning Increases Student Performance
in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
2014, 111, 8410–8415.
7. Mazur, E. Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle
River, NJ, 1997.
8. Hake, R. R. Interactive Engagement versus Traditional Methods: A Six-
Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics
Courses. Am. J. Phys. 1998, 66, 64–74.
9. Deslauriers, L.; Schelew, E.; Wieman, C. Improved Learning in a Large-
Enrollment Physics Class. Science 2011, 332, 862–864.
10. Smith, K. A.; Sheppard, S. R.; Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T. Pedagogies of
Engagement: Classroom Based Practices. J. Eng. Educ. 2005, 94, 87–101.
11. Leontyev, A.; Baranov, D. Massive Open Online Courses in Chemistry: A
Comparative Overview of Platforms and Features. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90,
1533–1539.
12. Bruff, D. Teaching with Classroom Response Systems: Creating Active
Learning Environments; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2009.
105
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 13. Nilson, L. B. Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College
Instructors, 3rd ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2010; p 8.
14. Ruder, S. M. Clickers in Action: Active Learning in Organic Chemistry;
W.W. Norton and Company: New York, NY, 2013.
15. Organic Education Resources: A cCWCS Community of Scholars. http://
[Link] (accessed Jan. 18, 2016).
16. Jensen, L. J.; Kummer, T. A.; Gody, P. D. d. M. Improvements from a Flipped
Classroom May Simply Be the Fruits of Active Learning. CBE Life Sci.
Educ. 2015, 14, ar5.
17. Gross, D.; Pietri, E. S.; Anderson, G.; Moyano-Camihort, K.; Graham, M. J.
Increased PreClass Preparation Underlies Student Outcome Improvement in
the Flipped Classroom. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2015, 14, ar36.
18. Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T.; Smith, K. A. Cooperative learning Returns
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch006

to College: What Evidence is There That It Works? Change 1998 (July/

August), 27–35.

106
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Chapter 7

Flipping General and Analytical Chemistry at a

Primarily Undergraduate Institution
Joan M. Esson*
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Chemistry Department, Otterbein University, 1 South Grove Street,

Westerville, Ohio 43081
*E-mail: jesson@[Link]

This paper describes the development and assessment of

flipped courses in Analytical Chemistry, General Chemistry
I, and General Chemistry II at a primarily undergraduate
institution. The backwards design process that guided the course
redevelopment is described, along with specific pedagogical
strategies and examples of pre-class, in-class, and post-class
activities. Classroom observations, student self-direction in
learning, student learning, and student attitudes in the flipped
design were compared with courses taught in a traditional
format. Classroom observations indicated that the flipped
classroom had greater levels of active student engagement and
more individualized learning within the in-class group-learning
space. Student self-direction in learning, as measured by
differences in pre- and post-scores on the Professional
Responsibility Orientation to Self-Direction in Learning Scale
and responses on student evaluations, increased in select areas,
including student self-efficacy in learning. Student learning
in the flipped environment was as good as or better than that
in the traditional classroom, as assessed by course grades and
standardized American Chemical Society (ACS) exams. Lastly,
student attitudes were found to be more positive for the flipped
course than the traditional classroom design, and for Analytical
Chemistry compared to General Chemistry.

© 2016 American Chemical Society

Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Introduction
Flipped classrooms are becoming more widely used in higher education, with
several examples available of their incorporation into chemistry (1–8). Flipped
learning is defined by the Flipped Learning Network as a “pedagogical approach
in which direct instruction moves from the group learning space to the individual
learning space, and the resulting group space is transformed into a dynamic,
interactive learning environment, where the educator guides students as they
apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter” (9).
Although flipped classrooms are becoming more prevalent, limited examples
exist of this pedagogical approach’s application to Analytical Chemistry. He
and co-workers described the use of video tutorial supplements in Analytical
Chemistry, but not within the flipped environment (1). Fitzgerald detailed the
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

development of a flipped classroom in which Prezi was used to deliver content

outside of the traditional classroom and class time involved using clickers to
assess understanding and group work on online homework (2). Fitzgerald
reported that student performance in terms of grade point average for the course
showed no change. Scores on a standardized American Chemical Society
Analytical Chemistry Exam showed improvement from previous years, but with
no statistically significant difference given the small number of students in the
course (n=11). Thus, few studies have examined how Analytical Chemistry can
be flipped and how student learning is subsequently impacted.
Though more research has explored flipped General Chemistry courses,
findings have been mixed. Some studies have documented improved student
attitudes (3), improved student performance on standardized American Chemical
Society exams (4) and semester exams (5), as well as favorable reviews as
recorded in student surveys or teaching evaluations (4–7). Other studies have
demonstrated differential improvement: in some cases, noting a greater positive
effect of the flipped environment on average-performing students (8), and in
others, seeing more pronounced results for students with higher high school class
rank and math preparedness (6). However, other studies have shown no difference
in performance between students in flipped and traditional courses (6, 7).
Although the impacts of a flipped course with respect to student attitudes and
learning outcomes have been previously described (3–8), limited descriptions of
lesson plans, in-class activities, and how they were chosen exist in the literature.
Examples of using Just-in-Time Teaching before class to inform mini-lectures
during class time have been described (7, 10, 11). In-class activities have been
more widely reported and are dominated by problem-solving, either instructor-led
or in groups, along with the use of clickers (3, 5, 7), although the implementation
of SCALE-UP has also been reported (4). Examples of post-class activities are
rare in the literature (7) despite the fact that this phase is essential for students to
evaluate and solidify their understanding. Further, to the author’s knowledge, no
literature exists that describes the development of flipped lower-level and upper-
level courses simultaneously.
This chapter describes the development and assessment of flipped courses
in both Analytical Chemistry and General Chemistry at a predominantly
undergraduate institution. There were three factors motivating the change in

108
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 course design. First, a flipped environment has the potential to have increased
student engagement during face-to-face meetings. Second, flipped classrooms
provide an opportunity to spend more class time at higher levels of Bloom’s
taxonomy (applying, analyzing, and evaluating) (12). Lastly, flipped classrooms
can reduce the cognitive load of the learner. Underlying the cognitive load theory
is the premise that we have a limited amount of working memory, and overloading
working memory impedes learning (13). If videos are used to deliver content
outside of class, students can pause or rewind the video as needed. This student
self-pacing may reduce cognitive load and aid learning. This, combined with
the ability of the instructor to work one-on-one or with small groups of students
during class time, creates the possibility of individualized differentiated learning.
Further, the course re-design was grounded in a generative learning theory in
which students integrate new ideas with prior knowledge by emphasizing student
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

construction of meaning (14).

Course Redesign
Both General Chemistry and Analytical Chemistry were redesigned in
Summer 2013 following the author’s attendance at a Course Transformation
Institute run by the Center for Teaching and Learning at Otterbein University.
This two-week course was designed in a hybrid environment so the attendees
could both learn about hybrid course design, and experience it first-hand. Best
practices for hybrid course design were introduced, as well as a variety of
technologies that could be used in a flipped course. Attendees were asked to
use McTighe and Wiggins’s backwards design approach in reimagining a course
(15). Unlike traditional course development, which relies on examining textbook
content and developing lectures to convey this information, backwards design
emphasizes the identification of learning goals first, followed by development of
assessment methods and, finally, design of learning activities. Learning goals for
both courses were created by thoughtful examination of the anchoring concepts
identified by the American Chemical Society (ACS) Exam Institute (16), ACS
standardized exams, a review of topics taught in quantitative analysis (17), and
of various textbooks. Learning goals for each course and a sample lesson with
an associated assessment plan were shared with other participants in the course
design workshop for feedback, and additional redesign continued throughout
2013.
In the design stage, the WHERE approach was used (Figure 1). WHERE is an
acronym that focuses on: helping the students know where a unit is going and what
is expected (W); hooking the students on the topic and holding their interest (H);
equipping the students, helping them to experience key ideas and explore concepts
(E); providing opportunities to rehearse, revise, rethink, and refine their work (R);
and allowing students to exhibit and evaluate their understanding (E).
109
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Figure 1. The WHERE approach to curriculum design. The WHERE approach

was introduced by McTighe and Wiggins (15).

Course redevelopment also relied on the consideration of what would occur

in the individual learning space before class, the group learning space during
class, and the individual learning space after class. The purposes of the pre-class
activities were to introduce students to content they could explore at their own
pace, and to strengthen their prior knowledge before students explored the content
more deeply during class. The in-class activities were selected to engage students
in higher-order cognitive skills including application, analysis and evaluation,
as well as transfer of their knowledge to new contexts. The post-class activities
were designed to allow students to evaluate their understanding, encouraging
self-directed learning.
For both courses, Blackboard was used as a learning management system
to organize content for the students. Each class meeting was associated with
a folder within Blackboard that contained learning goals for that day, links to
materials for the individual learning space, description of in-class activities, and
homework directions. Starting each new day with learning goals helped the
110
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 students to know where the unit was going and what was expected (the W in the
WHERE approach). Students were hooked (the H in the WHERE approach) by
a real-world example or question given by the instructor, followed by content
information provided either in a reading or in a video created in-house using
Camtasia software. Although many of the activities were developed in-house,
other materials for both the individual learning space and the group learning
space included (or were informed by and adapted from) available resources, such
as the Analytical Science Digital Library (18), PhET Interactive Simulations
(19), the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (20), Multimedia
Educational Resource for Learning and On-Line Teaching (MERLOT II) (21),
Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) (22), and Analytical POGIL
(ANA-POGIL) (23). To ensure students watched the videos, completed readings
and other individual learning space assignments, Warm Ups were used in which
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

students answered three to five questions related to the content of the learning
activities, including an open-ended prompt addressing questions they had about
the content (24).
During class time, students were encouraged to explore concepts and refine
their thinking (the E and R of the WHERE approach) through a variety of
methods including clickers, Peer Instruction (PI), simulations, case studies,
Team-Based Learning, Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), and
individual work. Both formative and summative assessments were completed to
evaluate student understanding (the final E in the WHERE approach). Formative
assessments consisted of activities such as the Muddiest Point, Minute Paper,
and worksheets completed either individually or in groups (25). Summative
assessments consisted of quizzes, instructor-written exams or American Chemical
Society (ACS) standardized exams, and, in the case of General Chemistry, on-line
homework.
Although a discussion of the entire course design is outside the scope of
this chapter, two modules are discussed in detail below, one from Analytical
Chemistry and one from General Chemistry. Moreover, additional examples of
learning modules for Analytical Chemistry and General Chemistry are described
in Tables 1-4.

Module from Analytical Chemistry

The sample learning module in Analytical Chemistry addressed Inferential
Statistics (Table 1) (26–29). Here, the learning goals were first clearly articulated
in the Blackboard folder for the module to help the students know where (W) the
unit was going. Specifically the learning goals from this module were to: (1)
explain why both visually and quantitatively examining data is important and (2)
describe the purpose of each type of significance test, determining when and how
to use each. The pre-class information also included examples from popular media
that lack proper statistical interpretation, and part of a TED talk by mathematician
Peter Donnelly describing the misuse of statistics in the criminal trial of a woman,
which contributed to her wrongful conviction in the deaths of her two children
(30). These examples provided the hook (H) to get students interested in statistical
111
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 analysis. The other pre-class material that students examined were three videos to
introduce each type of statistical test: one 11-minute video introducing different
types of t-tests; one 3-min video introducing the f-test; and one 3-min video
introducing the Grubbs test to examine outlying data points. A link with an
accompanying worksheet was then provided to the Introduction to Data Analysis
Tutorial (26), which is a resource from the Analytical Sciences Digital Library
(18) that guides students through: (i) a visual analysis of data regarding the
mass of pennies as a function of the year they were minted; (ii) a comparison
of the data using t-tests to determine if there are statistical differences; and (iii)
an examination of possible outliers. This provided the opportunity for students
to explore (E) the statistical tests. The in-class session utilized a cooperative
learning strategy in which students worked in small groups on two in-house
written case studies; the first examined two possible methods for determining
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

calcium in the context of the effect of parathyroidism on calcium levels; and the
second investigated fabricated experimental data linked to an invented forensic
case. Both the clinical and forensic applications appealed to student interest,
providing an additional hook, as well as the opportunity to rehearse and rethink
(R) through the use of the various statistical tests. Case studies were chosen
because they provide a realistic and contextually rich situation that students must
navigate through, while cooperative learning was used so that students could
learn from each other in a way that promotes deeper understanding. To complete
the WHERE cycle, post-class activities required students to post in a discussion
board about an additional case so that they could exhibit and evaluate (E) their
understanding. Another example module on infrared spectroscopy for Analytical
Chemistry is described in Table 1.

Module in General Chemistry

In General Chemistry a learning module on factors affecting solubility was

designed in a similar fashion. The learning goals, specified in Table 2, were clearly
posted in the course Blackboard page to aid the students in understanding where
(W) the unit was going. In their individual learning spaces before class, students
viewed a short video giving a real-world example. Specifically, the implications
of amino acid substitutions associated with mutated DNA on the solubility of
hemoglobin and its relationship to sickle cell anemia was described. This provided
the hook needed to hold (H) student interest, especially considering that many
students taking General Chemistry have an interest in clinical fields.

112
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 1. Select examples of learning modules in Analytical Chemistry.
WHERE Designation Activity
Example 1. Inferential Statistics
W: Help the students know Where Identification of learning goals
the unit is going (Individual learning (1) Explain why visually and quantitatively
space) examining data is important
(2) Describe the purpose of each type of
significance test, and determine when and
how to use each
H: Hook the students on the topic Examples from popular media lacking proper
(Individual learning space) statistics
E: Help students Explore concepts In-house video, Introduction to Data Analysis
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

(Individual learning space) Tutorial (26)

R: Opportunities to Rehearse (Group Cooperative learning using in-house created
learning space) cases
E: Exhibit and Evaluate understanding Responses in discussion board about a select
(Individual and group learning spaces) case in the media
In-class exam
Example 2. Infrared Spectroscopy Unit
W: Help the students know Where the Identification of learning goals
unit is going (1) Describe instrument components used in
(Individual learning space) infrared (IR) spectroscopy
(2) Explain the similarities and differences
between UV/VIS and IR spectroscopies
(3) Interpret simple IR spectra
H: Hook the students on the topic Examples of importance of IR spectroscopy
(Individual learning space)
E: Help students Explore concepts Royal Society of Chemistry Infrared
(Individual learning space) Spectroscopy video (27), Infrared
Spectroscopy Tutorial (28)
R: Opportunities to Rehearse (Group In-house-created collaborative worksheet
learning space)
E: Exhibit and Evaluate understanding Interpretation practice with the IRHelper (29)
(Individual and group learning spaces) In-class exam

113
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 2. Select example of a learning module on solubility in General
Chemistry.
WHERE Designation Activity
W: Help the students know Identification of learning goals
Where the unit is going (1) Explain what is occurring at the particulate level
(Individual learning space) when two substances are mixed together
(2) Explain the relationship between intermolecular
forces and solubility and what is meant by ‘like
dissolves like’
H: Hook the students on the Real-world examples of solubility (individual learning
topic space)
E: Help students Explore In-house-made video followed by questions related to
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

concepts the content (individual learning space)

R: Opportunities to Rehearse Learning stations that students rotate through, such
(Group learning space) as a paper chromatography experiment, and another
assessing structures of vitamins (i.e. if they are water-
or fat-soluble and implications of this)
E: Exhibit and Evaluate Dear Mr. Scientist column (31) (similar in
understanding (Individual concept/format to a Dear Abby advice column);
and group learning spaces) on-line homework
In-house exam

The pre-class activities also required students to watch a video discussing

factors that affect solubility, including intermolecular forces, pressure and
temperature. This provides an initial introduction to the topic and time for
students to explore (E) the content. Students also completed an activity before
class that asked them first to predict if a particular substance would dissolve in
another and explain why, and also to state any question(s) they had about the
content in the video. This strategy helped the instructor frame the class meeting
to suit the students’ needs. Depending on the student responses, the in-class
activities included a mini-lecture to clarify ideas, followed by the rotation of
small groups of students through learning stations that provided opportunities for
students to rehearse and refine (R) their thinking about factors affecting solubility.
The learning stations were chosen so that the students could examine and transfer
the material to a variety of different contexts, and also to provide some physical
movement to help keep the students awake during their 8 a.m. course. The
learning stations included: separation of inks using paper chromatography
and subsequent explorations of the relationship between the ink and solvent
structures; assessment of the structures of select vitamins to determine if they
are fat- or water-soluble and exploration of how this affected warnings used on
products containing olestra (the infamous WOW chips from the late 1990s);
and examination of the reasons for the packaging and storage conditions for
carbonated beverages. The post-class activity for this learning module included
the opportunity for students to exhibit (E) their understanding by responding to a
letter in a “Dear Abby” style to Mr. Scientist, the fabricated question-and-answer

114
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 person for a popular science magazine (31). The initial letter to Mr. Scientist
introduced a fictitious and humorous conflict between the letter writer and a
parent or friend that Mr. Scientist could settle. This method was chosen so that
students could demonstrate the transfer of their knowledge to a new context in
an engaging way. Previous letters have required students to describe how soap
works to remove stains and how scuba divers develop the bends. Two additional
learning modules for General Chemistry are described in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. Acid-base learning module 1 for General Chemistry.

WHERE Designation Activity
W: Help the students know Individual learning space: Identification of learning
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Where the unit is going goals

(1) Define and identify acids, bases, and conjugate
acid-base pairs
(2) Explain the difference between and identify a
strong acid (or base) and a weak acid (or base)
(3) Describe structural factors that influence acid
strength
H: Hook the students on the Individual learning space: Real-world examples of the
topic importance of acid-base chemistry
E: Help students Explore Individual learning space: in-house made video
concepts followed by Warm Up questions
R: Opportunities to Rehearse Group learning space: Team Based Learning using
in-house created worksheet and IF-AT sheets (33)
E: Exhibit and Evaluate Individual learning space: on-line homework
understanding Group learning space: Exam

As evidenced from these examples and others shown in Tables 1-4, the
pedagogical strategy and content delivery for both courses were similar, even
though the two classes have different student profiles. The students in Analytical
Chemistry are a more homogenous group consisting of chemistry majors and
minors who are typically second or third year students, while the students in
General Chemistry are mainly pursuing other science majors and are mostly in
their first or second year. Additionally, the Analytical Chemistry course is smaller
than General Chemistry (~10 students versus ~35 students, respectively).
The pre-class individual learning space in both courses utilized mainly
in-house videos, which were slightly longer for Analytical Chemistry than for
General Chemistry (9 min versus 7 min, respectively). With videos from other
sources that were used in Analytical Chemistry, students emphasized that it was
helpful to have an accompanying handout, as the main ideas of these videos
were not as immediately apparent to them as those in the in-house videos, since
with the latter, they could listen for the instructor’s voice inflections to key into
important ideas.

115
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 4. Acid-base learning module 2 for General Chemistry.
WHERE Designation Activity
W: Help the students know Individual learning space: Identification of learning
Where the unit is going goals
(1) Explain how pH is affected by acid (or base)
strength and concentration
(2) Calculate the pH of various acidic and basic
solutions
H: Hook the students on the Individual learning space: Which student is right?
topic Evaluation of two possible answers
E: Help students Explore Individual learning space: PhET simulation:
concepts Acid-Base Solutions (19)
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

R: Opportunities to Rehearse Group learning space: Collaborative in-house written

worksheet
E: Exhibit and Evaluate Individual learning space: annotated problem (25) and
understanding on-line homework
Group learning space: Exam

During the in-class meetings, both courses used a mix of individual and
collaborative group learning. However, the specific practices that were used for
group work varied between the courses in some cases. In General Chemistry,
students were more apt to move at different rates from others in the same class.
Since individualized or small group feedback from the instructor was more
difficult given the greater number of students, the students required methods with
more immediate feedback. Peer Instruction (PI) (32) and Team-Based Learning
(TBL) using immediate feedback assessment technique (IF-AT) sheets (33) are
two methods that meet this need that were used in General Chemistry. Students
in the teams in the TBL-inspired method were required to complete individual
readiness assurance tests, team readiness assurance tests, an application exercise,
and peer review. Although the teams worked together multiple times throughout
the term, these teams were not used every class period when other pedagogical
methods were employed. The pedagogical method that was chosen depended in
part on whether the topic for the day focused more on conceptual understanding
or problems involving mathematical manipulation. It should be noted, however,
that the choice of specific group pedagogy is not reflective of the difference
between a lower level and upper level course, but rather of class size.
There were some differences between the courses in terms of the types of
materials used. Since flipping a course requires a significant investment of time
in course redesign, initially using materials that are readily available can reduce
the overall planning time. PhET Interactive Simulations (19) are free, interactive,
research-based simulations for a variety of science fields. However, of the
over 30 chemistry-related simulations, only a handful are readily applicable to
Analytical Chemistry. Thus, PhET simulations were more widely used in General
Chemistry. However, the Analytical Sciences Digital Library (18) provides a
compilation of resources for more advanced topics, such as the HPLC Simulator

116
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 (34). Additionally, Analytical Chemistry employed more case studies that were
either designed in-house or adapted from the National Center for Case Study
Teaching in Science (20). These case studies required students to apply their
knowledge of analytical methods and integrate multiple ideas.

Implementation
Beginning in Fall 2013, Analytical Chemistry was taught in a flipped format
once per academic year. Although students were surveyed about their experiences,
little comparative data is available for the same course taught in a traditional
format. The number of students per year varied between 5 and 21 students.
General Chemistry II was taught in a flipped format in Spring 2014 and
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Spring 2015. During Spring 2014, the author taught two sections of the course:
one in a traditional style and the other in a flipped format. This allowed direct
comparison of student surveys and student performance without confounding
the data due to effect of the instructor. In the traditional course, students were
first exposed to ideas during the class meeting whereas students’ first exposure
to content occurred before class in the flipped format. Although the traditional
course used in-class lecture, active learning strategies, such as Think-Pair-Share
and collaborative group work, were also employed. Other instructors also taught
General Chemistry II in Spring 2014 and Spring 2015 in a traditional style, and
these comparative data are also available. The class sizes varied between 24 and
30 students. In addition to student surveys about their experiences that utilized a
Likert scale and open-ended questions, the validated Professional Responsibility
Orientation to Self-Direction in Learning Scale (PRO-SDLS) was also used to
evaluate student learning (35). The PRO-SDLS is a 25-question five-point Likert
scale survey that consists of four sub-scales: initiative, control, self-efficacy,
and motivation. Additionally, a minimum of three classroom observations
were completed for each course using the Classroom Observation Protocol for
Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) (36). In COPUS, codes for both instructor
behavior and student behavior are recorded in two-minute intervals throughout
the class.
In Fall 2015, General Chemistry I was taught by the author as a flipped class
(n = 39), and comparisons were made to students in a traditional section (n = 34)
taught by another instructor. Performance on exams and results for the PRO-SDLS
were compared.
Statistical analyses were completed using SPSS software.

Results and Discussion

Classroom Observations
Classroom observations are a useful tool to understand what is occurring in
the group learning space. During Spring 2014 and Spring 2015, all sections of
General Chemistry II were observed using COPUS, in which classroom actions
of both the instructor and the students were observed and coded (36). In the
flipped classroom, one-on-one extended discussions by the instructor with one
117
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 or a few individuals was found to be significantly greater than in the traditional
course regardless of if the same instructor was teaching the traditional course
or other instructors were (33% of two-minute intervals sampled in the flipped
classroom versus 3% for traditional, p = 0.036 for the same instructor, p = 0.021
for all instructors). These classroom observations support the stated advantage of
personalized learning within the flipped classroom (37, 38).

Student Learning – Summative Assessment

For Analytical Chemistry, limited comparative analysis is available of the

effect of the flipped classroom on student learning. While the exams were similar
in both the traditional and flipped classrooms, different exams were given in
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

different years, so direct side-by-side comparison is difficult. Students in the

course pre- and post-flip had similar characteristics with no statistically significant
difference in math ACT scores. Student performance on course exams also
showed no statistically significant difference between the two class formats.
The ACS 2013 Analytical Chemistry Exam was administered during the past
two years in the flipped classroom, and students placed in the 87th percentile,
on average. However, this exam was not adopted until the year of the course
re-design, making comparison impossible. Thus, at a minimum, the conclusion
can be made that students in the flipped Analytical Chemistry classroom are
performing well on national assessments and are learning equally as well as
students in the traditional classroom.
To probe if student learning is different in the flipped classroom in an upper
level course compared to that at the introductory level, student performance was
also examined for General Chemistry I and General Chemistry II. In both of these
courses, direct side-by-side comparisons can be made between the flipped and
traditional formats since both designs were taught in the same term. Since ACT
scores have been previously shown to correlate to chemistry performance (39),
the average ACT score and distribution of scores for students taught using each
style were compared and no significant difference was found. The average course
grade was also not statistically different, suggesting a limited impact of the flipped
format on student learning.
However, the distribution of grades in General Chemistry I varies between
the traditional and flipped classrooms when two different instructors taught each
course (Figure 2). The percent of As was greater for the flipped course (39% versus
21%), and the number of DFWs was slightly reduced (16% versus 18%). This
suggests that the flipped approach may preferentially help average students. It also
agrees with the shift to higher grade distributions that has been previously found for
some flipped chemistry courses (7, 8, 40). Some studies have also suggested that
flipped learning may have differential effects for men and women (4); however, no
differences were observed based on gender. Additionally, students in the flipped
section of General Chemistry I were found to perform better on the ACS General
Chemistry First Term Exam 2015 than those in the traditional course (score of 45
versus 36, respectively, p = 0.001). However, no comparisons can be made to
national norms since none were yet available at the time of this writing.

118
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Figure 2. Comparison of Course Grades in General Chemistry I for Flipped

and Traditional Classes.

Unlike General Chemistry I, no differences in student performance were

observed on the ACS 2007 General Chemistry 2nd Term Paired Question exam
between the flipped and traditional courses of General Chemistry II. Students
placed in the 60th percentile on average, which is lower than that found for the
standardized Analytical Chemistry exam. Additionally, to examine learning gains
in General Chemistry II throughout the term, the conceptual questions from the
ACS exam were given at the start of the term and compared to performance
at the end of the semester. The ratio of actual gain to maximum possible gain,
known as the Hake gain (41), was determined for each student. When comparing
formats taught by the same instructor, the average Hake gain was not statistically
different (0.32 and 0.31 for the flipped and traditional, respectively). However,
when comparing formats taught by different instructors, the average Hake gain
was greater for the flipped design (0.32 for flipped versus 0.23 for traditional).
This difference, though, was not statistically significant, given the limited number
of students in the flipped course who completed both the pre- and post- exam (n
= 19, p = 0.089).
Taken together, these results suggest a limited impact of a flipped classroom
design on student academic performance, with the exception of the significantly
increased performance on the standardized ACS exam in General Chemistry I and
the strong performance of students on the ACS exam in Analytical Chemistry. This
may in part be due to the small class sizes examined in this study. Seery’s review
of publications on flipped learning found that half were shown to improve student
academic performance, while the other half saw no differences (7). Additionally,
Jensen concluded that a flipped design does not result in higher learning gains when
both the flipped and traditional courses use an active-learning approach (42). The
data herein support these earlier findings; smaller average differences in student
119
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 performance were observed between the flipped and traditional courses taught by
the author than between the author’s flipped course and traditional courses taught
by other instructors, who have been documented via COPUS to use fewer active-
learning techniques.

Self-Directed Student Learning

In a flipped classroom, students are expected to move away from being passive
participants and take responsibility for their own learning (38, 43). However, few
studies have explored if students are actually doing so. Fautch probed student
ownership of learning by giving students a pre- and post- Likert scale survey that
included the statement, “I feel autonomous in my learning.” However, no changes
were found as the term proceeded (37). In a psychobiology course, van Vliet
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

used the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire and found that students
in the flipped course increased their scores with respect to critical thinking, task
value (students’ perception of course material in terms of interest, importance, and
utility), and peer learning (44).
This study examined self-direction in student learning using a pre- and post-
design employing the PRO-SDLS survey (35). In General Chemistry I the average
PRO-SDLS score increased during the semester in the flipped classroom (90.3 to
90.6) and decreased for the traditional classroom (89.4 to 89.2). However, neither
the average scores nor the changes in scores were statistically different between
the two course formats. Similar findings were seen for General Chemistry II.
However, significant differences were found on specific questions within the
survey, which suggests that students in the flipped classroom experienced an
increase in select areas of self-directed learning. For example, the gain for
General Chemistry I students was larger in the flipped course on the statement
exploring initiative in learning: “I frequently do extra work in this course just
because I am interested” (0.58 flipped versus -0.14 traditional, p = 0.006). A
greater increase in self-efficacy of learning was also observed in the flipped
course, demonstrated by decreased agreement to the statement: “I am really
uncertain about my capacity to take primary responsibility for my learning”
(-0.62 flipped versus 0.25 traditional, p = 0.012).

Student Attitudes
The teaching evaluations of students in both Analytical Chemistry and
General Chemistry II were examined to better understand student attitudes toward
the flipped classroom. Students in Analytical Chemistry gave more favorable
responses than those in General Chemistry (Table 5). Previous studies have
shown that there is often an adjustment period for students when changing to a
flipped learning environment (45, 46). Because students in Analytical Chemistry
are typically second or third year chemistry majors or minors while those in
General Chemistry are typically first or second year students from a variety of
science majors, students in Analytical Chemistry are likely more comfortable
learning chemistry in a different format and have a shorter adjustment period to
the new learning style compared to General Chemistry students.
120
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 5. Select results of teaching evaluations for both flipped and traditional
course designs when taught by the same instructor.
Statementa General General Analytical Analytical
Chemistry II Chemistry II Chemistry Chemistry
Flippedb Traditionalb Flippedb Traditionalb
Average number of
hours spent on course
per week
Under 4
4–8 0% 16% 18% 4%
8-12 30% 49% 36% 52%
12-16 41% 22% 18% 28%
More than 16 18% 10% 23% 12%
11% 3% 9% 4%
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Course assignments 4.28 4.19 4.45 4.07

help me understand
course content.
This course improves 4.33 4.01 4.55 4.18
my ability to
think critically and
independently.
a With the exception of the first statement, answers are on a five-point Likert scale with 5
being strongly agree. b Two years of weighted averages are listed, with the exception of
the Analytical Chemistry Flipped that had three. Since limited data was provided about the
teaching evaluations, no statistical tests were performed.

Table 5 also demonstrates that students rated the flipped course similarly to or
more highly than the traditional course for both Analytical Chemistry and General
Chemistry II. Specifically, students in the flipped course agreed to a greater extent
that the course assignments helped them understand course content, and that the
course improved their ability to think critically and independently. This suggests
that the time spent in the course redesign was worthwhile and effective from the
students’ perspective of their own learning. Additionally, this further supports the
notion that students take more responsibility for their own learning in a flipped
environment (38, 43).
It is also interesting that the students self-report spending more time in the
individual learning space of the course (“Average number of hours spent on course
per week”) when taught in the flipped design compared to the traditional class, for
both General Chemistry II and Analytical Chemistry.
In open-ended questions on surveys about the flipped courses, students
reported several drawbacks and benefits that are consistent with those reported
in other studies (4, 7, 40). Three of these drawbacks were mentioned only by
students in General Chemistry, including: limited attention span and focus when
watching videos; difficulty self-motivating to do work outside of the group
learning environment; and time-consuming nature of the course. Students in
both Analytical Chemistry and General Chemistry mentioned not being able to
ask questions immediately while watching videos, and difficulty adjusting to a

121
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 new way of learning. Unlike the traditional-course responses, in which several
students mentioned the fast pace of the class, no students in the flipped classroom
discussed the speed of the course as a difficulty. Positive comments were
mentioned more often and several themes emerged. These included the ability
to individualize learning and listen to lectures at the student’s optimum pace and
multiple times if desired; increased time for active learning and problem-solving
in the classroom; ability to ask questions of the instructor more readily during
class; earlier exposure to key concepts in the individual learning space to enhance
understanding; use of constructivist learning; and use of low-stakes assignments.

Conclusions
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

This chapter summarized the redesign of three different chemistry courses

(Analytical Chemistry, General Chemistry I, and General Chemistry II) to
flipped classrooms using a backwards design approach. In the flipped classroom,
content delivery is moved to the individual learning space, leaving the group
learning space for further exploration and application of material. Classroom
observations confirmed that the group learning space is transformed to a more
active environment, with decreased time in which students passively listen.
Student academic performance in the flipped course, as measured by course
grade and standardized exam score, was found to be equal to or better than that
in the traditional design. Additionally, select aspects of student self-direction
in learning were also found to increase, as documented by the PRO-SDLS
and teaching evaluations. The attitudes of students in the flipped classrooms
expressed in surveys and student evaluations were found to be equal to or more
positive than those in the traditional course design. Finally, students in Analytical
Chemistry were more apt to agree that the design of the flipped course helped
them understand the course content and think critically.
Future work will seek to understand the relationship between specific lesson
designs and student learning. Specifically, a more detailed analysis of the ACS
standardized exam results will be undertaken. Exam questions will be grouped
by topic to determine which specific lessons and types of activities are leading
to significant improvements in student learning. Further, student scores and
attitudinal information will be separated out by different demographics, such as
by low and high achieving students and by first generation college students, to
determine if the flipped classroom impacts student groups differently.

Acknowledgments
The author wishes to acknowledge the staff of the Center for Teaching and
Learning at Otterbein University for leading the 2013 Course Transformation
Institute. Additionally, the author would like to recognize the National Science
Foundation (#1347243), which funded the COPUS-based classroom observations.

122
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 References
1. He, Y.; Swenson, S.; Lents, N. Online Video Tutorials Increase Learning
of Difficult Concepts in an Undergraduate Analytical Chemistry Course. J.
Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1128–1132.
2. Fitzgerald, N.; Li, L. Using Presentation Software to Flip an Undergraduate
Analytical Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1559–1563.
3. Smith, J. D. Students Attitudes toward Flipping the General Chemistry
Classroom. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14, 607–614.
4. Weaver, G. C.; Sturtevant, H. G. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation
of a Flipped Format General Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92,
1437–1448.
5. Amaral, K. E.; Shank, J. D.; Shibley, I. A.; Shibley, L. R. Web-Enhanced
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

General Chemistry Increases Student Completion Rates, Success, and

Satisfaction. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 296–302.
6. Butzler, K. B. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Flipping at an
Open-Enrollment College. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1574–1576.
7. Seery, M. K. Flipped Learning in Higher Education Chemistry: Emerging
Trends and Potential Directions. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16,
758–768.
8. Yestrebsky, C. L. Flipping the Classroom in a Large Chemistry
Class-Research University Environment. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015,
191, 1113–1118.
9. Flipped Learning Network. Definition of Flipped Learning. www.
[Link]/definition (accessed January 8, 2016).
10. Muzyka, J. L. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Just-in-Time
Teaching in Chemistry Courses with Moodle. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92,
1580–1581.
11. Haile, J. D. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Using a Blog to
Flip a Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1572–1573.
12. Krathwohl, D. R. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theor.
Pract. 2002, 41, 212–218.
13. Abeysekera, L.; Dawson, P. Motivation and Cognitive Load in the Flipped
Classroom: Definition, Rationale and a Call for Research. High. Educ. Res.
Dev. 2015, 34, 1–14.
14. Fiorella, L.; Mayer, R. E. Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning
Strategies that Promote Understanding; Cambridge University Press: New
York, NY, 2015.
15. McTighe, J.; Wiggins, G. Understanding by Design, 2nd ed.; Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA, 2005.
16. Holme, T.; Murphy, K. The ACS Exams Institute Undergraduate Chemistry
Anchoring Concepts Content Map I: General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ.
2012, 89, 721–723.
17. Griffiths, P. R. Whither “quant”? An Examination of the Curriculum and
Testing Methods for Quantitative Analysis Courses Taught in Universities
and Colleges in the Western USA. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2008, 391,
875–880.

123
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 18. Analytical Sciences Digital Library (ASDL). [Link]
(accessed January 11, 2016).
19. PhET Interactive Simulations. [Link] (accessed January
11, 2016).
20. National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. http://
[Link]/cs/ (accessed January 11, 2016).
21. Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and On-Line Teaching
(MERLOT II). [Link] (accessed January
11, 2016).
22. Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). [Link]
(accessed January 11, 2016).
23. Analytical Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (ANA-POGIL). https:/
/[Link]/post-secondary/ana-pogil (accessed January 11, 2016).
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

24. Novak, G.; Patterson, E.; Gavrin, A; Christian, W. Just-in-Time Teaching:

Blending Active Learning with Web Technology; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle
River, NJ, 1999.
25. Angelo, T. A.; Cross, K. P. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook
for College Teachers, 2nd ed.; Josey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 1993; pp
222–225.
26. Harvey, D.; Otto, W. Introduction to Data Analysis. [Link]
onlineArticles/ecourseware/Harvey/[Link] (accessed
January 11, 2016).
27. Royal Society of Chemistry. Infrared Spectroscopy (IR). [Link]
[Link]/watch?v=DDTIJgIh86E (accessed January 11, 2016).
28. Nilsson, G.; Fok, E.; Ng, J.; Cooke, J. Infrared Spectroscopy. http://
[Link]/~inorglab/spectut/[Link] (accessed January 11,
2016).
29. Colby College Chemistry. IRHelper Spectral Interpretation. http://
[Link]/chemistry/JCAMP/[Link] (accessed January 11,
2016).
30. Donnelly, P. July 2005. How Juries Are Fooled by Statistics [Video file].
Retrieved from [Link]
stats_fool_juries (accessed January 11, 2016).
31. Bean, J. C. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing,
Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom; Jossey-Bass: San
Franciso, CA, 2001.
32. Mazur, E. Peer Instruction; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
33. Epstein Educational Enterprises. Immediate Feedback Assessment
Technique (IFAT). [Link] (accessed
January 11, 2016).
34. Carr, P.; Boswell, P.; Stoll, D. HPLC Simulator. [Link]
[Link]/ (accessed March 11, 2016).
35. Stockdale, S. L.; Brockett, R. G. Development of the PRO-SDLS: A
Measure of Self-Direction in Learning Based on the Personal Responsibility
Orientation Model. Adult Educ. Quart. 2011, 61, 161–180.
36. Smith, M. K.; Jones, F. H. M.; Gilbert, S. L.; Wieman, C. E. The
Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A

124
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 New Instrument to Characterize University STEM Classroom Practices.
CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2013, 12, 618–627.
37. Fautch, J. M. The Flipped Classroom for Teaching Organic Chemistry in
Small Classes: Is It Effective? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 179–186.
38. Davies, R. S.; Dean, D. L.; Ball, N. Flipping the Classroom and Instructional
Technology Integration in a College-Level Information Systems Spreadsheet
Course. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2013, 61, 563–580.
39. House, J. D. Noncognitive Predictors of Achievement in Introductory
College Chemistry. Res. High. Educ. 1995, 36, 473–490.
40. Trogden, B. G. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Reclaiming
Face Time – How an Organic Chemistry Flipped Classroom Provided Access
to Increased Guided Engagement. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1570–1571.
41. Hake, R. R. Interactive-Engagement versus Traditional Methods: A Six-
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch007

Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics

Courses. Am. J. Phys. 1998, 64, 64–74.
42. Jensen, J. L.; Kummer, T. A.; Godoy, P. D. D. M. Improvements from a
Flipped Classroom May Simply Be the Fruits of Active Learning. CBE Life
Sci. Educ. 2015, 14, 1–12.
43. Wallace, M. L.; Walker, J. D.; Braseby, A. M.; Sweet, M. S. “Now, What
Happens During Class? Using Team-Based Learning to Optimize the Role
of Expertise within the Flipped Classroom. JECT 2014, 25, 253–273.
44. Van Vliet, E. A.; Winnips, J. C.; Brouwer, N. Flipped-Class Pedagogy
Enhances Student Metacognition and Collaborative-Learning Strategies in
Higher Education But Effect Does Not Persist. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2015,
14, 1–10.
45. Christiansen, M. A. Inverted Teaching: Applying a New Pedagogy to a
University Organic Chemistry Class. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1845–1850.
46. Talbert, R. Inverted Classroom. Colleagues [Online] 2012, 9, 1−2
[Link]
colleagues (accessed January 11, 2016).

125
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Chapter 8

Biochemistry and the Liberal Arts: Content

and Communication in a Flipped Classroom
Gregory W. Muth*
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

Department of Chemistry, St. Olaf College, 1520 St. Olaf Ave., Northfield,
Minnesota 55057
*E-mail: muth@[Link]

This chapter reflects on seven semesters of teaching a

one-semester majors biochemistry course in a liberal arts setting
before flipping the classroom and six semesters of teaching the
same course after flipping the classroom. The median exam
score prior to flipping was 82% and after flipping was 79%
(p = 0.009). Analysis of the level of difficulty of the exam
questions revealed that after flipping, the exams contained
23% more points at higher cognitive levels as assessed by
Bloom’s taxonomy. This indicated that even though the students
performed the same, the exams required higher order thinking
skills for success. Students also reported gains in proficiency
working in groups, communication skills and problem solving
abilities.

Introduction
Teaching pedagogy has evolved with changing technology. In years gone by
we taught with chalk on slate, acetate sheets on overhead projectors, white boards,
using Powerpoint and now with video supplements. In each instance there was a
period of adjustment and/or pushback from the faculty and a period of adjustment
and pushback from the students. Despite the struggles during the transition, the
change was good and ended with a better, more progressive learning environment.
The age of video instruction has complemented the active learning classroom
(1–4). While both video instruction and active learning each have merit, the
combination of the two can provide an excellent balance between delivering
content and promoting meaningful reflection and learning (3, 5–7). The style

© 2016 American Chemical Society

Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 and content of videos for teaching are as wide and varied as the methods for
making them (8). Background, special topics, guest lectures, problem solutions
and responses to questions all have been the subjects of videos to enhance student
learning and create time in-class for high-impact, active learning strategies.
With class time liberated for active learning strategies, faculty are employing
a vast array of proven techniques in the classroom (9, 10). Personal response
systems (clickers), paper and pencil problems, skits, student presentations,
workshops, demonstrations and a class-lab hybrid all are more accessible with
the lecture portion being moved outside of the class.
But beyond content, the flipped classroom provides students an opportunity
to improve interpersonal skills (11, 12). The current generation of college students
has been raised in a device-centric (phone, iPad etc.) social structure while many of
the older generations and even current students from less privileged backgrounds
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

have not had this opportunity. This disparity can create a challenge for quality and
effective interpersonal communication. To this end, students need coaching and
practice in the art of both speaking and listening. Even for those who are proficient,
there is always room to refine communication skills in a technical area.
In this chapter the journey of creating and implementing a flipped classroom
using video lectures for a one-semester 300-level biochemistry course will be
presented. Comparisons of exams and exam scores are made between the same
course taught in traditional lecture format and in the flipped format. Additional
self-reported student data are given to support the claim that they are gaining skills
valued by the liberal arts community.

Methodology
The process for creating a video lecture supplement for viewing outside of
class can begin with PowerPoint slides and lecture notes that already exist for a
given course. There is no requirement to rewrite lectures or modify slides that have
proven effective for student learning and previous experiences. In conversations
with faculty who are interested in trying to create video lectures they often become
overwhelmed with the number of choices in software available to capture video
voice and screen simultaneously. While there are dozens to choose from they
all do about the same thing. In this respect the choices therefore become very
personal. This author recommends several features that have proven effective for
the past several years. First is convenience. It is very convenient to be able to
record, edit and publish a lecture video in the privacy and comfort of your own
office. Some may argue for the need for a professional quality recording studio
and yes, that will give the highest quality production product in the end but there
is a trade-off for the convenience of simply being able to close your door record a
lecture and publish it to the web. To this end this author has used Telescreen’s
ScreenFlow software for all of his video lecture production (13). ScreenFlow
allows the simultaneous capture of voice, a headshot (optional) and the events
that are happening on the screen whether it is an animation or simply the mouse
pointer being used to illustrate different features on the slide (Figure 1).
128
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

Figure 1. Representative screen shot of a typical video lecture containing

the PowerPoint slide, talking head of the professor and the mouse pointer to
highlight text.

The second feature that is critical in screen capture software is the ability to
conveniently edit the file. Editing the file can be extremely complex and time-
consuming, relatively straightforward, or not employed at all. We know that in our
classrooms not every lecture is perfect. Often times we pause, we may stumble
on words, shuffle our notes or even lose our train of thought. The students are
accepting of these small idiosyncrasies therefore we should feel no different when
producing a video lecture. A slight pause to check where you are in your notes,
a moment to collect your thoughts or an invitation for students to pause the video
to work a problem does not distract from the content of the video lecture itself.
This “good enough” philosophy can lower a barrier and facilitate creation of a
valuable teaching tool. If one does desire to edit out large gaffes or create a video
masterpiece, the software should be easy and convenient to use. With ScreenFlow,
large and/or small sections of audio and video can be cut and spliced back together
to create a relatively seamless flow of information from start to finish. It is also
possible to add voice overs or additional material later on if desired. Finally, all
software packages must have the ability to export the file from an editable screen
capture file or similar to a .MOV, .mp4 or .m4v file (or similar) that can be viewed
on nearly any device whether it is phone, tablet PC or Mac. Note that the editable
files created in ScreenFlow are rather large and potentially cumbersome, so having
an external hard drive is a nice way to store them safely without having to burden
a device with these large files. A sixteen-minute video as an editable Screenflow
file is 8.3GB. Once converted to .MOV or .m4v the final file is only 170MB. Once
exported, storing the files on Google Drive or on an internal server allows for
easy access via links on course websites or your institution’s learning management
system (LMS).
To complement the online lectures, students can be given access to all the
PowerPoint slides used in the lectures. They can choose between viewing them
electronically, downloading and printing them themselves, or purchasing the
printed version from the bookstore/campus copy center in a bound volume.
129
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Anecdotal evidence suggests that students listen more actively (as if they were in
class) and are more successful when they have the printed slides in front of them
while watching the video lectures.
The in-class portion of the course can be based on a variety of proven high-
impact practice strategies. Whether it is unique applications of the basic concepts
presented in literature-centered case studies, POGIL activities or simply working
problems from the back of the chapter in groups, the idea is to engage students in
activities that reinforce key concepts and allow them to practice problem solving
in an atmosphere of “social constructivism (14–16).” The activities should follow
the central dogma of the high impact classroom where activities are effortful, build
relationships, allow the instructor to provide immediate feedback/coaching and
apply/reinforce the knowledge gained from outside of class efforts (17). Small
groups of 3 to 4 established at random and shuffled after each exam has been the
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

methodology to date based on previous reports (18).

This author uses a 50-50 split between end of chapter or exam-style
questions to engage students with the material and case study assignments either
self-authored or published (19–21). Regardless of the activity the students are
given the material ahead of time and encouraged to work through the material
on their own before class, bringing to class questions that might have come up
during the process of working on the problems or cases. The ideal scenario is
for a student to truly engage in the material outside of class and bring specific
roadblock questions to class to discuss with classmates and the instructor. This
scenario rarely plays out, yet class-time can be fruitful without much pre-class
preparation. Usually students spend more time in-class focusing on background
information and orienting themselves to the problems rather than delving deeply
into the nuances of the biochemical concepts. The key to successful in-class
activities is to make sure the students have a product to be graded to turn in at the
end of class even if it is just the answer to one problem completed by the group.
This ensures that the groups remain focused on the material rather than on side
conversations or current events. The “hand-in” at the end of class also provides
the instructor a vehicle to provide feedback on their written work prior to an
exam. Because of the structure of the flipped classroom there is no limit on the
creativity of the instructor for in-class activities. Games, skits and even serious
discussions about current research articles and ethical dilemmas can be brought
before the class without having to worry about sacrificing precious lecture time
needed to cover content.

130
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Results

Observations and data collected for this chapter are from a typical semester
at St. Olaf College with 12 weeks of instruction covering the content for a 300
level biochemistry class targeted at junior and senior undergraduates who have
completed two semesters of 200-level organic chemistry. In the 12 weeks the
students were assigned 51 video lectures to be viewed outside of class to support
their reading of the textbook. The lectures ranged in length from five minutes to 30
minutes with an average video length of 16 minutes. The tone of the video lectures
could be described more as a one-on-on tutorial during office-hours rather than a
lecture-hall style presentation. During a given week the average time students
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

were assigned to spend outside of class listening to lectures was a little over 60
minutes provided they did a single viewing. By flipping the classroom all students
were guaranteed at least 165 minutes per week of active, guided engagement in
material related to problem solving and critical thinking.
With an average class size of 32, dividing the students into eight groups of 4
allowed for personal interactions with each group during the scheduled meeting
time and a manageable grading load for the in-class assignments.
In the seven semesters prior to flipping the classroom, 34 exams were
administered to 325 students. The typical exam format consisted of 7-8 short
answer questions where the students had to complete a calculation, draw a figure,
interpret data or write a response in their own words within the 1-hour time
limit. The median score on these exams was 82%. In the six semesters following
flipping the classroom 24 exams were administered to 196 students. Exam format
and time restriction was comparable to those administered before flipping the
classroom. The median score on these exams was 79%. A two-tail distribution
analysis gave a P level of 0.009 that suggests that there was no difference in the
median score between the two data sets.
While there was no significant difference between the median scores before
and after flipping the classroom, a detailed analysis of the exams themselves
showed a difference in the difficulty of the exams. Each question on each exam
was evaluated and ranked according to Bloom’s taxonomy (22). Table 1 below
shows the criteria for ranking each test question and Table 2 shows the average
percentage of exam points assigned at each level before-and-after flipping the
class.

131
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 1. Exam question levels and corresponding Bloom’s taxonomy
Level Type Rationale Key Words
1 Knowledge Requires the student to recognize or list, label, define,
recall information describe
2 Comprehension When students can reproduce and arrange, identify,
communicate ideas and information explain, sort,
without verbatim repetition classify
3 Application The ability to use this information in choose, solve,
particular, concrete, situations draw demonstrate,
prepare
4 Analysis Breaking down ideas into constituent analyze, contrast,
parts in order to make the organization examine, test,
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

clear compare
5 Synthesis The ability to integrate ideas into a create, design,
unified whole propose, modify
6 Evaluation The ability to judge the value of an judge, predict,
idea, model, procedure etc. using defend, support,
appropriate criteria assess

Table 2. Aggregate percentages of exam points at each level before and

after flipping the classroom.
Level Before After
1-2 49% 26%
3-4 42% 51%
5-6 9% 23%

Each semester following flipping the classroom, students were given an

assessment worksheet and asked to respond to a series of prompts on a five point
Likert scale where the highest response was “strongly agree” and the lowest
response was “strongly disagree”. Questions could be divided into two categories
one having to do with the structure of the class (Table 3) and one having to do
with personal growth during class (Table 4).

132
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 3. End of course survey questions used to measure student opinion of
the structure of the course
Structure
I feel the book was valuable to learning biochemistry
I feel working problems in groups during class time was valuable to learning
biochemistry
I feel the On Line Lectures (OLL) were a suitable replacement for in-class lectures
I feel the instructor created a supportive, encouraging environment for learning
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

Student responses over five semesters are summarized in aggregate form in

figure 2.

Figure 2. Results summarized from Table 3 questions. The solid point is the
average percentage of students who responded, “agree” or “strongly agree” to
the corresponding question. The vertical bar spans the range of responses over
five semesters.

133
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Table 4. End of course survey questions used to measure student opinion
of personal gains during the course
Growth
I feel I improved my ability to think beyond the basics
I feel I improved my ability to work with others
I feel I improved my ability to solve problems
I feel I improved in my ability to be a more independent learner

Student responses over five semesters are summarized in aggregate form in

Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

figure 3.

Figure 3. Results summarized from Table 4 questions. The solid point is the
average percentage of students who responded, “agree” or “strongly agree” to
the corresponding question. The vertical bar spans the range of responses over
five semesters.

Discussion
Despite the growing evidence that the flipped classroom is an excellent
method for delivering both content and building lifelong learning skills, student
feedback can be negative as they adapt to this new environment (3, 5, 6, 15,
23–25). This is likely true in many situations where students are asked to
switch from the low energy-passive classroom to an active high-energy learning
environment. An important aspect in course design for the flipped classroom
is to provide students with the opportunity to understand the methodology and
pedagogy being employed in the flipped classroom. This initial buy-in allows
them to understand the rationale and embrace that the changes are being done
134
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 in their best interest. One simple technique is to always refer to the videos as
“lectures” whether it is “online lectures” or “video lectures” or other vernacular.
Keeping the term “lecture” in the title insures students that they are not missing
out on an all too familiar teaching strategy. Another technique that alleviates
some of the pushback from students is to share with them some examples from the
growing body of scientific evidence that their grades will be better and that their
learning will be deeper and last longer in the active learning, flipped classroom
model (26). These small things can help prevent misunderstandings and provide
motivation down the road. Additionally simply stating, “we learn by doing” helps
launch activities on a positive note.
With the growing number of responsibilities that students take on during the
course of a semester, it is important to respect the amount of time students work on
each of their courses. The flipped classroom model with online lectures ensures
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

that the students will be exposed to 165 minutes every week (3 x 55 minute class
periods) of quality, active, efficient learning that once was used to deliver lecture.
In this model, questions that do arise can be addressed immediately either by
asking a classmate or the instructor. This immediacy helps to maintain focus
during a problem solving session and prevents wasted time in frustration (27). In
addition to this efficiency it also creates an environment for informal discussions,
allowing students to conjecture and imagine and bring things together from other
classes or research that might be important to their studies as a whole. One of
things that struggling students fail to do is to regularly attend office hours. The
flipped classroom model creates office hours within the classroom, allowing a
vehicle for communication between student and instructor. Additionally the more
informal style allows the instructor to get to know students more personally and
lowers the potential intimidation factor for dropping in during office hours. This
personal interaction also allows for deeper, more meaningful content in letters of
recommendation requested by the students.
As faculty, we know that exam writing is both an art and a science. In good
faith, we write exams that are at the appropriate level for our students; our goal
is to be challenging and creative, but fair. It was under this assumption that the
initial analysis of the aggregate exam-score analysis before and after flipping the
classroom was so disappointing. The students should have done better according to
the research (24, 26, 28–33). It was honestly unintentional that the exams became
more challenging after flipping the class. Each exam was crafted knowing the
student’s skills and abilities with the perception that the students were prepared and
had practiced (with coaching) answering the more difficult questions. Only after
the fact were the exams analyzed and determined to contain a higher percentage
of the Bloom’s level 3 questions.
This serendipitous result speaks to addressing two of the essential learning
outcomes as outlined by the Association of American Colleges and Universities
in their LEAP campaign (34). The presence of questions at all three levels allows
a student to demonstrate their knowledge of the physical and natural world. This
content assessment is an essential portion of the course and is not sacrificed by
having an active learning environment. What perhaps is more significant and
speaks to the measurement of the second essential learning outcome where the
demonstrated success on the more difficult exams shows how the students are

135
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 able to leverage their gains in an active learning environment giving them the
confidence and opportunity to be successful. What we see are students developing
and working towards mastery of their intellectual skills honing and refining them,
particularly with respect to inquiry and analysis and critical and creative thinking.
Despite the growing use of technology in society, the most valued interactions
for learning as perceived by the students were due to direct human interactions.
The percentage of students agreeing to statements about working in groups and
the instructor’s interventions during class were greater than those agreeing to the
efficacy of video lectures or even reading the textbook to their learning. This is
continued evidence that the flipped classroom strategy optimizes interactions the
students find most favorable for their learning.
Finally, a large part of the active learning classroom centers on working in
teams and teamwork falls under the AAC&U’s practical skills essential learning
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

outcomes. The key feature for a successful team is quality and effective oral
communication. Regardless of a student’s vocation, speaking clearly and listening
to understand are skills that are needed and need to be practiced. This tenet of the
liberal arts curriculum is accomplished in the flipped classroom without sacrificing
the course content. The self-reported data speak to the efficacy of the course
design. While many of the St. Olaf students need little coaching on how to
be a team player or effective communicator, an overwhelming majority admitted
to improving critical thinking, teamwork and problem solving as part of their
experience in the flipped classroom.

Conclusion
This chapter has illustrated the efficacy of the flipped classroom in the
context of an upper-level liberal arts biochemistry course. Following the “good
enough” philosophy allowed video lectures to be created and disseminated
easily and efficiently with a low activation energy. Pairing video lectures
with high impact practices in the classroom preserved content and allowed for
students to thrive in an environment where the expectation was to work at a
higher cognitive level as measured by exam data. Finally, the flipped classroom
promoted outcomes that are in-line with the essential learning outcomes of a
liberal arts education specifically, inquiry, critical thinking, oral communication
and teamwork supported by student self-report data.

References
1. Prud’homme-Généreux, A. Student-Produced Videos for the Flipped
Classroom. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2016, 45, 58–62.
2. Morgan, H.; McLean, K.; Chapman, C.; Fitzgerald, J.; Yousuf, A.;
Hammoud, M. The flipped classroom for medical students. Clin. Teach.
2015, 12, 155–160.
3. Mortensen, C. J.; Nicholson, A. M. The flipped classroom stimulates
greater learning and is a modern 21st century approach to teaching today’s
undergraduates. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 3722–3731.
136
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 4. Kay, R. H. Exploring the use of video podcasts in education: A
comprehensive review of the literature. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28,
820–831.
5. Love, B.; Hodge, A.; Grandgenett, N.; Swift, A. W. Student learning and
perceptions in a flipped linear algebra course. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci.
Technol. 2014, 45, 317–324.
6. McLean, S.; Attardi, S. M.; Faden, L.; Goldszmidt, M. Flipped classrooms
and student learning: not just surface gains. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2016, 40,
47–55.
7. Westermann, E. B. A Half-Flipped Classroom or an Alternative Approach?:
Primary Sources and Blended Learning. Educ. Res. Q. 2014, 38, 43–57.
8. Drouin, M.; Hile, R. E.; Vartanian, L. R.; Webb, J. Student Preferences For
Online Lecture Formats. Q. Rev. Distance Educ. 2013, 14, 151–162.
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

9. Lau, W. M.; Chong, D. W. Combining Team-Based Learning with a Flipped

Classroom Approach: Is This Possible. Med. Educ. 2014, 48, 8–8.
10. Waltz, C. F.; Jenkins, L. S.; Han, N. The Use and Effectiveness of Active
Learning Methods in Nursing and Health Professions Education: A
Literature Review. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 2014, 35, 392–400.
11. Ferreri, S. P.; O’Connor, S. K. Redesign of a Large Lecture Course Into a
Small-Group Learning Course. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2013, 77, 1–9.
12. Schwartzstein, R. M. Getting the Right Medical Students -- Nature versus
Nurture. New Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 1586–1587.
13. Screencasting and Video Editing Software [Link]
screenflow (accessed Mar 1, 2016)
14. Herreid, C. F.; Schiller, N. A. Case Studies and the Flipped Classroom. J.
Coll. Sci. Teach. 2013, 42, 62–66.
15. Pierce, R.; Fox, J. Vodcasts and Active-Learning Exercises in a "Flipped
Classroom" Model of a Renal Pharmacotherapy Module. Am. J. Pharm.
Educ. 2012, 76, 1–5.
16. Powell, K. C.; Kalina, C. J. Cognitive and Social Constructivism:
Developing Tools for an Effective Classroom. Education 2009, 130,
241–250.
17. Kuh, G. D. High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has
Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Peer Review 2012, 14, 29–29.
18. Eberlein, T.; Kampmeier, J.; Minderhout, V.; Moog, R. S.; Platt, T.; Varma-
Nelson, P.; White, H. B. Pedagogies of engagement in science. Biochem.
Mol. Biol. Educ. 2008, 36, 262–273.
19. National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. http://
[Link]/cs/ (accessed Mar 1, 2016).
20. Cornely, K., Cases in Biochemistry. John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1999.
21. Jenny Loertscher, V. M., Foundations of Biochemistry. 3rd ed.; Pacific Crest:
Lisle, Il, 2011.
22. Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., Krathwohl, D., Taxonomy of
educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook
I: Cognitive domain. Longmans, Green: New York, Toronto, 1956.

137
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 23. Khanova, J.; McLaughlin, J. E.; Rhoney, D. H.; Roth, M. T.; Harris, S.
Student Perceptions of a Flipped Pharmacotherapy Course. Am. J. Pharm.
Educ. 2015, 79, 1–8.
24. Peterson, D. J. The Flipped Classroom Improves Student Achievement and
Course Satisfaction in a Statistics Course. Teach. Psychol. 2016, 43, 10–15.
25. Rossi, R. D. ConfChem Conference on Flipped Classroom: Improving
Student Engagement in Organic Chemistry Using the Inverted Classroom
Model. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1577–1579.
26. Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.;
Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active learning increases student performance in
science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 2014,
111, 8410–8415.
27. Baepler, P.; Walker, J. D.; Driessen, M. It’s not about seat time: Blending,
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch008

flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Comput. Educ. 2014,

78, 227–236.
28. Haughton, J.; Kelly, A. Student Performance in an Introductory Business
Statistics Course: Does Delivery Mode Matter. J. Educ. Bus. 2015, 90,
31–43.
29. Mason, G. S.; Shuman, T. R.; Cook, K. E. Comparing the Effectiveness
of an Inverted Classroom to a Traditional Classroom in an Upper-Division
Engineering Course. IEEE Trans. Educ. 2013, 56, 430–435.
30. Ryan, M. D.; Reid, S. A. Impact of the Flipped Classroom on Student
Performance and Retention: A Parallel Controlled Study in General
Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 13–23.
31. Talley, C. P.; Scherer, S. The Enhanced Flipped Classroom: Increasing
Academic Performance with Student-recorded Lectures and Practice Testing
in a "Flipped" STEM Course. J. Negro Educ. 2013, 82, 339–347.
32. Tune, J. D.; Sturek, M.; Basile, D. P. Flipped classroom model improves
graduate student performance in cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal
physiology. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2013, 37, 316–320.
33. Weaver, G. C.; Sturtevant, H. G. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation
of a Flipped Format General Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92,
1437–1448.
34. The LEAP Challenge: Education for a World of Unscripted Problems;
American Association of Colleges and Universites: 2015.

138
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Editors’ Biographies
Jennifer L. Muzyka
Jennifer L. Muzyka received her B.S. from University of Dallas and her
Ph.D. in organic chemistry from University of Texas, Austin. She began her
college teaching career at Roanoke College. Later she moved to Centre College
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ot001

in Kentucky, where she is currently H.W. Stodghill Jr. and Adele H. Stodghill
Professor of Chemistry. Muzyka leads workshops on Active Learning in
Organic Chemistry and serves on the leadership board for OrganicERs, an online
community for organic chemistry educators ([Link] She also
serves on the ACS Division of Chemical Education’s Committee on Computers
for Chemical Education, currently as committee co-chair.

Christopher S. Luker
Christopher Luker received his B.S. in chemistry from Allegheny College
and his M.A. in Education from The University of Akron. He currently teaches
college-preparatory and Advanced Placement chemistry at Highland High School
in Medina, Ohio. He has been involved in flipped classroom pedagogy since
2008 and has been involved in numerous local, regional, and national events on
the flipped classroom. Even though he was not the originator of the concept,
Luker was part of a very small group that introduced the flipped concept to the
Biennial Conference on Chemical Education in 2012. Luker is currently a doctoral
student at Kent State University, where his research interests are related to the
metacognitive aspects of the flipped classroom experience.

© 2016 American Chemical Society

Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Subject Index
B CHEM 1308, spring, 2012-2015,
exam score comparisons, 28t
Biochemistry and the liberal arts free-response questionnaire, 31
conclusion, 136 instruction, course, 23
discussion, 134 lecture characteristics, 24t
LEAP campaign, 135 methods of assessment, model
introduction, 127 evaluation, 25
methodology, 128 results and outcomes, model
course, in-class portion, 130 evaluation, 26
typical video lecture containing the study group, demographics, 26t
PowerPoint slide, representative
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ix002

screen shot, 129f

results, 131 F
course survey questions, end, 133t
course survey questions used to
Flipping in the large lecture environment, 1
measure student opinion, end, 134t
conclusions, 17
exam points at each level, aggregate
introduction, 2
percentages, 132t
methods
exam question levels and
classes, description, 2
corresponding Bloom's taxonomy,
flipping, effect, 3
132t
surveys, 4
Table 3 questions, results summarized,
results
133f
both classes, assessment tools used, 7t
Table 4 questions, results summarized,
both classes, ethnicity distribution, 6t
134f
challenges, benefits, and helpful hints,
16
classes, academic level, 5t
C classes, gender distribution, 5t
class-specific surveys, 12
Course flipping in general chemistry, course, students' expected grade, 13t
effectiveness, 19 courses, grading rubric, 7t
conclusions, 34 discussion and conclusion, 9
introduction final grades for both classes,
advantages and disadvantages, 20 comparison without points for
course flipping, concept, 20 attendance, 10f
course flipping, definition, 23 final grades for both classes,
flipping components, 22 comparison with points for
for the instructor, 21 attendance, 11f
for the student, 20 flipped vs. traditional exam scores,
study analyses, 9t
2008 and 2015 ACS EOT I exam, flipped vs. traditional quiz scores,
percentile differentials, 30f analyses, 8t
2010 and 2015 ACS EOT II exam, format that helped them learn more,
percentile differentials, 30f 13t
CHEM 1307, 2005 ACS first grades, 6
term general chemistry exam overall course quality, students'
comparisons, 29t perceptions, 13t
CHEM 1307, fall, 2011 - 2015, exam SAT, ACT, HS GPA, 7t
score comparisons, 27t selected survey results, 12t
CHEM 1308, 2006 ACS end-of-term student demographics, 5
II exam comparisons, 29t student opinion, 16t

145
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Student Perception of Instruction learning objectives provided to
(SPOI), 12 prepare for an exam, lists, 85f
students, homework completed, 15t teamwork grading rubric, 87t
students' prior academic ability typical PowerPoint slide, 88f
measures, 6 results, 89
student surveys, 11
videos in flipped course, students'
interaction, 14t
L

Lecture based organic chemistry course

H sequence, conversion, 93
assessment, 100
Hybrid general chemistry course, 39 transforming the organic sequence,
background, 40 primary motivation, 101
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ix002

hybrid course, development, 42 conclusion, 104

section of the seating arrangement, course flip, rationale, 95
photograph, 41f course flip, structure, 96
introduction, 40 organic chemistry I courses, grading,
summary and lessons learned, 51 100t
winter 2014, hybrid CH 231 goes live organic chemistry II courses, grading,
class time (during class), 43 100t
course grading, 46 course flip, subsequent adjustments, 102
course setup, 43 increasing the complexity of topics,
exams, 46 example, 104t
homework, 45 introduction, 94
laboratory, 47
pre-class preparation, 43
quizzes, 44
statement, student responses, 48f
P
traditional course exam scores, winter
2014 hybrid course exam scores, Partial flipping
48t case studies, partial flipping in practice
winter 2014 hybrid course final letter annotated slide from a partially flipped
grade scheme, 47t lecture, example, 63f
winter 2014 hybrid course grade evaluation data, 73
components, 46t feedback, enhanced provision, 72
year one exam performance, 48 foundation year chemistry course,
winter 2016, year three, 51 supporting the teaching, 61
winter and spring 2015, year two, 50 fundamentals of chemistry module,
students' views, 65t
higher-order thinking, 71
learning analytics, role, 68
J lecture slot, freeing up time, 62f
simple web software, enhancing the
Just-in-Time Teaching flip, 66
distinctive characteristics, 89 student engagement and evaluation,
collaborative problem solving, 90 64
future directions, 91 student responses, evidence extracted,
introduction, 81 67t
methods, 83 student responses to the questions,
classroom learning cycle, 86f evidence extracted, 75t
JiTT responses, rubric used to assess, value of pre-lecture and in-class
86t elements of teaching, students'
learning objectives provided to views, 74t
prepare for a 90-minute class Zaption pre-lecture, examples of
session, lists, 84f questions presented to students, 70f

146
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
 Zaption pre-lecture video, example, general chemistry, acid-base learning
69f module 2, 116t
conclusions, 75 general chemistry, module, 112
overview, 56 learning modules in analytical
prologue, 55 chemistry, select examples, 113t
UK context, introduction, 56 solubility in general chemistry, select
lecture content, rationale for partial example of a learning module, 114t
flipping, 60 implementation, 117
testing and school accountability, introduction, 108
impact, 57 results and discussion
university-level teaching and learning, classroom observations, 117
transition, 58 course grades in general chemistry I,
Primarily undergraduate institution, comparison, 119f
flipping general and analytical flipped and traditional course
chemistry, 107 designs, select results of teaching
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ix002

conclusions, 122 evaluations, 121t

course redesign, 109 self-directed student learning, 120
analytical chemistry, module, 111 student attitudes, 120
curriculum design, WHERE approach, summative assessment, student
110f learning, 118
general chemistry, acid-base learning
module 1, 115t

147
Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.