Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 476–483 | Cite as

Integration of Video-Based Demonstrations to Prepare Students for the Organic Chemistry Laboratory

  • Louis S. Nadelson
  • Jonathan Scaggs
  • Colin Sheffield
  • Owen M. McDougalEmail author
Article

Abstract

Consistent, high-quality introductions to organic chemistry laboratory techniques effectively and efficiently support student learning in the organic chemistry laboratory. In this work, we developed and deployed a series of instructional videos to communicate core laboratory techniques and concepts. Using a quasi-experimental design, we tested the videos in five traditional laboratory experiments by integrating them with the standard pre-laboratory student preparation presentations and instructor demonstrations. We assessed the influence of the videos on student laboratory knowledge and performance, using sections of students who did not view the videos as the control. Our analysis of pre-quizzes revealed the control group had equivalent scores to the treatment group, while the post-quiz results show consistently greater learning gains for the treatment group. Additionally, the students who watched the videos as part of their pre-laboratory instruction completed their experiments in less time.

Keywords

Second-year undergraduate Organic chemistry Learning theories 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Andrea Haskett, Lynette McDougal, Aubrey Johnston, Reece Knipple, Chris Mallory, and Karen Hammond for contributing content that made this publication possible. The work presented was supported by Boise State University Designing for Learning Success program and the Idaho State Board of Education Technology Incentive Grant program.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 97705 kb)

References

  1. Almy J (1982) Slide-audiotape pre-lab programs for organic chemistry. J Chem Educ 59(5):384–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Chemical Society (2008a) Undergraduate professional education in chemistry. American Chemical Society, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. American Chemical Society. (2008b). American chemical society committee on professional training; ACS guideline revision: organic chemistry supplement. http://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/committees/training/acsapproved/degreeprogram/organic-chemistry-supplement.pdf
  4. Bautista RG (2012) The effects of personalized instruction on the academic achievement of students in physics. Int J Arts Sci 5(5):573–583Google Scholar
  5. Billing D (2007) Teaching for transfer of core/key skills in higher education: cognitive skills. High Educ 53(4):483–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruning R, Schraw G, Ronning R (1999) Cognitive psychology and instruction, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper G, Sweller J (1987) The effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. J Educ Psychol 79(4):347–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeMeo S (2001) Teaching chemical technique. J Chem Educ 78(3):373–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Detterman DK, Sternberg RJ (1993) Transfer on trial: intelligence, cognition, and instruction. Ablex Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Ealy J (1994) Frustration + cleaverness ≠; learning. J Chem Educ 71(2):148–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Faraday M (1827) Chemical manipulation. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Feynman RP (1964) The Feynman lectures on physics. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoskinson A-M, Couch BA, Zwickl BM, Hinko KA, Caballero MD (2014) Bridging physics and biology teaching through modeling. Am J Phys 82:434–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hudson R, Luska KL (2013) Recording tutorials to increase student use and incorporating demonstrations to engage live participants. J Chem Educ 90(5):527–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jasien PG (2003) Factors influencing passing rates for first-semester organic chemistry students. Chem Educ 8(2):155–161Google Scholar
  16. Johnson H (2012) Defunding higher education: what are the effects on college enrolment?. Public Policy Institute of California, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  17. Keefe JW, Jenkins JM (2002) Personalized instruction. Phi Delta Kappan 83(6):440–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lewenstein BV (1989) To improve our knowledge in nature and arts: a history of chemical education in the United States. J Chem Educ 66(1):37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lobato J (2006) Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: history, issues, and challenges for future research. J Learn Sci 15(4):431–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Majerle RS, Utecht RE, Guetzloff CJ (1995) A different approach to the traditional chemistry lab experience. J Chem Educ 72(8):718–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin CB, Schmidt M, Soniat M (2011) Survey of the practices, procedures, and techniques in undergraduate organic chemistry teaching laboratories. J Chem Educ 88(12):1630–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mayer RE (2011) Applying the science of learning. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  23. Meloan CE (1971) The use of tape recorders, cartridge films, and real samples in laboratories. J Chem Educ 48(2):139–141Google Scholar
  24. Moody AE, Foster KA (1997) The organic lab: a status quo report and a two-semesters-in-one approach. J Chem Educ 74(5):587–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pickering M, Crabtree RH (1979) How students cope with a procedureless lab exercise. J Chem Educ 56(7):487–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ray (2012). Recession realities in higher education. http://recessionreality.blogspot.com/2012/01/
  27. Renfrew MM, Moeller T (1978) The training of teaching assistants in chemistry. J Chem Educ 55(6):386–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Runquist O (1967) Programmed laboratory: an audio-tutorial approach to elementary organic laboratory. J Chem Educ 44(7):407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schearer WR (1988) Beyond the traditional lecture system of teaching chemistry: organic chemistry. J Chem Educ 65(2):133–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Szu E, Nandagopal K, Shavelson RJ, Lopez EJ, Penn JH, Scharberg M, Hill GW (2011) Understanding academic performance in organic chemistry. J Chem Educ 88(9):1238–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Gog T, Paas F, van Merriënboer JJ (2004) Process-oriented worked examples: improving transfer performance through enhanced understanding. Instr Sci 32(1–2):83–98Google Scholar
  32. Winberg TM, Berg CAR (2007) Students’ cognitive focus during a chemistry laboratory exercise: effects of a computer-simulated prelab. J Res Sci Teach 44(8):1108–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yamnill S, McLean GN (2001) Theories supporting transfer of training. Hum Resour Dev Q 12(2):195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louis S. Nadelson
    • 1
  • Jonathan Scaggs
    • 2
  • Colin Sheffield
    • 2
  • Owen M. McDougal
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Teacher Education and Leadership, Emma Eccles Jones College of Education and Human ServicesUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Department of Chemistry and BiochemistryBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations