Precursor or Product: The Blended Learning Environment in First Year Chemistry

Abstract

<p><b>AIMS</b> </p><p> Diverse learning platforms facilitate accessibility of content for non-traditional students and compensate for geographical limitations that universities might experience. In utilizing diverse learning platforms, it is critical to ensure effective and equitable teaching and learning outcomes across different student demographics. Based on the foundation and first year chemistry offerings at the University of New England (UNE), we aim to develop a theoretical construct for the basis of a long term quantitative study on student performance across multiple learning platforms. </p><p> <b>SOURCES OF EVIDENCE</b> </p><p> Pressure to speed up the evolution of blended learning in many courses comes from management, students, industry, and certain cohorts of academics. Students suggest all content and activities should be available online. Management emphasizes reaching a broader audience, and doing so economically. Industry wants novice and veteran chemists to revisit some fundamental concepts and lab skills. Educators want to embrace effective teaching strategies for every student population. </p><p> It is well established in the education literature that “diverse student groups bring with them a rich prior experiences and knowledge about science as well as their own ways of knowing, thinking, and communicating that influences their learning” (Walls, 2016). In a recent review (Cooper, 2018), several studies were highlighted as reporting demographic disadvantages to online learning, and other research (DeKorver, 2016) also suggests demographics and student goals correlate with assessment outcomes; which demonstrates that not every iteration within the blended learning spectrum is equal. </p><p> The learning platforms utilised to teach chemistry at UNE are diverse. Foundation and first-year chemistry content is presented in several combinations of the following: conventional lectures throughout the term, online lectures throughout the term, conventional laboratory experiments throughout the term, expedited laboratory experiments during one ‘intensive’ week, flipped classroom ‘workshops’ on campus, evening ‘tutorials’ on campus, and evening online ‘Q&A’ sessions. All students participate in a combination of the aforementioned learning platforms. Despite on-campus and online students being given the same content and assessments, student performance remains different. </p><p> <b>MAIN ARGUMENT</b> </p><p> Where do the learning platforms used in chemistry fit into the blended learning landscape? Are we currently a precursor or product of the blended learning format? We are at a pivotal point in education with the advent, flexibility, and economics of online study, and so we must re-evaluate the relative effectiveness of our learning platforms and our traditional methods to assess student learning, particularly in relation to diversity of learning platforms. As discussed, student demographics and individual learning goals are critical factors in performance; and if the design and range of learning platforms is satisfactory, they should be shown to support underperforming cohorts. </p><p> <b>CONCLUSIONS</b> </p><p> This work will elucidate the key components of first-year chemistry learning platforms and highlight any underrepresented student populations who will require the next step in evolution within blended learning. This information will be an important consideration in the design of future teaching and learning strategies. The results of this study will be applicable to other fields of science traditionally taught through a combination of lectures and activities in a laboratory (e.g., biology, physics) or field settings (e.g., ecology, geology, environmental sciences).</p>