Research and Scholarship

Resubmitted
By Nasir Iqbal Ph.D.

1
Task Two: Chemistry Connections Through Active Learning

A. Justify the selection of an area of research which is related to teaching and learning in your

specialism

Educators are facing ever growing challenge to come up with new pedagogies to improve the

quality of education and student retention (McLaughlin et al., 2014). Active Learning is a popular

progressive educational model that involves students’ active participation and improves the quality of

education and student retention (Sesen, & Tarhan, 2010). Diverging from traditional teacher centered

learning, this model expects students to actively participate in their own education by enhancing their

higher order thinking capabilities (Damianus et al 2017). Active learning pedagogies include strategies

such as mind and concept mapping, cognitive analogies, peer instructions, thematic analysis, field work,

group discussions, and flipped classrooms (Bonds, Bonds & Peach, 1992). A study by Lo & Hew (2017),

analysed flipped classroom of K-12 students and concluded that most of these strategies improved student

learning. Considering the encouraging results of various studies cited here, I am proposing a flipped

classroom/collaborative/peer learning model to encourage cognitive learning to teach chemistry classes.

B) Design a small practical research activity, justify, analyse and evaluate the research

methodology to be employed:

Rationale

A flipped classroom model that incorporates active learning could be a solution to teach complex

chemistry topics in a time constrained syllabus (Cormier & Voisard, 2018). Based on the literature

review, my proposed mixed method study will compare student performance in flipped and traditional

lecture classrooms and analyse the correlation between student’s grades and their perception of this

pedagogy. four groups of 20-30 students, each enrolled in general chemistry courses, will be included in
2
this study. All groups will use the same notes and reading assignments. In class activities will involve

students centered discussions, question answer sessions with instructors, and group work to complete the

worksheets based on what they learned at home and during class (see Appendix 2). End of semester final

grades of both groups will be analysed to compare the difference in learning achievement of flipped vs

traditional classroom in this chemistry course.

Methodology/Research design

I will use mixed methodology in a flipped /collaborative active learning model. This methodology

employs qualitative as well as quantitative research methods within the same research. Table below

summarizes the experimental design.

Flipped group Subgroup 1- Flipped + collaborative learning

Subgroup 2- Flipped activities only

Traditional group Subgroup 1- traditional lecture + collaborative work

Subgroup 2- traditional lecture only

Students enlisted from the different sections of 10th grade chemistry course in experimental groups will

study outside the classroom using notes provided. In class students in experimental group will work

collaboratively on the specifically designed activity sheets and learn from group discussions. Students in

traditional class will be given lecture and work collaboratively as well using the same lecture notes.

Students participating in both groups will take in-class graded quizzes and final exams for quantitative

data collection. At the end of semester a survey questionnaire will be administered to collect students

opinion on the effectiveness and perception of flipped/collaborative model (sample questionnaire attached

Appendix 1, for qualitative analysis). Final course grades from flipped (experimental group) and

traditional classes (control group) will be compared. Quantitative Data will be analysed using ANOVA

and t-test for reliability. Responses to open ended questionnaire will be identified by common key words
3
and coded by themes. Findings from both quantitative and qualitative analysis will be converged together

to conclude the study as suggested by Creswell and Plano (2018). Various scholars assert that integrated

and synergistic effect of both analyses provides better higher understanding and evaluation of the problem

under investigation that can answer a particular research question or a set of questions (Hanson etal, 2005;

Creswell & Plano, 2018).

Ethics statement

This researcher will follow BERA guidelines to enlist student participants for this research. Third

party teachers, with no involvement in this study, will recruit and collect informed signed consent from

the participating students. The grades of only participating students from all sections who have signed

consent forms will be used for data analysis. All relevant records will be kept in a locked cabinet as per

BERA guidelines. The student grades and corresponding questionnaires will be assigned numbers without

any student identifiers and only student assigned numbers will be used in the study.

4
C) Critical review of existing literature on active learning, and how it relates to my research proposal.

There are sufficient published studies that support flipped classrooms’ effectiveness in chemistry

education and its pedagogical popularity among students (Christiansen, 2014; Reidsema, Kavanagh,

Hadgra & Smith, 2017 cited in Broman, K. & Johnels, D. p.1). Furthermore, Eichler & Peeples (2016)

and Olakanmi’s (2017) study, which compared the traditional lectures in general chemistry with flipped

classroom modules showed a greater student engagement, fostered active learning, enhanced students’

conceptual understanding, and improved academic performance as compared to traditional in class

learning. Olakami (2017) reported that flipped classroom technique enhanced students understanding of

concepts better than the control group taught through traditional classroom. However, there are several

challenges involved in developing and implementing flipped/active learning pedagogies ranging from

faculty training, institutional constraints, and students’ learning limitations. Educational materials must

provide clarity on specific tasks, to provoke constructivist approach. My proposed flipped/collaborative

active learning model is expected to foster active learning, enhanced conceptual understanding, and

achieve positive outcome as supported by research cited here.

5
D) Building on literature review, refer to at least 2 of the papers to do a comparison of the

methodology/methods, their findings, sample groups used in the articles and critically review the

potential impact on own practice.

Two research papers I have selected are:

1- Cormier, C, & Voisard, B. (2018) ‘Flipped Classroom in Organic Chemistry Has Significant Effect on
Students’ Grades’. Frontiers in ICT, (4), p. 30
URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fict.2017.00030
DOI=10.3389/fict.2017.00030
ISSN=2297-198X
2- Gok, T. and Gok, O. (2016) ‘Peer instruction in chemistry education: Assessment of student’s learning
strategies, conceptual learning and problem solving’. Asia-Pacific Forum on science Learning and
Teaching, 17(1), Article 9.

Comparison of Methodology

In the first study reviewed. Cormier and Bruno (2018) compared the flipped classroom students’

final grades with students in traditional classrooms followed by a qualitative survey to assess flipped

classroom students’ views on the effectiveness of the pedagogy. Experimental groups were subjected to

flipped classroom model that involved three phases: pre-class phase students watched 3-5 videos before

coming to class. During In-Class phase, instructors addressed students’ homework assignments questions.

Final exam grades of students in these classes were compared with those of the control groups.

Students in flipped classes were also given anonymous qualitative survey to assess their views on the use

of flipped classroom pedagogy. The quantitative and qualitative data were subjected to an additional

logical analysis to support researchers’ hypothesis.

The second mixed method study for this assignment, (Gok, & Gok, 2016), utilized two-groups

(control and experimental). The researchers explored if peer learning strategies can help students better

6
understand difficult concepts, improve their problem solving and cognitive abilities. Pre and post-test,

quasi experimental design compared the effectiveness of peer instructions with just conventional

instruction pedagogy. In this quasi-study design, the researcher had no control to randomize the sample of

two chemistry sections. Although both groups were taught by the same instructor; the control group

received only traditional in-class lectures, whereas the experimental group was provided with additional

peer instruction (intervention). This study collected quantitative data, pre- and post-intervention for

Chemistry Achievement Test composed of multiple-choice questions and the end of term problem solving

test. My proposed methodology will be similar in nature to these two (mixed) quantitative data in the

form of final exam grade as well as student evaluation questionnaire used for experimental group only.

Comparison of Findings

Authors of the first study, Cormier and Bruno (2018) reported that flipped classroom pedagogy

led to students’ deeper understanding during question answer sessions and their active work on exercise

portfolios during and after classes. This improved comprehension resulted in higher grades and lower

withdrawal rates compared to students from traditional sections. It was difficult in Cormier and Bruno

(2018) study to properly establish the effect of peer learning as their research design had a flipped + co-

teaching group but did not include in-class instruction combined with co-teaching since it was a posterioi

analysis.

The statistical analysis of Gok and Gok’s, (2016) pre-test and post-test data showed a statistically

significant improvement in flipped classroom students’ grades, conceptual learning, and problem-solving

skills as compared to traditional classrooms students. More than 90 % of the respondents had positive

view of flipped classroom learning, but an unspecified number of students felt that the out of class

preparation time was too long. The questionnaire’s method of evaluation was derived from literature

(Nicol & Boyle, 2003, cited in Gok & Gok, 2016, p. 10) which showed similar outcome as Gok & Gok’s

analysis results.

7
 My proposed study intends to benefit from the analysis of two methodologies which show that the

flipped classroom model as well as peer instruction/learning strategies improved student learning in

chemistry courses. These pedagogies promoted an environment of interaction among the learners and the

instructors and supported the transfer of knowledge/skills between learners (Miller-Young, 2013 cited in

Gok 2016 p. 15).

Evaluation of methodology in these studies

The selected two studies compared final grades of flipped classrooms students with traditional in-

class students, which has been a common practice in pedagogical research (O’Flaherty, 2015; Rayan &

Reid 2016, cited in Cormier & Voisard 2018, P. 6). The quantitative tools of this mixed method study

enabled the authors to assess the effects of flipped vs traditional in-class technique on student grades,

while the qualitative survey on students’ opinion provided valuable feedback to improve the flipped

classroom model for future courses. The application of mixed method approach used in the two studies

will provide several benefits to my proposed research, including triangulation, complementarity,

development, initiation of another question, and expansion as suggested by Greene, Caracelli, & Graham

(1989). The flipped classroom, peer instruction, and the portfolio activities methods used by the

researchers could help other and my students become proficient in difficult chemical concepts as well as

help improve students’ interaction among each other and with instructors (Cormier & Voisard, 2018, p. 1-

2).

This study did receive ethics committee approval since it did not use any identifiable student

information. Grades were obtained from institution’s admissions office database using file numbers rather

than their names. The questionnaires were anonymous, and participation was voluntary. One of the

limitations of this methodology, which I will try to address in my proposed research, is that the

8
researchers could not correlate each student’s final grade with the questionnaire responses which

indicated their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the flipped classroom or peer instruction.

The second study also used mixed model but a small sample size. The strategy employed peer as well as

conventional instructions. The data was collected using pre-test and post-test. Multiple-choice testing

method used in this study enabled instructors to gauge students’ knowledge of fundamental chemistry

concepts before their participation in the study. The research questions were clearly stated, and research

tools employed were described in an easy-to-follow table format. In order to enhance readers’

understanding of this somewhat complex research methodology, there is step by step description of

quantitative as well as qualitative tools used in the study. The quantitative and qualitative data analysis

leans to support the premises of the study. Both studies analysed here implemented social constructivism

approach where students were given a chance to learn from each other in an engaged student-centered

classroom.

Impact on my teaching strategies in Chemistry classrooms

Educational research in past decades have shown that there is a broader need for active learning

methods employed to teach STEM students. Subject of general chemistry involves the application of

mathematics in the curriculum and co-linking experimental work with theoretical study (Freeman et al,

2014 cited in Cormier & Voisard, 2018, p. 2) & Fautch, J. M. (2015) cited in Cormier & Voisard, 2018,

p. 2). Flipped classroom technique enables instructors to promote students’ higher order thinking as

traditional lectures may not be enough for students to grasp better conceptual understanding of difficult

topics. Following reviewed flipped methodologies, my students will be expected to acquaint themselves

with the topic prior to the class. Collaborative group work in these areas would encourage problem

solving, critical thinking, analytic ability, and group discussions. Moreover, I will create more

opportunities for interaction between instructor and students as well as added peer instruction and

9
cooperative work to promote enthusiasm and motivation in the learners. It will also promote group

learning by creating a better classroom experience for students of diverse background and cognitive

development (Gok & Gok, 2016)

Evaluation of the Proposed Methodology

Encouraging results of the reviewed research paper motivated me to incorporate flipped classroom

pedagogy and active learning strategies in my chemistry classrooms as well as in hands on laboratory

work. In a flipped classroom model student become active learner as they are expected to learn to

familiarize themselves to new content on their own outside the classroom. Students should be able to

apply that conceptual understanding not only in classrooms but also to problems solving in practical

world (Abeysekera and Dawson, 2015 cited in Comier and Voisard 2018, p. 2). I propose to compare the

student outcomes in flipped & traditional instruction classrooms with and without collaborative active

learning. A mixed method will allow not only to compare student grades but will also provide insight

into students’ perception on teaching methodology. This will enable me to improve pedagogies based on

students’ feedback to improve learning in future chemistry classes as suggested by Cohen, Manion, &

Morrison, (2017). cited in Broman & Johnels, 2019, p.3.

If structured and executed properly, active learning pedagogies will lead to development of

improved cognitive capacity and verbal communication, and foster leadership skills. It will also promote

positive teacher student interaction as stated by Cormier and Voisard (2018). Instructors will provide

students working in groups necessary guidance and feedback to help complete their exercise portfolios.

Short videos and lesson plans will be used in the proposed study to preserve students’ interest and

engagement outside the classroom and to address one of the weaknesses reported in reviewed literature

here.

10
 One of the challenges of a flipped classroom method is to have a fine-tuned lesson plans to

address all learning styles, to help students prepare at home and reinforce the concepts in the classroom.

Teachers need to be vigilant to prevent dominating students who could intimidate others in the group

activities and impede their active participation and learning. On the other hand, a positive outcome may

be that students learn to manage and keep up with the pace with their peers. In order to achieve a higher

confidence level, study should be conducted over several semesters with a larger sample size.

B) Evaluation and Conclusion

Analysis of these studies reveals that active learning strategies positively influenced student’s

ability to become proficient in chemistry concepts leading to better performance in tests. I will

incorporate active learning approaches in my teaching and share my experience with other teachers to

help improve the overall quality of teaching in the institution. A set of worksheets (sample attached in

Appendix 2) will be created for flipped classroom to maximize student participation in small group

collaborative environment. Student group responses to these worksheets will be used for formative

assessment and final exam grades (summative assessment) will provide quantitative data. In addition,

student responses to open ended questionnaire (Appendix 1) will be used for qualitative analysis of their

perception of this pedagogy. The responses may provide valuable information to better align subject level

outcomes and will help improve student’s performance in chemistry courses.

Word count 2582

11
 TASK THREE

Article Reviewed.

Srisawasdi, N. and Panjaburee, P. (2018) ‘Implementation of Game-transformed Inquiry-based learning

to Promote the Understanding of and Motivation to Learn Chemistry’. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 28, p. 152-164.

Introduction

In this age of technology, it is more effective to teach chemistry using computer-oriented games to

foster learning among students and retain knowledge. The study selected (Srisawasdi and Panjaburee,

2018, p. 155) for this review used self-developed gaming methods, such as “scaffolding and instructions”

to illustrate macroscopic and sub-microscopic phenomena. The study authors observed students’

accelerated learning of complex chemical concepts. In addition, computer-oriented games facilitated

students to better conceptualise symbolic representation of various molecular structures. My teaching will

include computer-oriented methods used in this study to make it easier for students to grasp unobservable

submicroscopic phenomenon such as “molecular polarity and molecular structure” without using

advanced scientific equipment. The selected study is supported with previous research that games

developed with appropriate discipline specific pedagogies can foster student learning and improve

conceptual understanding of the subject (Bressler and Bodzin, 2016 cited in Srisawasdi and Panjaburee,

2018, p. 153), as well as improved motivation in learning (Hwang et al., 2015 cited in Srisawasdi and

Panjaburee, 2018, p. 153).

Reason I chose this Paper

I chose this paper as it employs innovative, computer-oriented digital games in conjunction with

traditional instruction to enhance students’ learning and engagement. Srisawasdi and Panjaburee (2018, p.

152) noted that incorporating computer games into teaching can lead to an increased comprehension of

12
complex chemical concepts. Thus, transforming scientific knowledge into gaming scenarios can be used

to promote student learning in disciplines such as chemistry. Pedagogical oriented games as a part of

inquiry-based learning that relies on decades of research as well as more recent studies is a hallmark of

Srisawasdi and Panjaburee’s, (2018) teaching improvement endeavor. The study cited Bransford et al.

(2000), who explained the success of inquiry-based learning through its ability to change misconceptions

about scientific phenomena. Some of the recent cited research, Bressler, & Bodzin, (2016, p.153) and

Hwang et al. (2015, p.153) noted useful interactions between teachers’ role and students’ responsibilities

in active learning. These studies also underscored the difference between theory and applied scientific

communication to keep pace with the increased role of technology in education.

Methodology

Srisawasdi and Panjaburee (2018 employed quantitative as well quantitative method in their

study. Creswell (2005) suggested that quantitative methodology is suitable in situations where researchers

are trying to observe trends or relationships between known variables, whereas qualitative methodology is

more pertinent to observing trends or relationships between unknown variables. Several researchers,

Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, (2009), Britten and Fisher (1993), asserted that quantitative and qualitative

methodologies have their own strengths and weakness, and both may have validity and reliability

problems. Quantitative methods are generally reliable but are not always valid, whereas qualitative

methods are generally valid but not always reliable. Srisawasdi and Panjaburee’s (2018) attempted to

counterbalance inherent weaknesses of both quantitative and qualitative methods by utilizing mixed

method research. The study’s quantitative part included statistical analysis of pre and post-test quizzes

and questionnaires.

This study’s methodology was designed to measure participants’ motivational, cognitive learning,

and conceptual understanding of various chemistry topics. The qualitative method included result of pre-

13
experiment questionnaire, using “Mann-Whitney U-test” that analysed students’ pre-existing motivational

level about learning chemistry (Srisawasdi and Panjaburee’s, 2018, p.158-159). Cohen, Manion, &

Morrison, (2009), and Britten & Fisher’s (1993) argument about the reliability resonated in the selected

study where the researchers acknowledged the need for further research to ensure reliability in achieving

the similar results.

Strengths and Limitations of Selected Research

A computer-oriented innovative gaming technique, such as “scaffolding” used to facilitate

students understanding of chemistry is a salient feature of this study. This technique enabled students to

understand not only macroscopic chemical phenomena, but also microscopically observable chemical

reactions such as molecular polarity and molecular structure (Srisawasdi & Panjaburee’s, 2018, p. 155).

The study result revealed a statistically significant increase in student’s conceptual understanding and

motivation to learn chemistry in “Game-transformed” or “Inquiry-based” knowledge acquisition. The

main limitation of this focus-group based study is a small sample size of two groups of 31 students from

one high school. Creswell (2005) suggested that a purposeful sample of convenience provides researchers

the flexibility to focus on the population that is most suitable for the phenomenon being explored.

Another limitation of this study is the lack of clarity in the data collection, analysis methods, or

discussion of the findings. The study did not explain how participating students’ motivation level was

correlated to achieving higher grades in the chemistry classes.

Despite the aforesaid limitation, this study employed statistically verifiable cognitive tools to

analyse the quantitative and qualitative data from a small sample size. By using this teaching

methodology, myself and other educators in FE institutions can enhance students’ conceptual

understanding in chemistry. The study Data presented in easy-to-follow tables and graphs and encourages

me and other teachers to use innovative computer-oriented tools as part of their teaching improvement

techniques. Methodology of the technique is clearly described, and authors presented viable solutions and

14
suggestions for exploring and developing games to implement this pedagogy at a larger scale (Srisawasdi

& Panjaburee’s, 2018, pp. 159-160).

Analysis of Findings

Statistical analysis found no significant difference between the conceptual and motivational pre-

test score for “Game-transformed, Inquiry-based” learners and conventional Inquiry-based learners.

However, there is a significant difference in the post-test scores of these two groups: demonstrating a

post-test higher score on conceptual understanding as well as motivation survey for “Game-transformed,

Inquiry-based” students. The results of these studies showed that “Game-transformed,” Inquiry-based”

learning students not only performed significantly better, but also had improved motivation to learn

chemistry than those in conventional Inquiry-based learning.

Implications of the findings of this study in Chemistry Education

This study supported prior findings that computers-oriented interactive inquiry-based games can

play an important role in enhancing students’ learning in chemistry. These games played an integral role

in the creation of psychomotor skills and cognitive development of students in this computer era

generation. Information processing and cognitive ability significantly improves when students are offered

an opportunity to learn Chemistry, or acquire any other knowledge, by using a more interesting medium

that learners find relatable (Srisawasdi and Panjaburee, 2018, p.153). Based on the encouraging findings

of this and other similar studies, I will incorporate some of the existing web-based chemical

computational and 3-D modelling tools, such as “WebMO”, “Spartan” or “GaussView” into my teaching

whenever possible. These techniques will enable students to gain better understanding of sub-microscopic

chemical concepts, such as molecular polarity as well as 3-D symbolic rendering of molecular structure

and most likely will shorten students’ learning curve (Heads, J., Tran, D., Elechi, N., & Fan, H., 2015).

15
Learning with such tools and games can contribute to enhanced problem-solving skills and increased

motivation to acquire higher level understanding of chemistry.

Word Count 1107

16
 REFERENCES
(task 2 and 3)

Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition,
rationale, and a call for research. Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 34, 1–14. doi:10.1080/07294360.2014.934336

Bonds, C. W., Bonds, L. G. & Peach, W. (1992). Metacognition: developing independence in learning:
Clearing House.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). ‘How people learn: brain, mind,
experience, and school’. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bressler, D. M., & Bodzin, A. M. (2016). ‘Investigating flow experience and scientific
practices during a mobile serious educational game’, Journal of Science Education and Technology,
25(5), p. 795–805.

Britten N, & Fisher B. (1993). Qualitative research and general practice. British Journal of General
Practice, 43, 270-271.

Broman, K. & Johnels, D. (2019). Flipping the class – University chemistry students’ experiences from a
new teaching and learning approach. Chemistry Teacher International. 20180004
DOI:10.1515/cti-2018-0004Corpus ID: 187353053.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2009). Research methods in education (7th Ed.). London:
Routledge.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Abingdon:
Routledge. Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good research practice. Stockholm: Swedish Research
Council. https://www.vr.se/download/18.5639980c162791bbfe697882/1529480529472/Good-Research-
Practice_VR_2017.pdf.

Cormier, C, & Voisard, B. (2018). Flipped Classroom in Organic Chemistry Has Significant Effect on
Students’ Grades. Frontiers in ICT, (4), p. 30
URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fict.2017.00030, DOI=10.3389/fict.2017.00030.

Creswell, J. W., (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education.

Creswell J. W., & Plano Clark V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed.
Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.

Christiansen, M. A. (2014). Inverted teaching: Applying a new pedagogy to a university organic

chemistry class. Journal of Chemical Education,
91(11), 1845–1850.

Damianus, S. D., & Karatasamita, D. B., (2017). Developing contextual mathematical thinking:

17
Learning model to enhance high order thinking ability for middle school students, International
Education Studies, 10(12) [online], Available at: https://doi.org/10.5539/1es/ion12p17/

Eichler, J. & Peeples, J., (2016). Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 1, p.197-208.

Fautch, J. M. (2015). The flipped classroom for teaching organic chemistry in small classes: is it
effective? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 16, 179–186. doi:10.1039/ c4rp00230j.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., et al. (2014). Active
learning increases student performance in science, engineering and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 111, 8410–8415. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111.

Gok, T. & Gok, O., (2016). Peer instruction in chemistry education: Assessment of student’s
learning strategies, conceptual learning and problem solving, Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning
and Teaching, 17(1), 9. Available at: <https://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/download/v17_issue1_files/gok.pdf>
[Accessed 1 June 2020].

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-
method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.

Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods
research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 224.

Heads, J., Tran, D., Elechi, N., & Fan, H. (2015). International Journal of Information and Education
Technology. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(3), 184-188.
doi:10.7763/IJIET.2015.V5.499

Hwang, G., Chiu, L., & Chen, C., (2015). A contextual game-based learning approach to
improving students’ inquiry-based learning performance in social studies courses, Computers &
Education, 81, p. 13-25.

Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. A critical review of flipped classroom challenges in K-12 education: possible
solutions and recommendations for future research. RPTEL 12, 4 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-
016-0044-2

McLaughlin, J. E., Roth, M. T., Glatt, D. M., Gharkholonarehe, N., Davidson, C. A., Griffin, L. M., . . .
Mumper, R. J. (2014). The flipped classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a
health professions school. Academic Medicine, 89(2), 236-243.

Miller-Young, J. (2013). Using peer instruction pedagogy for teaching dynamics: Lessons learned from
pre-class reading quizzes. Proceedings 2013 Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA13)
Conference, Montreal, QC, 1-6.

Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: A
comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom, Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 457-
473.

18
O’Flaherty’ J., & Flipps, C. (2015). The Use of Flipped Classrooms in Higher Education: a scoping
review. Internet & Higher Education. 25, 85-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.05.001

Olakanmi, E. E. The Effects of a Flipped Classroom Model of Instruction on Students’ Performance and
Attitudes Towards Chemistry. J Sci Educ Technol 26, 127–137 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-
016-9657-x

Rayan, M. D., & Reid, S. (2016). Impact of the flipped classroom on student performance and retention: a
parallel controlled study in general chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 93, 13–23.
doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00717

Reidsema, C., Kavanagh, L., Hadgraft, R., & Smith, N. (2017). The flipped classroom. Practice and
practices in higher education. Singapore: Springer.

Sesen, B. A. & Tarhan, L. (2010). Promoting active learning in high school Chemistry: learning
achievement and attitude. Science Direct, Procedia Social and Behaviooral Sciences, (2), p. 2625-2630.

Srisawasdi, N. & Panjaburee, P. (2018). Implementation of Game-transformed Inquiry-based learning to

Promote the Understanding of and Motivation to Learn Chemistry. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 28, p. 152-164.

19
 Appendices
Appendix 1

Flip Classroom Perception Questionnaire

Name: --------------------- Class: ----------------- date: -----------

Q 1. Did you find the Notes provided for Lectures helpful?

Q2. Did you find the videos helpful in understanding the concepts?

Q 3. Did the activity sheets present the problem clearly?

Q 4. Were the questions in the worksheet clear to you?

Q 5. Was the time given for the problem solving was enough?

Q 6. Do you prefer working alone or in a group?

Q 7. Did you find Teacher’s in-class explanations helpful?

Q 8. Did you find the group work valuable in understanding concepts?

Q 9. Did you find Flipped Classroom model valuable in learning chemistry?

Q 10. Based on your experience in this course would you prefer to have all your courses to be offered as
Flipped classroom?

20
 Appendix 2

Chem 1412 Spring 2016 – Daily Quiz #25 Name

Potentially Useful Information

−b± b 2−4ac
x=
2a

Questions

1. Carbonic acid (H2CO3) is a diprotic acid. 3. Which of the following will produce an
The Kas are as follows: acidic solution in water?
Ka1 = 4.3 x 10-7 X. NH4NO3
Ka2 = 4.7 x 10-11 Y. NaCl
What is the pH of a 0.222 M solution of Z. NaF
phosphoric acid?
A. X and Y
A. 6.37 B. X
B. 7.92
C. 3.57 C. Y
D. 2.46 D. Z
E. 6.53 E. Y and Z

2. Which of these compounds is the stronger 4. Which of the following will produce an
base (the one more likely to become basic solution in water?
protonated?) X. NH4NO3
Y. NaCl
A. Piperidine Z. NaF
B. Piperazine
C. They are the A. X and Y
same. B. X
C. Y
D. Z
piperidine piperazine E. Y and Z

21
 Worksheet 25

5. Which of the following will produce an 8. Consider the acid base reaction below and
neutral solution in water? choose the base-conjugate acid pair from
X. NH4NO3 the list.
Y. NaCl CH3NH2(aq) + H2O(ℓ )⇌
Z. NaF CH3NH3 +(aq) + OH–(aq)

A. X and Y base conjugate acid

B. X A. CH3NH2 CH3NH3+
C. Y B. CH3NH2 OH–
–
D. Z C. H2 O OH
E. Y and Z D. H2 O CH3NH 3+

E. None of the above.

6. If you add 0.1 M NaNO3 to 0.1 M HNO3

(see the reaction below) will the pH
change?
HNO3(aq) + H2O(ℓ ) ⇌ H3O+(aq) + NO
3
–
(aq)

A. No, because neither Na+ or NO –3 will

change the pH.
B. No, because of Le Châtliers Principle.
C. Yes, because Na+ will change the pH.
D. Yes, because of Le Châtliers Principle.
E. Yes, because NO3– will change the pH.

7. If you add 0.3 M NaHSO3 to a solution of

0.1 M H2SO3 (see reaction), how will the
pH change?
H2SO3(aq) + H2O(aq) ⇌
H3O+(aq) + HSO3–(aq)
A. It will stay the same.
B. It will go down.
C. It will go up.

Page 2
CHEM 1412 MWF Spring 2016
Worksheet #25 – pH of Salts and the Common Ion Effect

Name Team

pH of Salts and the Common Ion Effect

Why?
The addition of some salts to water causes a change in pH. Other salts do not cause a change in
pH. Which salts cause changes to the pH and does the pH go up or down? How can you calculate
the pH? What happens to the pH when you add a neutral salt, such as NaNO2 to a dilute solution
of HNO2? Stay tuned.

Learning Objectives
Students should be able to:
● Predict whether a salt solution will be acidic or basic.
● Calculate the pH of salt solutions.
● Predict whether the addition of a salt to an acid-base equilibrium will cause the pH of a
solution to increase or decrease.
● Calculate the pH of solutions in the presence of added salt.

Resources
Gilbert, 16.6 and 16.7

ChemTours
No ChemTours today.

Videos
pH of Salts https://vimeo.com/20873043
This video summarizes the basic pH effects of salts. 10:12 minutes.

Calculation of the pH of 0.1 M Sulfuric Acid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6exH6k9k60o
This video works out the problem presented in the book on p 797. 12:11 minutes

Prerequisites
Equilibrium, algebra, Ka, Kb, Kw, conjugate acid, and conjugate base.
 Worksheet 25

Vocabulary
Common ion effect.

Focus Information
Common Ion Effect

Good news If you have been paying attention, you already know this! The common ion effect is just Le
Chatlier's principle! In the common ion effect, the addition of salts that have a common ion with a weak
acid can change the pH. For instance, consider what happens when you add NaF to the reaction below.

HF(aq) ⇌ H+(aq) + F-(aq)

That was easy! By the way, when the [H+] goes down, the pH goes up.

Key Questions
1. What is the pH of a 0.5 M solution of NaCl?

Answer

Page 2
 Worksheet 25

2. Are solutions of the following salts acidic, basic, or neutral? For acidic or basic solutions
write the appropriate chemical equation.
-
a. NaNO2

b. NaNO3

c. C5H5NHClO4

d. NH4NO2
Note NH4+ pKa = 9.25, NO2 – pKb = 10.85

e. KOCl

f. CO2

g. SO3

3. Arrange the following 0.10 M solutions in order of most acidic to most basic.

KOH, KNO3, KCN, NH4Cl,

HCl

Answer

Page 3
 Worksheet 25

4. a. What are Kb and pKb for H2BO3–?

H3BO3(aq) ⇌ H2BO3–(aq) + H+(aq) Ka = 5.4 x 10-10

Kb = pKb =

b. What are Ka and pKa for (CH3)2NH2+?

) ⇌ (CH3)2NH2+(aq) + OH–(aq) Kb = 5.9 x 10-4

(CH3)2NH(aq) + H2O(ℓ

Kb = pKb =

5. Calculate the pH of a 0.10 M solution of NaOCl. The pKa of HOCl is 3.5 x 10-8.

Answer

Page 4
 Worksheet 25

6. Calculate the pH of a 0.25 M solution of methylamine chloride (CH 3NH3Cl) in water. The Kb for
methylamine (CH3NH2) is 4.38 x 10-4.

Answer

7. For each case below indicate whether the equilibrium shifts to the right or to the left with
the addition of the compound indicated and say whether the pH increases or decreases
after you add the compound.

a. HF(aq) ⇌ H+(aq) + F–(aq) add BaF2(aq)

Reaction shifts pH goes

b. NH3(aq) + H2O(l) ⇌ NH4+ (aq) + OH–(aq) add NH4NO3

Reaction shifts pH goes

c. CH3NH2(aq) + H2O(l) ⇌ CH3NH3+(aq) + OH–(aq) add CH3NH3Cl(aq)

methylamine

Reaction shifts pH goes

d. CH3COOH(aq) + H2O(l) ⇌ H3O+(aq) + CH3COO–(aq) add CH3COONa(aq)

acetic acid acetate (sodium acetate)

Reaction shifts pH goes

Page 5
 Worksheet 25

8. You make two

solutions
Solution A =
0.1 M NH4Cl

Solution B = 0.1 M NH4Cl(aq) + 0.1 M NH3(aq)

a. Will solution A be acidic or basic?

Answer

b. Which solution will have the lower pH?

Answer

9. Calculate the pH of a solution containing 0.20 M HC2H3O2 (acetic acid) Ka 1.8 x

10-5 and
0.50 M NaC2H3O2 (sodium acetate).

Answer

Page 6