Search

Rapid campus closure and unexpected transition to emergency online teaching of a large first year chemistry unit provided an opportunity to explore the level of student engagement and factors associated with success in this online transition. Here, we compared the standard offering in 2019 to the online version in 2020 by examining the completion of weekly assessment tasks and the uptake of learning activities. In spite of a preference for face-to-face learning, we found that students were able to quickly adapt to using the technology, with high levels of access to live streamed and recorded lectures, in-class polling, and online tutorials, together with large increases in discussion forum use. The change in level of engagement in low stakes assessment tasks over the course of the semester was similar for both years. Each form of engagement was associated with increased likelihood of success in the unit, whether this was being taught face-to-face or online. Of the multiple forms of engagement measured, only tutorial participation had a significantly lower impact on student success in the online compared to the face-to-face environment.

The closure of campuses in early 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic meant that scheduled practical activities for introductory chemistry students could not take place. The first practical class started prior to shutdown, and 21.5% of the students undertook the face-to-face offering. The remainder completed an online offering consisting of the same worksheet with videos of each of the tasks, which relate to ions in solution: conductivity and precipitation. A Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test comparison of the marks for the first practical showed that online students had, on average, a 0.9/10 drop in their mark compared to the face-to-face cohort. We concluded that a significant proportion of students found the transition to online learning difficult with the technology we provided. Rather than add another online learning activity, we chose to develop simple activities that students could complete at home, along with worksheets linking their observations to the theory taught in class. The first kitchen chemistry activity included experimental measurement (timing water boiling), solubility (mixing water with salt, sugar or oil), heat capacity (heating salt, sugar, butter and water), combustion calculations for gas heating, and colligative properties (timing ice melting with and without added salt). The second kitchen chemistry activity involved adding a constant amount of sodium bicarbonate to differing amounts of vinegar to explore stoichiometry; relating this to gas law calculations, and an extraction of red cabbage or other colored food to investigate the pH of household items. The aims of the kitchen chemistry experiments were to develop student observation skills, emphasize the importance of measurement and significant figures and provide some simple hands-on and relevant activities that could be done safely at home. The proportion of students who submitted online chemistry practicals was the same as typically attends face-to-face practicals (90%). Preliminary evaluation through anonymous student comments and staff reflections suggests that this was a valuable exercise: most students were able to learn in this replacement hands-on environment, receiving mean scores of 7.5/10 or higher. We conclude that relevant, engaging kitchen chemistry activities are useful for foundation level chemistry students.