American Chemical Society National Meeting 2012 - Philadephia 10/21/2017 8:49 PM Mobile Learning in Organic Chemistry: Discussion of the Student's Role in the 21st Century Classroom American Chemical Society National Meeting 2012 - Philadephia Drs. Mai Yin Tsoi, David Pursell, Patrick Coppock, Sang Park, Richard Pennington, Joseph Sloop, Julia Paredes, Dave Gabrell School of Science and Technology © 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries. The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

for Innovative Use of Educational Technology Awards for Innovative Use of Educational Technology Excalibur Award - TAG Blackboard Catalyst Award

One Grant  Two Studies Study A: Use of iTouch in Organic Chemistry Course Study B: Development of App in an Interdisciplinary Project E-Resources - public Student Surveys Student Interviews Class Quizzes Organic Class = client Hiring of ITEC Class for project Modeling real-world Software Development App helps Organic students learn Interviews / Surveys

GGC Vision and Mission GGC Vision1 learning takes place continuously in and beyond the classroom innovative use of educational technology integrated educational experience that develops the whole person wellspring of educational innovation dynamic learning community faculty engagement in teaching and mentoring students innovative approaches to education SST Mission2 . . . provides an innovative, engaging, outcomes-based learning experience for students in science courses . . . (charge from Dean Thomas G. Mundie) 1Georgia Gwinnett College Web page, http://www.ggc.usg.edu/about-ggc 2School of Science and Technology Mission, http://www.ggc.usg.edu/academics/school-of-science-and-technology School of Science and Technology

Evolution of Organic Chemistry iTouch Project Cell Phone Flash Cards and Airliner Videos (2007-2009) iTouch Project (2010) Flash Card Improvement Airliner Video Reformatting Laboratory Technique Podcast Production iTouch Website Development TsoiChem App Development Mobile Enabled Learning (2011)  Facebook  Online HW Learning App Practice Flashcards

1st Generation of Flashcards “Front” “Back” Ether example: School of Science and Technology

Quantitative / Qualitative Results Low n  low power statistically Average attitude scores > 3.9 (Likert Scale) Interview Data: positive opinions, high motivation to use resources

iTouch Project – Fall 2010 Internal GGC Grant = $5000 Purchased 50 Apple iTouch devices Distributed to 2 class sections Voluntary Participation Demographic Survey Chemistry Attitude (CAEQ)1 and Tech Attitude Surveys Quiz scores Interviews of selected students 1. Dalgety, J. et al. (2003) Development of Chemistry Attitudes and Experiences Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 7, p 649-668.

Tutorial Podcasts

Laboratory Technique Videos Students watch videos outside of lab class Expectation: learn theory and techniques iTouch/mobile devices enabled in-lab, real time viewing non-iTouch students used laptops

Reaction Flashcards Hydrohalogenation

CONNECT Online Homework

LearnSmart Mobile App

Facebook Page

Drawing Flashcards-Flashcards Deluxe App

TsoiChem App – Learning FG PRACTICE IT NAME IT FIND IT

TsoiChem II App - Mechanisms

Quantitative Results AY 2010-11— Quiz Scores No significant difference in quiz scores By gender By age By ethnicity Possible Issues: Teacher Effects Limited content resources Quizzes not directly linked to iTouch resources School of Science and Technology

Quantitative Results AY 2010-11– Student Attitudes Chemistry Attitude (CA)– measure of self-efficacy in chemistry-related tasks CA change – difference between CA at start and at midterm of semester Technology Attitude (TA)—measure of self-efficacy in using technology School of Science and Technology

Quantitative Results AY 2010-11– Chemistry Attitude (CA) No gender differences in CA change CA change at Start correlates negatively with CA change at Midterm (p < 0.004) The higher CA at start, the less change at midterm As Age increases, CA change decreases significantly (p = 0.068) School of Science and Technology

Quantitative Results AY 2010-11– Chemistry Attitude & Cell Usage As Cell Usage increases, CA change increases significantly (p =0.029) In Non–iTouch sections, no correlation between Cell Usage and CA change (p = 0.624) In iTouch section, correlation between Cell Usage and CA change significant (p = 0.059) School of Science and Technology

Quantitative Results AY 2010-11– Chemistry Attitude & Performance iTouch students did better on Quiz 11.2 than non-itouch students (p = 0.001) Quiz 11.2: iTouch students with higher CA did better than iTouch students who had lower CA Quiz 11.2 – directly related to reaction flashcards Higher CA midterm correlates with less usage for all chapters Higher TA midterm correlates with more usage for all chapters School of Science and Technology

Quantitative Results AY 2010-11–Conclusions Strong CA = less change in CA = less usage Strong TA = more usage Older students = less change in CA Assuming Cell usage = technology comfort: High Cell Usage + iTouch = CA increase High Cell Usage + no iTouch = no CA increase iTouch + high CA = higher grade on flashcard dependent quiz Maybe because of higher usage? Technology background and attitude, chemistry attitude, access to mobile, age, and grades: All are related!

Summary – Cellphone Cards Users School of Science and Technology

Summary – iTouch Users Study Purpose Interviewee Did/Did Not Use General Comments Necessity Phung Did Lots of personalization Multi-Function, mobile Thorough Brenda Did, Some personalization Uses all given resources Efficient Matt Did, Lots of personalization Saves time, minimize effort USED OWN iPHONE School of Science and Technology

Trends in Interviews If technology supported learning/study style  USE If learning style was not enhanced by technology  NO USE iTouch added “study purpose” to use Prior technology experience NOT a factor School of Science and Technology

Quantitative Results AY 2011-12— Chemistry Attitude Males greater CA change (p=0.078) The more times technology used for studying, the greater CA change (p=0.057)

Quantitative Results AY 2011-12— Technology Attitude Older students decreased in TA more than younger (p=0.008) Higher TA = greater TA change (p=0.013) Digital Divide Those required Connect = greater TA increase (p=0.080, *confounding issue) Females greater TA change (p=0.030)

Correlation Between Chemistry Attitude Change and Cellphone Usage 90 80 p < 0.029 70 Chemistry Attitude Change 40 30 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 # of ways cellphone is used daily

Effect on Chemistry Attitude Change By Age Group - FALL 2010

Chemistry Attitude Change: non-iTouch vs iTouch Users - FALL 2010 p<0.03

Effect on Technology Atittude Change By Age Group - FALL 2011 Older Students p<0.008

Dependence of Chemistry Attitude Change on # of Technology Study Tools Used

General Indications: What Impacts Mobile Learning? Age Gender Technology Background Technology Attitude Chemistry Attitude # of Tech Tools Used for Studying Access to Mobile Device School of Science and Technology

Future Directions Expand study investigate more factors iPads / tablets Technology rich classroom experience Refocus Interviews Examine ways in which resources are used

Thank You! Mai Yin Tsoi, Ph.D mtsoi@ggc.edu (678) 524-7992