The transition to online teaching, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, has become a reality for all education systems worldwide. It has raised the need to better understand the web-based online platforms and the pedagogy of using them. Puentedura1 suggested the SMAR model, which includes four levels of selecting, using, and evaluating technology in educational settings.
The four levels that create the SMAR acronym are substitution, augmenta- tion, modification, and redefinition. At the substitution level, teachers trans- fer their chemistry teaching pedagogy, which they used before the pandemic, to the digital space. For example, teachers who previously taught chemistry by lecturing now prepare a PowerPoint presentation and do it via Zoom (or other platforms for online meetings). Another example of transferring the
ChAPTeR 9
Digital Learning Platforms:
Digital Platforms for Increasing Inclusion in Chemistry
Education
R. BlOnDeR( 0000-0003-4796-4678)*
Department of Science Teaching Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
*e-mail: ron.blonder@weizmann.ac.il
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746367/bk9781839165238-00108.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
109 Digital Platforms for Increasing Inclusion in Chemistry Education
“old” pedagogy to digital space is group work pedagogy. In the classroom, teachers used to split the class into small groups and actively work in collab- oration on a given assignment. however, this pedagogy was transferred to digital space by using the “breakout rooms” option in Zoom. To keep track of students’ learning the same way they used to before the pandemic, teachers and schools have applied learning management systems (lMS) such as Moo- dle, which can address this need.
however, the redefinition level of using technology in teaching involves a transformative approach.2 In this approach, teachers use technology for teaching chemistry in a way that transforms their pedagogies. For example, lMS systems provide real-time data about students’ learning. Using this information, the teacher can track students’ mistakes and misconceptions during the lesson and can address them in real time.3 learning analytics can provide the teacher with suggestions on how to customize learning paths for different students by analyzing the data of many students who are not in the teacher’s own class. This feature can be a “game changer” when an inclusive chemistry learning environment is designed. Another example is the use of animations and other technological resources that can be used to visualize macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic levels of understand- ing.4–6 When all students use their computer, the learning process and the inquiry of the connections between the different levels of understanding shift from being teacher centred to student centred.7 The use of animations and a variety of online resources for chemistry teaching can address the needs of diverse learners and can lead to an inclusive approach to chemis- try teaching.8 To progress up the SMAR levels, teachers should develop their professional knowledge9 and integrate technological knowledge into their pedagogical content knowledge, namely, develop technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK).10 however, the web-based online platforms can either support or hinder teachers to reach a certain level on the SMAR ladder.
Online learning environments that are commonly used (e.g., Moodle, Blackboard, Schoology, and Canvas) and even social network sites (e.g., Face- book, YouTube) can be used at the four previously mentioned levels. how- ever, to design an online learning environment that supports the higher levels of using technology in chemistry teaching, one that can be modified and redefined by the designer of the environment, using a transformative approach, the designer should develop and incorporate an understanding of technology with pedagogical content knowledge. Several environments are presented in this section; they present how, with a careful design, the environment can lead to a different type of chemistry learning and teaching based on online technology. Interestingly, the environments provide plat- forms for including a variety of learners when teaching chemistry.
In Chapter 10, Usher and Barak focus on the novel abilities of online envi- ronments to connect diverse learners in a MOOC course about nanotechnol- ogy.11 They explore how the level of a group’s diversity, which they defined as
“the distribution of differences among members of a group [that] includes bio-demographic variables, such as gender, mother tongue, and age, or
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746367/bk9781839165238-00108.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
Chapter 9 110
task-related variables such as academic discipline and academic level” is cor- related with aspects of innovative thinking that they were able to measure.
Whereas in a regular academic course the diversity of the participants is relatively low, the MOOC environment provides a unique platform that con- nects learners from different disciplines, countries, academic levels, and lan- guages. Usher and Barak found that some of the diversity characterizations are positively related to the innovative thinking developed by the learners.
however, a higher diversity of mother tongue was negatively associated with innovation of the group project. In terms of equity, the last result should be considered in order to support the inclusion of learners from different soci- eties in group work involving diverse learners.
In Chapter 11, Marchak, Kesner, and Frailich describe the online envi- ronment “General Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry for the Service of Mankind” throughout its 20 years of development and adaptation.12 This chapter demonstrates how the environment supported the needs of formal chemistry teaching twenty years ago by using animations about chemical bonding. however, this teacher-focused approach was gradually replaced by a student-centred pedagogy when the environment was accompanied by a non-formal competition of chemistry projects. The environment organized resources from a different nature, for example, repositories of chemical terms and concepts, as well as video tutorials of soft skills (how to communi- cate scientific research). The environment was planned to be used during the years of the competition. however, during the COVID-19 pandemic when the competition was canceled, students and teachers kept using the materials for self-learning of chemical concepts. These results constitute evidence of the need for open access environments to support inclusion of diverse learners in the process of students’ self-regulated learning of chemistry.13
Chapter 12, “The next level in Inclusive Chemistry education: A Model Approach Using a Multitouch learning Book”,14 describes a model for a three-level design approach of an adaptive environment for chemistry learn- ing. Kranz and Tiemann suggest that the MiC (model for inclusive chemistry teaching) supports inclusive chemistry teaching. In this study, they criti- cally evaluate traditional teaching of chemistry concepts and present how they were able to reorient teaching in a unit about “Fire and Flame” in order to make the digital learning environments effective for inclusive chemis- try teaching. They found that students having different characteristics and achievement levels differentially used various features of the e-Book. never- theless, all kinds of students used the interactive components of the e-Book and completed the final course requirements. namely, the MiC system pro- vided a suitable framework for developing an inclusive online environment for chemistry learning. This result emphasizes the possible advantage of technology that can transform teaching and learning towards achieving a high level of personalization.
In Chapter 13, “Can YouTubers provide powerful tools for addressing heterogeneity in the classroom? An analysis of videos about the Periodic
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746367/bk9781839165238-00108.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
111 Digital Platforms for Increasing Inclusion in Chemistry Education
Table using the TPACK framework”,15 Joselevich, Moro, and Martínez take an innovative approach to improving chemistry teaching. They methodically examined YouTube videos about the Periodic Table that were created by You- Tubers with a high number of followers in order to distill principles that can be transferred to school chemistry teaching and that can improve students’
interest. Using the TPACK theoretical framework,10 they evaluated the peda- gogical aspects of the videos as well as the technologies and contents. They revealed that none of videos helped to overcome the epistemological obsta- cles and common misconceptions in learning the Periodic Table and did not help identify predominant traditional teaching models. however, they found a wide range of communication styles that include formal, informal, collo- quial, traditional, and comical or humoristic language as well as the use of youth slang, songs, and body language. They suggest that this approach can be adopted by chemistry teachers in order to better address the variety of students’ preferences while they learn chemistry.
In Chapter 14, “A formalized conceptual model-based approach for foster- ing and assessing students’ systems thinking in undergraduate chemistry education”,16 lavi presents a unique tool that can support system thinking in chemistry learning. In the last years, system thinking has received a lot of attention by the community of chemistry educators, and it has also influ- enced teacher professional development.17 lavi presents the use of a model- ling tool used by scientists and engineers called Object-Process Methodology (OPM). The OPM tool supports pre-service teachers and helps them to better understand the connections between the components of a complex system, the way the system is influenced by them as well as reveals emerging phe- nomena in a real-world biochemical phenomenon. It is interesting to see that in this study a technological tool used by professionals, which can be learned in an academic MOOC, can be applied to foster system thinking in a course for prospective teachers. This tool enables students to overcome a variety of barriers in learning the complex skill of system thinking in chemistry.
In Chapter 15, “Chemistry teachers’ awareness of sustainability through social media: cultural differences”,18 Tal et al. recognize that social media is prevalent across the world, and may be an effective tool for education.
They identify sustainability, particularly through chemistry, as a relevant topic worldwide, and investigate pre- and in-service teachers’ awareness and understanding of sustainability. Similar to Blonder and Rap (2017),19 they investigated participants’ perspectives on using social media for environ- mental and chemistry communication and education. The researchers situ- ated their findings within cultural differences noted by the Arab and Jewish participants as well as with respect to whether the participants were pre- or in-service teachers. Cultural differences included differences in prioritization of the sustainability issues, potentially due to differences in lifestyle and liv- ing conditions, as well as differences in social media usage. They found that pre-service teachers reported a lower awareness of sustainability issues, and for those who were aware of them, a majority learned about them through
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746367/bk9781839165238-00108.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
Chapter 9 112
social media when compared to other sources. Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube were the favoured social media platforms for the participants, sug- gesting that these may be leveraged for educational purposes.
In recent years, adaptive learning environments have been developed and implemented (e.g., Apoki, 2021,20 Peng et al., 2019 21). These environments use artificial intelligence tools to adapt the learning route of the learners to their performance in the system, without interference from the teacher. The chapters in this section highlight the high potential of digital technology in supporting a more inclusive approach in teaching chemistry. however, these examples also emphasize the important role of the teacher in personalizing the learning process toward more inclusive chemistry teaching. Integrating these environments leads to a change in the role of the teacher, which should include the digital literacy of data-based informed teaching. Teachers that can interpret data gathered by the lMS about the learners to improve their decision-making process22 can harness the advantages of digital environ- ments for more personalized inclusive teaching.3 More research about the use of digital environments by chemistry teachers from the teachers’ per- spective is needed. A better understanding of the teachers’ stance and needs will improve implementation of digital environments for personalization, and it will greatly improve chemistry teaching and learning.
References
1. R. Puentedura, SAMR, http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/.
2. R. Puentedura, SAMR, http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/
2014/08/22/BuildingTransformation_AnIntroductionToSAMR.pdf.
3. e. Aviran, e. easa, S. livne and R. Blonder, in Early Warning Systems and Targeted Interventions for Student Success in Online Courses, IGI Global, 2020, pp. 90–111.
4. A. h. Johnstone, J. Comput. Assisted Learn., 1991, 7, 75–83.
5. Y. J. Dori and M. hameiri, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 2003, 40, 278–302.
6. B. S. Dorfman, B. Terrill, K. Patterson, A. Yarden and R. Blonder, Chem.
Educ. Res. Pract., 2019, 20, 772–786.
7. S. Rap, Y. Feldman-Maggor, e. Aviran, I. Shvarts-Serebro, e. easa, e.
Yonai, R. Waldman and R. Blonder, J. Chem. Educ., 2020, 97, 3278–3284.
8. e. easa and R. Blonder, Chem. Teach. Int., 2022, 4, 71–95.
9. e. R. hamilton, J. M. Rosenberg and M. Akcaoglu, TechTrends, 2016, 60, 433–441.
10. P. Mishra and M. J. Koehler, Teach. Coll. Rec., 2006, 108, 1017–1054.
11. See Chapter 10: M. Usher and M. Barak, in Digital Learning and Teaching in Chemistry, ed. Y. J. Dori, C. ngai and G. Szteinberg, Royal Society of Chemistry, United Kingdom, 2023.
12. See Chapter 11: D. Marchak, M. Kesner and M. Frailich, in Digital Learn- ing and Teaching in Chemistry, ed. Y. J. Dori, C. ngai and G. Szteinberg, Royal Society of Chemistry, United Kingdom, 2023.
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746367/bk9781839165238-00108.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
113 Digital Platforms for Increasing Inclusion in Chemistry Education
13. Y. Feldman-Maggor, R. Blonder and I. Tuvi-Arad, Internet Higher Educ., 2022, 100867.
14. See Chapter 12: K. Kranz and R. Tiemann, in Digital Learning and Teach- ing in Chemistry, ed. Y. J. Dori, C. ngai and G. Szteinberg, Royal Society of Chemistry, United Kingdom, 2023.
15. See Chapter 13: M. Joselevich, D. P. Moro and M. A. Martínez, in Digital Learning and Teaching in Chemistry, ed. Y. J. Dori, C. ngai and G. Szteinberg, Royal Society of Chemistry, United Kingdom, 2023.
16. See Chapter 14: R. lavi, in Digital Learning and Teaching in Chemistry, ed.
Y. J. Dori, C. ngai and G. Szteinberg, Royal Society of Chemistry, United Kingdom, 2023.
17. R. Blonder and S. Rosenfeld, J. Chem. Educ., 2019, 96, 2700–2703.
18. See Chapter 15: M. Tal, D. Zreke, M. hugerat and A. hofstein, in Digital Learning and Teaching in Chemistry, ed. Y. J. Dori, C. ngai and G. Szteinberg, Royal Society of Chemistry, United Kingdom, 2023.
19. R. Blonder and S. Rap, Educ. Inf. Technol., 2017, 22, 697–724.
20. U. C. Apoki, Computers, 2021, 10(5), 59.
21. h. Peng, S. Ma and J. M. Spector, Lect. Notes Educ. Technol., 2019, 171–176.
22. T. nazaretsky, M. Ariely, M. Cukurova and G. Alexandron, Br. J. Educ. Tech- nol., 2022, 53, 914–931.
Downloaded from http://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/1746367/bk9781839165238-00108.pdf by RMIT University user on 06 February 2024
114 Advances in Chemistry Education Series No. 11 Digital Learning and Teaching in Chemistry
Edited by Yehudit Judy Dori, Courtney Ngai and Gabriela Szteinberg
© The Royal Society of Chemistry 2023
Published by the Royal Society of Chemistry, www.rsc.org