pubs.acs.

org/jchemeduc Communication

Scaffolded Inverse Blended Learning: An Approach to Teach an

Online General Chemistry Course
Jayden Wei Jie Ang*
Cite This: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00436 Read Online

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations *

sı Supporting Information
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

ABSTRACT: Scaffolded inverse blended learning (SIBL) enables self-paced,

individualized learning by incorporating different levels of learning activities. The
SIBL approach is described for an online general chemistry course enhanced with
face-to-face interactions for first-year students in an institute of higher learning. It
Downloaded via UNIV OF EXETER on July 15, 2020 at 09:12:08 (UTC).

can be easily modified and implemented in situations where learning is disrupted

(i.e., COVID-19 pandemic). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all schools and
institutes of higher learning are required to transit into home-based learning. It
could also be adapted by other courses. Students’ feedback and performance
indicate that the SIBL approach increases engagement in learning and develops
students’ ability to solve higher level problems.

KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Inorganic Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, Distance Learning/Self Instruction,
Multimedia-Based Learning, Student-Centered Learning

■ INTRODUCTION
Blended learning has gained interest and attention in recent
years.1,2 In a blended learning classroom, traditional face-to-face
teaching is enhanced with online elements.3 Typically, a blended
learning course commences with face-to-face sessions followed
by online elements. Conversely, in an inverse blended learning
course, online learning is enhanced with face-to-face inter-
actions. An inverse blended learning course requires learners to
complete online elements before meeting face-to-face (Figure
1).4,5
Figure 1. Blended learning versus inverse blended learning.
Published reports of inverse blended learning,4,5 the reverse of
blended learning, are rare as it is a relatively new approach.
These reports use a teacher-centric didactic approach in Massive
Open Online Courses (MOOCs), which are typically targeted
toward adult learners and were not implemented in a science
course. For younger learners, the learner-centric approach is
preferred to better engage them. Also, scaffolding is required to
© XXXX American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
A J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
support students to engage with learning activities at higher
cognitive levels.6 Thus, the scaffolded inverse blended learning
(SIBL) approach was implemented in a general chemistry
course since the academic year (AY) 2018. The SIBL approach
has been implemented to teach a first-year general chemistry
course (Physical & Inorganic Chemistry) as part of the Diploma
in Pharmaceutical Science at Nanyang Polytechnic, Singapore.
Students in this diploma program enrolled after completing their
General Certificate of Education (GCE) ordinary- (O-)levels.
Approximately 90 students complete the course each AY. There
are approximately 22 students in each tutorial/laboratory class.
The motivation to implement the SIBL approach was to provide
a self-paced, individualized learning experience and to develop
student’s higher order thinking skills.
With the current COVID-19 pandemic, changes happen
rapidly. Many countries, including Singapore, have moved
conventional face-to-face classroom learning to partial or full
home-based learning on very short notice. Conventional
teaching and learning were severely disrupted as educators
needed to implement alternative instructional methods and
assessments. While many educators are not familiar with
Special Issue: Insights Gained While Teaching Chem-
istry in the Time of COVID-19
Received: May 6, 2020
Revised: June 22, 2020
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00436
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Communication

Table 1. Classification of Question Levels According to Bloom’s Taxonomy

Level Category Examplea
Beginner Remember Two isotopes of an element differ in their ____________.
Understand State whether hydrogen gas is a molecule or compound. Explain your answer.
Intermediate Apply A compound with a percent composition by mass of 87.5% N and 12.5% H was recently discovered. What is the empirical formula of
this compound?
Both PbCl2 and PbF2 are slightly soluble in water. The equilibrium constants for the solids dissolving in water are given below. Solid
PbCl2 and PbF2 are placed in separate beakers containing an equal amount of water. Which beaker has a higher concentration of
Pb2+? Explain your answer.
Analyze
PbCl 2(s) F Pb2 +(aq) + 2Cl−(aq) Kc = 1.7 × 10−5
PbF2(s) F Pb2 +(aq) + 2F−(aq) Kc = 3.7 × 10−4
Advanced Evaluate (a) The following chemicals are available in the laboratory: ammonium sulfate solution, nitric acid, potassium carbonate solution, and
potassium hydroxide solution. Which chemicals would you choose to prepare a sample of ammonia gas from the chemicals available
in the laboratory? Justify your choice.
(b) Discuss two possible sources of errors
Create (a) You are given three different weak acids: HA (Ka = 2.7 × 10−3), HB (Ka = 4.4 × 10−6), and HC (Ka = 2.6 × 10−9). Their respective
conjugate bases (A−, B−, and C−) are also provided. You are tasked to prepare a buffer solution at pH 8.70. Explain how you can make
this buffer.
(b) Write the detailed stepwise procedure to determine the enthalpy change for the dissolution of xylitol and sucrose. Include
parameters which should be recorded/measured.
a
Examples labeled (a) are examples from tutorial assignment while (b) are examples from laboratory worksheets.

Figure 2. Interface of the e-lecture with beginner-level learning activities.

teaching online, they look for suitable teaching approaches to teaching environment by delivering lectures online as homework
ensure students can continue learning. This communication and opening up the class period for interactive learning.”7
aims to describe a SIBL approach which is versatile and can be Another similar definition provided by Talbert8 states that
implemented with or without the COVID-19 pandemic. “flipped learning is a pedagogical approach in which first contact

■ SCAFFOLDED INVERSE BLENDED LEARNING

Several different terms are used to describe blended learning,
with the flipped classroom approach being the most commonly
used. There is no universal definition for a flipped classroom
approach. In this communication, the flipped classroom
approach is defined as using “technology to invert the traditional
B https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00436
with new concepts moves from the group learning space to the
individual space in the form of structured activity, and the
resulting group space is transformed into a dynamic, interactive
learning environment where the educator guides the students as
they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter.”
For both definitions, students require extracurricular time to
complete online content, where knowledge is acquired
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
commonly through videos, before face-to-face sessions.
Students’ questions are answered and learning activities are
completed during face-to-face sessions. The SIBL approach
described in this communication is similar to the flipped
classroom approach. The main differences are (a) the SIBL
approach does not require extracurricular time to complete
online content and (b) the online content includes learning
activities, with feedback, and a platform to answer students’
questions.
Learning activities in SIBL are scaffolded with reference to
Bloom’s taxonomy (Table 1). Students enrolled in a SIBL
course begin each topic with an online lecture (beginner level,
remember and understand), followed by tutorial discussion
(intermediate level, apply and analyze; advanced level, evaluate
and create). Students enhance their learning for certain topics by
performing a related experiment (advanced level). The tutorial
and laboratory sessions can be conducted either online or face-
to-face. Features of the SIBL approach include the following:
• flexibility in its implementation,
• scaffolded learning activities with immediate feedback to
develop higher order thinking skills required to solve
higher level problems,
• opportunities for students to ask questions while
completing online content, enabling just-in-time learning,
and
• no extracurricular time required to complete online
content.
Lecture (Beginner Learning Activities)
While designing the components of the e-lecture, the author
took students’ engagement in learning into consideration.
Behavioral engagement, such as interactive elements (i.e.,
drag-and-drop features, typing), and psychological engagement,
such as a progression from worked examples to an assigned
problem to build cognitive skills, are incorporated.9 Each e-
lecture session lasts 2 h. Each week, students learn about a new
topic online. The e-lecture is created using Storyline 360,10 an
eLearning authoring tool and embedded onto the school’s
Learning Management System (LMS), Blackboard. Generally,
each topic is chunked into two to three parts consisting of 20
min of online learning activities. Students are also provided with
softcopy handouts. Students are encouraged to refer to the
handouts while completing the e-lecture. An instructional video
is available on the LMS to help students navigate the online
learning. This navigational support helps to reduce students’
cognitive load so they can focus on the content.
Figure 2 shows the interface of an e-lecture in SIBL with
different components. The outcomes tab includes learning
outcomes for each subtopic. The theory tab includes a voiceover
explanation of concepts. While listening to the explanation,
students are encouraged to fill in blanks in their handouts. The
theory section also includes interactive elements to ensure
students remain engaged. The exercise tab includes worked
examples. Questions can be found in the handout and students
are given time to attempt the questions before comparing their
solutions. A Padlet,11 an online postit board, was embedded in
the discussion tab which acts as a platform for students to ask
questions during learning. Lecturers and peers can reply and
discuss collaboratively. During the allocated lecture time, the
lecturer will be online and available to provide immediate
feedback to questions posted on Padlet. The practice tab
contains a varying number of multiple-choice questions with
explanatory and individualized feedback for each option. This
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Communication
has been shown to be effective in learning.12 Completing these
questions allows students to perform self-assessments of their
learning. This helps to prevent novice learners who are
overconfident from skimming through the content because
they overestimated their knowledge of the topic. The questions
in both the exercise and practice sections are of beginner level
difficulty. The further reading tab contains links to curated Web
sites for students who are curious to learn more about the topic.
The content on the Web sites is out of the curriculum. Examples
for each learning tab are available in the Supporting Information
as screenshots.
In addition, students can maneuver the seek bar to progress at
their own pace that best meets their learning needs. This
function also allows students to search for a specific explanation
during revision. If students encounter problems with navigation,
clicking on the directory button on the top right-hand corner will
bring the students back to the directory page. The contents of
the e-lecture and navigation control (learner control and
program control) are tailored to address the need for self-
paced, individualized learning. It was previously reported that
self-paced learning environments result in effective engaged
learning strategies.13 On the left of the interface, a collapsible
menu allows students to track their progress and to provide a
suggested learning sequence for novice learners (program
control). For advanced learners, they can learn on the basis of
their preferred sequence (learner control).
Tutorial (Intermediate and Advanced Learning Activities)
Each tutorial session lasts 2 h. Tutorial questions (intermediate
level of difficulty) are posted on the LMS before tutorial
sessions. Students are encouraged to attempt the questions
before attending tutorial sessions. During tutorial sessions, the
tutor provides a summary of the topic and clarifies
misunderstandings. Each session, students are randomly asked
to share their solution to the questions. Subsequently, the tutor
discusses the solutions with the class and provides feedback. At
the end of the session, students are issued an additional one to
two questions (advanced level of difficulty). These questions can
be used as either formative or summative assignments. If time
permits, students work collaboratively on the questions with the
remaining in-class time. Examples of tutorial and assignment
questions can be found in Table 1.
Tutorial sessions can also be conducted as a synchronous
virtual session using video conferencing platforms such as
Blackboard Collaborate Ultra and Zoom. Interactive whiteboard
and screen sharing are available on these platforms, allowing
students to share their solutions. This is like a face-to-face class.
Also, tutors can create breakout rooms for small group
discussion which enables computer-supported collaborative
learning.14 It is worth noting that without the proper technical
support such as a touchscreen device and stylus, writing on the
interactive whiteboard could be challenging. A solution to this
problem is to type on the interactive whiteboard or even share
pre-prepared solutions through the screen sharing function.
Laboratory (Advanced Learning Activities)
Each laboratory session lasts 2 h. Students work in pairs to
perform an experiment. After data collection, students complete
an individual laboratory worksheet. This worksheet could be
completed in class or at home. Besides recording data and
performing calculations, students are required to complete
discussion type questions (Table 1, advanced level of difficulty).
These questions require students to evaluate experimental
procedures and create possible solutions.
C https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00436
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 3. Example of an online experiment with drag-and-drop interactivity, allowing students to be familiar with the procedure (left) and a dial to
allow students to stir the solution (right).
Figure 4. Example of an online experiment with background information of the experiment (left) and instructional video taken from the first-person
point-of-view (right).
In unique circumstances, where students are unable to return
to the laboratory to perform the experiment, completing an
online simulation of the experiment can be an alternative.
Sophisticated and highly interactive simulation with realistic
graphics, such as virtual reality experiments, are ideal
alternatives. However, due to budget, time, and technical
constraints, not every school or educator has access to such
sophisticated alternatives.
While preparing for AY 2020, the author was given less than a
month to convert conventional experiments to online experi-
ments due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A simple solution is for
students to be provided a video of how the experiment was
conducted, as well as experimental data to complete the
laboratory worksheets. However, this is neither interactive nor
engaging. To circumvent this problem, the author developed
online experiments (Figure 3) with simple graphics and
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Communication
interactive elements (i.e., drag and drop, dialing) on top of a
video of the experiment. Online experiments were created using
Storyline 360. The videos were created, using a sports action
camera, from the instructors’ point-of-view15 to provide
students with an immersive experience (Figure 4). The video
pauses intermittently, with procedure-related questions, to
engage students by shifting from passive to active learning.16
Since the author is familiar with Storyline 360, it took
approximately 2−3 h to develop each online experiment,
excluding filming the experiment. This workload could be
shared if more than one tutor is co-teaching the course.
Assessment Component
In AYs 2017−2019, students complete individual tutorial
assignments and laboratory worksheets as part of the assessment
components. Students also complete a project where they need
D https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00436
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
to create a 2 min video explaining a chemistry concept taught in
the course. At the end of the course, students sit for an
examination. However, with the shift to a complete online
course in AY 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
examination component was replaced with assignments.
■
IMPLEMENTATION OF SIBL
Academic Years 2017−2019
The conventional approach with face-to-face lectures, tutorials,
and laboratory sessions was employed in AY 2017. Approx-
imately 5% of the total course hours was dedicated to online
learning. Since AY 2018, the SIBL approach has been
implemented. Compared to the conventional approach, lectures
are fully online for the SIBL approach. Tutorials and laboratory
sessions were mainly conducted face-to-face. With the SIBL
approach, the online learning accounts for approximately 39% of
the total course hours.
SIBL for Academic Year 2020
In AY 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all components of
the SIBL approach are conducted online. While the lecture
format remains completely online, all tutorials and laboratory
sessions are kept in the same format, but are conducted online.
■
IMPACT OF SIBL
Impact on Students
Table 2 shows the percentage distribution for student’s grades in
AY 2017 when the conventional teaching approach was
Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Students’ Grades for the
Semester Taught Using the Conventional and SIBL
Approach
Distribution/%
Gradea Conventional Approach SIBL Approach
A 5 10
B 41 40
C 30 30
D 24 20
a
Grade A (≥80%), B (70% to <80%), C (60% to <70%), D (50% to
<60%).
employed. In AY 2018, the SIBL approach was implemented.
Students’ scores were converted to grades on the basis of the
following: A (≥80%), B (70% to <80%), C (60% to <70%), D
(50% to <60%). Results were encouraging as the percentage of
students obtaining grade A doubled (from 5% to 10%). There
was no major difference for percentages of B and C grades, while
a 4% decrease was observed for students with a D grade.
At the end of each semester, students complete course
feedback. The percentage of students who felt that “the e-
learning for this course is effective in helping me (them) learn
the topic” increased from 83% to 90% (AY 2017 to AY 2018).
The percentage of students who felt that “the e-learning for this
course is interactive and engaging” also increased from 82% to
89%. While having a conversation with some students about
their thoughts of the SIBL, one student mentioned in the
feedback that “I like the idea of completing the e-lecture at our own
f ree time as I f ind it ef fective and useful for me”. On the other hand,
another student mentioned, “I prefer the normal lecture (more)
than the e-learning. I feel like I will learn better in lectures”.
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Communication
However, studies have shown that retention of knowledge is
lower if the learner listens passively during a lecture.17
Impact on Lecturer
Two main considerations the author had while designing and
implementing the SIBL was scaffolding of the learning activities
and designing of online elements for a better learning
experience. Learning activities had to be modified to ensure
scaffolding is present. The course had a spectrum of learning
activities while being taught using the conventional approach.
Thus, it was not time-consuming or challenging to rearrange the
sequence for the various learning activities. On the other hand,
the author acknowledges developing the e-lectures required
more time. The effort and time invested are worthwhile
especially for fundamental courses where the content rarely
changes. Minimum time is required to make improvements
before each AY. Students taking this course are first-year
students, and usually, a handful of students are unable to
purchase a laptop before the AY. Hence, the author ensured that
the online elements are mobile compatible to increase
accessibility. Also, the lecturer must be present to facilitate the
synchronous discussion and to answer students’ questions.
There is no increase in teaching hours, as the synchronous
session is held during the allocated lecture time slot.
Adapting to teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic was
manageable because a large percentage of the course was already
online. Tutorials could easily be conducted virtually through
video conferencing platforms without significant changes. The
only major change was to convert experiments to e-experiments.
They are not as effective compared to performing the
experiments physically or with sophisticated simulations, but it
is a manageable alternative for most educators and under such
short notice.
■
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
A scaffolded inverse blending learning approach was described
for a general chemistry course focusing on physical and
inorganic chemistry. The flexibility of the SIBL approach
allowed it to be implemented in other courses and when learning
is disrupted under circumstances such as the COVID-19
pandemic. Because students each learn at a different pace, the
scaffolded and self-paced feature of SIBL allows individualized
learning, which can be challenging to achieve in typical
classrooms. Scaffolded learning activities kept students engaged
and developed their ability to solve higher level problems. This is
reflected in students’ performance and at the end of course
feedback. The next phase of this study is to evaluate the impact
of the SIBL approach under disruptive situations where the
entire course must be conducted online. The author will also be
evaluating the impact of SIBL in other courses.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
*
sı Supporting Information
The Supporting Information is available at https://pubs.ac-
s.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00436.
Pictures of e-lecture interface and topics covered (PDF,
DOC)
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
Jayden Wei Jie Ang − School of Chemical & Life Sciences,
Nanyang Polytechnic, Singapore 569830 Singapore;
E https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00436
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Communication

orcid.org/0000-0003-0849-4749; Email: jayden_ang@
nyp.edu.sg
Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00436
Notes
The author declares no competing financial interest.
(12) Moreno, R.; Mayer, R. E. Role of Guidance, Reflection, and
Interactivity in an Agent-Based Multimedia Game. J. Educ. Psychol.
2005, 97 (1), 117−128.
(13) Hibbard, L.; Sung, S. N.; Wells, B. Examining the Effectiveness of
a Semi-Self-Paced Flipped Learning Format in a College General
Chemistry Sequence. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (1), 24−30.
(14) Stahl, G.; Koschmann, T.; Suthers, D. Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning: An Historical Perspective. In Cambridge
Handbook of the Learning Sciences;; Sawyer, R. K., Ed.; Cambridge

■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Nanyang Polytechnic, School of Chemical & Life
University Press: Cambridge, U.K., 2006; pp 409−426.
(15) Fung, F. M. Exploring Technology-Enhanced Learning Using
Google Glass to Offer Students a Unique Instructor’s Point of View
Live Laboratory Demonstration. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (12), 2117−
Sciences, for supporting the development and implementation 2122.
of SIBL into the course. (16) Kolås, L. Application of Interactive Videos in Education. In 2015

■ REFERENCES
(1) Zhang, W.; Zhu, C. Review on Blended Learning: Identifying the
International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher
Education and Training (ITHET), Costa da Caparica, Lisbon, Portugal,
Jun. 11−13, 2015; IEEE, 2015; pp 1−6, DOI: 10.1109/
ITHET.2015.7218037.
Key Themes and Categories. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 2017, 7 (9), 673− (17) Wunische, A. Lecture Versus Simulation: Testing the Long-Term
678 , and references therein.. Effects. J. Political Sci. Educ 2019, 15 (2), 37−48.
(2) For examples, see: (a) Stoltzfus, M. W. Active Learning in the
Flipped Classroom: Lessons Learned and Best Practices to Increase
Student Engagement. In The Flipped Classroom Vol. 1: Background and
Challenges; Muzyka, J. L., Luker, C. S., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series,
Vol. 1223; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2016;
pp 105−122, DOI: 10.1021/bk-2016-1223.ch008. (b) Christiansen,
M. A. Inverted Teaching: Applying a New Pedagogy to a University
Organic Chemistry Class. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (11), 1845−1850.
(c) Seery, M. K. Conf Chem Conference on Flipped Classroom:
Student Engagement with Flipped Chemistry Lectures. J. Chem. Educ.
2015, 92 (9), 1566−1567. (d) Eichler, J. F.; Peeples, J. Flipped
Classroom Modules for Large Enrollment General Chemistry Courses:
A Low Barrier Approach to Increase Active Learning and Improve
Student Grades. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2016, 17 (1), 197−208.
(e) Ryan, M. D.; Reid, S. A. Impact of the Flipped Classroom on
Student Performance and Retention: A Parallel Controlled Study in
General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (1), 13−23. (f) Lage, M. J.;
Platt, G. J.; Treglia, M. Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating
an Inclusive Learning Environment. J. Econ. Educ. 2000, 31 (1), 30−43.
(3) Boelens, R.; Van Laer, S.; DeWever, B.; Elen, J. Blended Learning
in Adult Education: Towards a Definition of Blended Learning.
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/6905076 (accessed May 2020).
(4) Ebner, M.; Khalil, M.; Schön, S.; Gütl, C.; Aschemann, B.; Frei,
W.; Röthler, D. How Inverse Blended Learning Can Turn Up Learning
with MOOCs? In MOOC-MAKER: Proceedings of the International
Conference MOOC-MAKER 2017, Antigua Guatemala, Guatemala,
Nov. 16−17, 2017; MOOC-MAKER: 2017; pp 21−30.
(5) Ebner, M.; Schön, S. Inverse Blended Learning−A Didactical
Concept for MOOCs and its Positive Effects on Dropout-Rates. In The
Impact of MOOCs on Distance Education in Malaysia and Beyond; Ally,
M., Amin Embi, M., Norman, H., Eds.; Routledge, 2019; pp 16−26,
DOI: 10.4324/9780429398476.
(6) Mahalingam, M., Morlino, E. A., Fasella, E. The Impact of
Technology-Assisted “Scaffolding” on Student Learning in General
Chemistry. In Technology Integration in Chemistry Education and
Research (TICER); Gupta, T., Belford, R. E., Eds.; ACS Symposium
Series, Vol. 1318; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA,
2019; pp 233−245, DOI: 10.1021/bk-2019-1318.ch015.
(7) Tucker, B. The Flipped Classroom. Education Next [Online];
2012, Vol. 12 (1), article 11; http://educationnext.org/the-flipped-
classroom/ (accessed June 2020).
(8) Talbert, R. Flipped Learning: A Guide for Higher Education
Faculty. Stylus: Sterling, VA, USA, 2017; p 20.
(9) Paas, F.; Renkl, A.; Sweller, J. Cognitive Load Theory and
Instructional Design: Recent Developments. Educ. Psychol. 2003, 38
(1), 1−4.
(10) Storyline 360; articulate, https://articulate.com/360/storyline
(accessed June 2020).
(11) Padlet; https://padlet.com/ (accessed June 2020).

F https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00436
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX