Research and Outputs

Research Description

The goal of the Chemistry On Screen project is to develop and test an evidence-based framework for evaluating the instructional quality frequently watched chemistry concept videos on YouTube. The educational, cognitive psychology, and chemistry education literature has identified many important criteria for supporting student conceptual understanding in chemistry. Instruction should connect the levels of chemistry instruction (macroscopic, particulate, and symbolic)1, include three-dimensional learning2 and causal mechanistic reasoning3, and actively engage students in the learning process.4 Effective instructional videos should employ Mayer’s twelve multimedia principles based on the dual-channel assumption, the limited-capacity assumption, and the active-processing assumption, to engage students in learning.5 Our framework has been used to evaluate videos covering multiple core general chemistry concepts. Part of the evaluation process is specifying what meeting the criteria outlined above would look like for each topic.   Read more about this in our publication in the Journal of Chemical Education.6 You can also explore this website.

[1] Johnstone, A. H. Why Is Science Difficult to Learn? Things Are Seldom What They Seem. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 1991, 7, 75–83.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x. 
Talanquer, V. Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: The Many Faces of the Chemistry “Triplet.” Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2011, 33 (2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435.
S. Taber, K. Revisiting the Chemistry Triplet: Drawing upon the Nature of Chemical Knowledge and the Psychology of Learning to Inform Chemistry Education. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14 (2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00012E.

[2] National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012.  NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2013.

[3] Crandell, O. M.; Lockhart, M. A.; Cooper, M. M. Arrows on the Page Are Not a Good Gauge: Evidence for the Importance of Causal Mechanistic Explanations about Nucleophilic Substitution in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97 (2), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00815.

[4] Chi, M. T. H.; Wylie, R. The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. Educ. Psychol. 2014, 49 (4), 219–243.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823. Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2014, 111 (23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.

[5]  Mayer, R. E. Multimedia Learning, 2 edition.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge ; New York, 2009. Brame, C. J. Effective Educational Videos: Principles and Guidelines for Maximizing Student Learning from Video Content. CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 2016, 15 (4), es6.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0125.

[6] Herrington, D. G and Sweeder, R. D. Is This a Helpful YouTube Video? A Research-Based Framework for Evaluating and Developing Conceptual Chemistry Instructional Videos Journal of Chemical Education 2025 102 (2), 621-629. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01085