Exploring Everyday Chemistry: The Effectiveness of an Organic Chemistry Massive Open Online Course as an Education and Outreach Tool.

A massive open online course (MOOC), Exploring Everyday Chemistry (eeDc), was delivered four times between 2017 and 2019, attracting a worldwide audience of over 15 000 learners from a wide range of backgrounds. This 4-week course was designed to show a variety of everyday applications of organic chemistry, targeted at high school students seeking to study a chemistry-related degree at university. A mix of video, text, polls, quizzes, and practical activities was incorporated with material designed to build on high school studies, highlighting aspects of university-level teaching and research, as well as showcasing some career opportunities for chemistry graduates. We monitored student attitudes toward this course, finding a consistent enthusiasm for the approach and selection of material. The impact of the course was evident from the significant number of students who mentioned it positively in their university applications.

Introduction

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have attracted significant attention as a digital educational tool, offering versatile and free access to a worldwide audience.[1] MOOCs offer universities an opportunity for institutional brand enhancement, pedagogic experimentation, and also more inclusive education by serving as outreach activities (i.e., those activities delivered outside of the traditional university community) to reach new audiences.[2] A variety of chemistry MOOCs have been developed, which can provide preuniversity students with the opportunity to deepen their chemical knowledge and go beyond the curriculum of their educational program.[3] Examples range from introductory physical chemistry,[4] to analytical chemistry,[5] kitchen chemistry,[6] and general chemistry.[7] However, issues with MOOCs include low completion rates (typically under 10%), recent enrollment declines,[8] and questions over whether MOOCs can create opportunities to augment learning and increase academic preparedness.[9] This paper describes a 3-year project designed to assess if a chemistry MOOC can attract and be of benefit to preuniversity students, helping them make the transition to study chemistry at university. It analyzes course enrollment, participation, and participant feedback and distinctively highlights how the MOOC impacts university chemistry applications.

the Birth of Exploring Everyday Chemistry

Exploring Everyday Chemistry (eeDc) is a 4-week MOOC delivered by the FutureLearn platform.[10] Introduced in 2017,[11] the course showed the application of chemistry in perfumes, antibiotics, brewing, and sport (one topic per week, see Figure ). Learners received free access to the course for 6-weeks and some decided to pay for access to the course tests and, once eligible, then obtain a Certificate of Achievement. A combination of bite-sized videos, text, polls, quizzes, and practical activities (with weekly competitions (see Figure )) was employed in over 80 learning steps, designed to take around 4 h per week to complete. There were opportunities for students to post comments and upload the results of their practical work (using Padlet), allowing further discussion and exploration of the topic and results, with a strong lead educator presence supported by three undergraduate chemistry mentors (e.g., the lead educator typically made over 30 posts per week). Being based on a traditional teacher-centered classroom structure and behaviorist pedagogy, with some aspects of constructivism (that focus on learning by doing, principally through a series of kitchen experiments, from using rice pudding to probe antimicrobial activity[12] to modeling polymers using paper clips[13]), eeDc can be classified as an xMOOC.[14]

Figure 1

Representative organic compounds highlighted in the eeDc course that relate to perfumes, antibiotics, brewing, and sport.

Figure 2

Our most popular weekly competition involved students making a molecular model of propyl ethanoate using readily available household materials.

A contextualized approach was designed to build on high school chemistry and introduce threshold principles (central to reasoning, integration, and mastery), principally in organic chemistry, using everyday examples (Table ). Topics ranged from why enantiomers smell differently (introducing Cahn-Ingold-Prelog or CIP nomenclature), to the mechanism of action of antibiotics (including nucleophilic acyl substitution), the importance of the Maillard reaction in nonenzymatic browning (featuring tautomerism) and polymer formation (involving radical reactions). Relating the subject matter to everyday examples was adopted as the recently revised curricula for the UK’s A-level certification (the British equivalent to a US high school diploma) can be perceived as “dry” and lacking context and this has been linked to a significant decline in the number of applications to study chemistry at UK universities.[15,16] The course content was designed to aid the transition to university by providing examples of university level teaching and research. It also provided an insight into what a chemistry degree can lead to by highlighting career opportunities in the perfume industry, drug discovery, food chemistry, and materials science. Although our target market was high school chemistry students, a major challenge in designing a MOOC is that learners have different levels of background knowledge and experience. We tried to overcome this problem by including some “tools of the trade” sections to help novices in areas such as drawing skeletal structures and recognizing functional groups.

Table 1

Course Overview Showing Exemplar Content

			Course Topics by Week and Content Type
Exemplar Content Type	Total Number	Number per Week	1: Chemical Attraction	2: The Race for New Antibiotics	3: Understanding Brewing	4: Chemistry in Sport
Article	21	4–6	Animal pheromones	An introduction to penicillin	Tea and taste	Polymers in sports protection equipment
Videoa	17	4–5	Fragrant compounds in roses	The race for new antibiotics	Introduction to brewing	Chemistry in sport including stadiums
Screencasta	21	5–6	Theories of smell	New directions of antibiotics	Chemistry of flavor	Polymers in sports equipment
Discussion	8	1–3	End of week summary	Economics and morality of antibiotic discovery	Antioxidants: Vitamin C	PET recycling
Tools of the Trade	10	1–5	Understanding chemical structures	Nucleophilic acyl substitution	The Maillard reaction	Making polymers
Quiz	7	1–2	Fragrant compounds	Antibiotics	Antioxidants	Polymers in sports
Kitchen Experiment	9	3	Making a molecular model	Making a medicinal lava lamp	Antioxidants and apples	Making a natural plastic

Videos were produced in collaboration with a professional media company (see Figure ), whereas screencasts were in-house produced short clips typically capturing action on a computer screen. Each video and screencast was restricted to a maximum of 5 min.

Figure 3

Professional-quality videos, focusing on “talking head” shots of the lead educator, were used to convey key information.

The eeDc course was delivered on two separate occasions in 2017, the first starting in January and the second in July, and student feedback from 98 postcourse surveys showed that students enjoyed reading articles, watching videos, and following links to related content (Table ). For both runs 1 and 2, we also asked students whether they found the lead educator engaging (over both runs, 74 out of 97 respondents rated the educator very engaging and 18 rated the educator fairly engaging) and about the length of the course (over both runs, 83 out of 97 respondents felt the length was about right). For run 2, 30 out of 39 respondents felt the level of interaction with the lead educator/undergraduate mentors was about right (7 respondents said “slightly too little” and just 2 respondents said “far too little”) and 37 out of 47 respondents said that the difficulty of the course matched their expectations (7 respondents said ‘slightly harder than I wanted’, 2 respondents said “much harder than I wanted” and one said ‘slightly easier than I wanted’).

Table 2

Summary of Postcourse Questionnaire Feedback for Course Runs 1 and 2

	Average Scorea (N)
How Much Students Liked or Disliked the Following Activities	Run 1: Jan 2017	Run 2: July 2017
Reading articles and course steps	4.48 (50)	4.48 (48)
Watching or listening to videos	4.58 (50)	4.52 (48)
Taking quizzes	4.42 (50)	4.50 (46)
Following links to other related content	4.52 (50)	4.40 (48)
Reading comments posted by other learners	3.94 (48)	4.13 (47)

Scores out of 5, using this scale: 5, strongly liked; 4, liked; 3, neither disliked or liked; 2, disliked; and 1, strongly disliked.

Course Outcomes: An Analysis of Four Runs over Three Years

Following the positive feedback from 2017, we delivered the eeDc course on two further occasions; the third run started in July 2018 and the fourth in July 2019 (Table ). On the basis of student and tutor feedback, we made some changes to the course content for runs 3 and 4. In response to student feedback we introduced more freely available quizzes to provide more opportunities for student self-assessment (which increased the number of learning steps). We also introduced digital badges to formally recognize completion of each learning step[17] and added more polls so as to grab student attention and also to inform what revisions need to be made to the course to improve student success. More detailed explanations were given for topics that many students found challenging (as evidenced by the course postings), such as the mode of action of β-lactam antibiotics, and we provided end-of-week posters summarizing key chemical principles (see Supporting Information). Finally, we increased the presence of the undergraduate chemistry mentors, with the aim of responding to all technical queries, which we felt would impact positively on learners’ satisfaction.[18]

Table 3

Comparative Student Engagement for the Four Course Deliveries, 2017–2019

	Engagement Data by Run
Engagement Categories	1: Jan 2017	2: July 2017	3: July 2018	4: July 2019
Number of learning steps	85	89	94	95
Joiners, N	5623	3569	3071	2782
Active learnersa, %	78.3	71.4	75.1	74.4
Learners with >90% step completion, %	12.2	10.5	11.7	12.1
Number of steps visited	69,599	51,795	59,712	50,960
Average number of steps visited per joiner	12.4	14.5	19.4	18.3
Number of steps completed	61,837	44,334	51,826	44,499
Average number of steps completed per joiner	11.0	12.4	16.9	16.0
Number of comments postedb	2,951	2,125	3,164	2,031
Average number of comments per joiner	0.5	0.6	1.0	0.7
Number of joiner locations (number of countries)	147	134	130	116
Joiners from the UK, %	38	47	56	62
Joiners of age ≤25, %	31	33	26	33

Active learners are those who have completed at least one step at any time in any course week, including those who go on to leave before completing the course.

The FutureLearn platform allows learner discussion alongside each content step and the number of responses on each topic varied for each course run. For example, on the existence of human pheromones, which remains a controversial topic, 173 comments were posted over the four runs, with between 14–75 comments per course.

Although the number of students joining the course reduced year-on-year, course indicators show that students in later runs typically visited and completed more learning steps, and they posted more comments. We were delighted to see that every year over 50,000 steps were visited and more than 335 learners completed over 90% of the learning steps. Year-on-year a greater proportion of students on the course were from the UK, which may reflect our marketing strategy—we increasingly targeted teachers in UK high schools with course publicity as well as advertising the course on the University of York open days. High school students typically apply to UK universities when they are around 18 years of age, so the targeted publicity could also explain the relatively high percentage (26–33%) of joiners in the youngest age bracket; in comparison, when run 4 finished, the FutureLearn average of joiners aged 25 or younger (based on a random sample of course enrollments within the previous six months) was just 18%.

In student end-of-course posts, it was pleasing to see that many found the course beneficial to their high school studies with comments such as “I have really enjoyed the course as it allowed me to apply my A level knowledge to real life examples outside of the syllabus”, “brilliant extra reading for my A levels, further confirming that chemistry is what I want to study at university” and “I’m now even more eager to study chemistry at university now that I know some real applications and how chemistry affects everything we do”. We were also delighted to receive positive comments from nonhigh school learners including ‘‘I never really comprehended the saying “everything is chemistry” until I did this course”, “I have done several of these courses and this one definitely comes right at the top” and “expertly presented with a good mix of factual and practical content with a good portion of humor to keep us interested” (see Figure ).

Figure 4

To help capture the attention of students we used humor in various ways, from fun animations in course videos to a chemistry joke in our promotional trailer.

At the end of course runs 3 and 4, we took the opportunity to ask students what aspect they found most challenging and which was the most enjoyable (Table ). A remarkably consistent response was received from over 300 respondents each year, with “lots of scientific terms” and ‘too many organic compounds’ being the most challenging, while ‘applying principles to everyday examples’ was by far the most rewarding aspect. As organic chemistry has its own extensive vocabulary, we anticipated that the scientific terms would be challenging for many students. To help address this we introduced a glossary at the end of week 1, which, due to student feedback, was extended after each course run.

Table 4

Comparative End-of-Course Student Survey Responses for Runs 3 and 4

Survey Item and Response Choices	Response, %,a by Run
	Run 3: July 2018	Run 4: July 2019
Most Challenging Aspect
	(N = 359)	(N = 320)
Lots of scientific terms	33	26
Having to think 3-dimensionally	16	19
The curly arrow mechanisms	15	16
There are too many organic compounds	28	32
Understanding skeletal structures	7	6
Most Rewarding Aspect
	(N = 360)	(N = 319)
Applying principles to everyday examples	53	63
Learning through hands-on activities	9	4
Problem solving, e.g., applying mechanisms	18	15
Sharing and discussing information	2	3
Learning key principles, e.g., mechanisms	18	15

Percentage values are given to the nearest whole number.

Student feedback on the overall course experience was extremely positive (Table ). For the first two runs of eeDc this was evidenced in a postcourse survey, whereas in runs 3 and 4 the FutureLearn platform changed to weekly course ratings. In run 4, a much shorter postcourse survey was used, which resulted in a much greater student response rate.

Table 5

Comparison of Course Outcomes for the Four Course Deliveries, 2017–2019

	Outcome Data by Run
Outcome Categories	1: Jan 2017	2: July 2017	3: July 2018	4: July 2019
How would you rate your overall experience of the course?	4.60/5 (47)a	4.65/5 (48)a	Not measured	Not measured
Weekly experience rating	Not measured	Not measured	2.90/3 (167)b	2.88/3 (90)b
Did the course meet your expectations?	Not measured	Not measured	Not measured	98% (181)c
Number of applicants mentioning a MOOCd	Not measured	89 (21%)	96 (24%)e	111 (25%)
Number of applicants mentioning eeDcd	Not measured	78 (18%)	83 (21%)e	90 (21%)

Recorded as part of a postcourse questionnaire: 5 = excellent, 4 = good, 3 = OK, 2 = poor, 1 = very poor; (N).

Recorded as part of a weekly survey: 3 = happy, 2 = neutral, 1 = unhappy; (N).

Recorded as part of an end of course survey: 60% said the course was “better than expected”; 38% said the course “met their expectations”; and 2% said “not sure”; (N).

Number of UCAS applicants who specifically mentioned a MOOC/the eeDc course in their personal statement during the first 8 weeks of the admissions cycle (e.g., following the July 2017 MOOC, applications from mid-September to mid-November 2017). The percentage of all applications is given in parentheses (each year, the total number of all applications was similar, ranging from 400–444).

At the end of the admissions cycle, 157 applicants mentioned the eeDc course and 45 applicants mentioned other MOOCs.

It was envisaged that eeDc could be used by high school students in their applications to UK universities. In the UK, students apply to universities through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)[19] and, as part of their application, they are required to write a personal statement. This statement is an important part of a UCAS application as it allows an applicant to describe their ambitions, skills, and experience to universities admissions staff. It was envisaged that eeDc could be used by applicants to show evidence of commitment beyond the A level curriculum, helping them stand out from the crowd. With this in mind we tracked any mention of MOOCs and eeDc in personal statements for applications to study chemistry at the University of York (see Table ). Although the course was not designed to be a “hard sell” for studying chemistry at York (it was viewed as an opportunity to help make the transition to study chemistry or a related degree at any university), due to commercial sensitivity, we were only able to access university applications to York. As there are various stages in the UCAS admissions cycle (which runs from mid-September to mid-August), for comparative purposes, we decided to analyze applications received during the first 8 weeks of the admission season (from mid-September to mid-November). This equates to when around 40–50% of the entire number of UCAS applications are received. It was interesting to see that over the three admissions cycles, 21–25% of personal statements mentioned a MOOC and, of these, 81–86% specifically mentioned eeDc. Typically, applicants mentioned their favorite aspect(s) of the eeDc course, how the course material linked to their high school studies and how the course further enthused them to study chemistry at university. The fact that around 1 in 5 applications to study Chemistry (BSc or MChem programmes) mentioned eeDc showed how highly valued this course was to university applicants.

It is difficult to determine if students found studying eeDc of direct benefit to their high school studies. However, it is worth noting that in 2018, 24.3% (44 students) of the University of York first year chemistry intake had completed eeDc and their A level GPA was slightly above that for the A level students who had not taken the course (a score of 373 versus 368, based on three A level subjects including chemistry; where an A* (top) grade is 140, an A grade is 120 and a B grade is 100; Welch t-test, t = 0.994, p = 0.324). However, this may reflect that more ambitious and better prepared students undertook the eeDc course. We also received positive feedback from University of York chemistry students in the second term of their degree including “the (eeDc) course made an excellent addition to my personal statement to help make my university application stand out”, “the course really built on my A level knowledge and helped with the step up to university level work” and “it gave me a good introduction to self-motivated independent study which is required at university”. Similarly, it is difficult to determine if the course content and independent learning skills developed through studying eeDc helped students make the transition to university. However, it is interesting to note that other than one student who decided to withdraw from the course in the first term, all of the remaining 43 students successfully completed and passed the first year of a University of York chemistry degree program. In comparison, the York chemistry programmes typically have an overall first year drop rate of around 4%.

Conclusions

The eeDc course has demonstrated that there is an appetite for students, across the globe, to learn more about chemistry in everyday life. Such free online courses offer the opportunity to inform the general public about evidence-based science at a time when pseudoscience and “fake news” is on the rise. For example, eeDc tackled common misconceptions about natural versus synthetic chemicals, the belief that antibiotic resistance relates to people rather than bacteria and avoiding foods that contain E numbers (food additives approved for use in food within the European Union). The course also probed topical ethical issues, ranging from reducing antibiotic use in food production to accepting performance enhancing drugs in sports, encouraging students to share and discuss their opinions.

Course outcomes convincingly demonstrate eeDc has proven very popular with high school students. These students have used the course to learn new applications of chemistry, sample some university-level teaching and research, learn about some careers involving chemistry, as well as help evidence their enthusiasm and commitment to chemistry in their university applications. Due to the positive feedback future runs of the course are planned and we have recently introduced a widening participation initiative, where on successful completion of the course, students living in areas of lowest progression to university can receive contextual offers to study chemistry at York. We believe that the eeDc course offers a good model for other institutions. Setting up such a course can be time-consuming (the lead educator spent around 100 h developing the course and around 50 h updating and facilitating each course run), but it is our hope that other institutions will implement similar courses in an effort to help address the documented need[20] for attracting STEM students to study at university.