Introduction

As part of a project to revise the first-year chemistry courses at the University of British Columbia’s (UBC) Okanagan campus, a series of instructional videos were created for use in flipped-class learning modules. The development, implementation, and revision of these instructional videos has itself been a multi-year endeavour, informed both by multi disciplinary educational scholarship and by our own research studies, which helped us identify specific video design principles that students perceived to best support their engagement and learning.

Insights drawn from these studies, undertaken before the pandemic, dramatically affected our wider teaching practice both during and following the pandemic. This chapter offers a scholarly reflection by the authors on the evolution of this video design project and its wider impacts.

Institutional Context and Background

In collaboration with Dr. Tamara Freeman, one of the authors (McNeil) has undertaken a long-term project that has reformed all aspects of the content, delivery, and assessment of the introductory chemistry courses at UBC’s Okanagan campus, which are taught as a sequence of two one-semester courses to approximately 700 to 800 students each year in classrooms of 300–400 students. In each semester, students attend approximately 30 hr of classroom activities (typically 22–24 lecture periods of 80 min) and 8–10 3-hr laboratory sessions. Given the proven advantages of active learning pedagogies (Freeman et al., 2014; Theobald et al., 2020), the course delivery was revised to align with educational principles of social constructivism (Kukla, 2000; Matthews, 1998; Pritchard & Woolard, 2010) by using active learning methods to create regular and prolonged in-class opportunities for students to interact and discuss course concepts and problems with one another. These activities include:

• the use of personal response systems with peer discussion (Terrion & Aceti, 2012; Liu et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2011);
• small-group (∼4 students) guided-inquiry activities (Abraham, 2005);
• flipped-class modules that include prior viewing of instructional videos (Bokosmaty et al., 2019; Seery, 2015; Talbert, 2017);
• context studies guided by a systems-thinking perspective (Mahaffy et al., 2019; Orgill et al., 2019) to demonstrate application of course concepts to meaningful social, environmental, and scientific contexts (Petillion et al., 2019); and
• collaborative two-stage exams (Gilley & Clarkston, 2014; Kulak & Newton, 2014).

A significant guiding principle for this project was the explicit incorporation of affective learning considerations, prompting a design of learning activities that considered matters of engagement and student satisfaction with their learning experiences in addition to course content.

Principles of Flipped Learning

In a traditional lecture pedagogy, learners are first exposed to course concepts in lectures and later apply their understanding by working through problems as homework. A flipped classroom inverts this sequence: students are first exposed to new content prior to class, then the classroom becomes an active learning environment where learners apply those concepts, with the instructor now guiding and facilitating learning activities rather than merely presenting information.

Our project to redesign our first-year chemistry curriculum began with a mapping exercise that identified appropriate learning objectives, the learning concepts required to achieve those objectives, and topics that would best support the development of those concepts. Rather than adopting a single delivery mode, we selected different delivery modes that we felt were best suited to particular concepts. The concepts and topics that we felt would most benefit from a flipped-learning approach were those for which a somewhat challenging conceptual basis might be first introduced via a short instructional video. This basis could then be developed and applied to a wider range of problems via a longer guided-inquiry activity during the following class session.

A large body of research and educational scholarship has demonstrated the learning benefits that can result from a flipped- or blended-learning approach and has identified best practices for the development and implementation of flipped-learning activities (Bancroft et al., 2021; Lundin et al., 2018; O’Flaherty & Phillips, 2015). Our flipped-class modules were designed accordingly:

Each of our flipped-learning modules comprise:

• a short (~15 min) instructional video
• a brief post-video conceptual quiz
• an in-class guided-inquiry activity that applies and expands upon the video concepts
• a short post-activity assessment

Within each module, learners spend the majority of their time working together during class, but their initial engagement with each concept is via the instructional video.

Instructional Video Design: Theoretical Frameworks and Practical Considerations

Before we began designing the instructional videos that would introduce our flipped-class modules, we undertook an analysis of relevant educational scholarship to identify design factors that most strongly influenced the ability of a video to act as an effective learning resource. Additionally, we surveyed common publicly-available sources of instructional videos for introductory chemistry topics.

We learned much from the work of Mayer, who has consolidated years of research to generate a short list of principles to guide instructional video design (Fiorella & Mayer, 2018; Mayer et al., 2020). Many of these principles emphasize the pedagogical value of an on-screen instructor and identify instructor behaviours that promote both viewer learning and engagement. For example, Mayer recommends the use of dynamic drawing, where the instructor writes information on a board or screen in real time, rather than a format in which blocks of text spontaneously appear, as is often seen in digital slide presentations. We were also cognizant of the impacts of video design on viewer cognitive load: multiple studies found that cognitive load can be managed by segmenting a video into smaller meaningful portions and by allowing the viewer to regulate the playback speed and freely navigate the video timeline (Biard et al., 2018; Mayer, 2003; Merkt et al., 2011).

However, some of these principles stem primarily from studies using video-based technologies that were highly dated when we began this project. These principles generally assume that the video is a recording of an instructor at a writing board delivering an otherwise traditional lecture, yielding a video that duplicates the experience of a learner watching a passive lecture delivery. One example is Mayer’s instructor gaze principle, which states that the instructor should regularly shift their gaze between the audience and the board on which they are writing; this principle assumes that an instructor and a physical writing surface share the same on-screen frame. Another is Mayer’s “interactivity” principle, which encourages the use of interactive features, but the features described in the studies upon which the principle is based are limited to the ability to pause, fast-forward, and rewind the video—hardly what current educational scholarship would describe as “interactive” in any meaningful sense.

We were intrigued by the implications of social agency theory, developed to explain differing engagement of and learning impacts upon a viewer when learning from various forms of a pedagogical agent (Mayer, 2014). This scholarship explored the effects of agents with different qualities, such as including or lacking an audible or visible component, a static versus dynamic visible representation, and animated representations resembling humans and non-human creatures. The theory proposes that social cues received by the learner from the pedagogical agent increase learner motivation to pay attention and make sense of the presented information, and that these motivations increase as the qualities of an on-screen pedagogical agent (e.g. voice, face, mannerisms, behaviour) better resemble those of a real human being. As well, learning is positively impacted if the pedagogical agent is perceived as credible and trustworthy (Schroeder & Adesope, 2014).

At the time, we found that almost all online instructional chemistry videos (e.g. YouTube videos, resources on Khan Academy, and similar sites) were the same style and format. They made no attempt to duplicate an in-person lecture experience, passive or otherwise. Rather, they generally used a screen capture format in which dynamic generation of an instructor’s written digital notes, or progress through a digital slideshow, was recorded and accompanied by voiced narration. With the wide availability of tablet computers and recording software, such videos are simple to create, because they require no specialized equipment or sophisticated video-editing skills. However, we felt that such a screencast video format represents a less impactful educational experience than even a traditional passive lecture: such videos offer no truly interactive component beyond the ability to pause or repeat chosen segments, and the instructor presence is reduced only to the disembodied voice of a narrator, contrary to both Mayer’s recommendations and the implications of social agency theory.

In contrast, we found publicly-available educational videos from non-academic sources, such as Crash Course (CrashCourse, n.d.), to be far more dynamic, well structured, and engaging. These videos feature the continual on-screen presence of a narrator/instructor, but they do not merely duplicate the experience of a traditional lecture. Instead, they exploit the digital video medium to combine multiple presentation formats and segments within each video, a recognizable structure and graphic design style repeated across multiple videos in each series, and high-quality animations, sound, and editing.

We therefore recognized that while the digital video format offers many potential advantages compared to in-class instruction, most publicly-available instructional videos fail to exploit them fully (Box et al., 2017); to meet that potential would demand careful consideration in scripting and design. Some advantages are inherent to the video format and a flipped-learning delivery. Unlike a live lecture, a video can be paused or have its playback speed manipulated, so a viewer can speed up, slow down, or repeat video sections according to their own learning pace. A video can include captioning, which is helpful for learners with language challenges or when the content introduces new terminology (Galloway et al., 2017; Taber, 2019). A video can be watched by a learner at the time and place of their own choosing, asynchronously from the schedules of the instructor or other learners (Borup et al., 2012).

However, we identified other advantages that would emerge only if we deliberately chose to incorporate them. In the context of chemistry education, a defining paradigm and well-understood challenge is represented by Johnstone’s Triangle (Figure 12.1): the learning and understanding of chemistry demands that macroscopic, observable changes be imagined and interpreted by the behaviour of invisible particles at the molecular scale, the nature of which can be represented and expressed only via a specialized symbolic language (Johnstone, 1991).

While perhaps not the most effective format for many instructional elements, we felt that a digital tablet screencast would be an excellent format for the symbolic aspects of our videos—the dynamic drawing of molecular structures, reaction equations, graphs, etc.—and the opportunity to repeatedly watch (and mimic) the drawing of such symbols and representations allows the self-directed practice required to gain fluency in the language of chemical symbolism in a way that a live lecture does not. We recognized that a lecture setting renders it challenging to offer direct experimental verification of new concepts, because chemistry experiments visible to all learners in a large lecture space are often impractical. However, a video can transport the viewer to a laboratory setting to observe a macroscopic demonstration of conceptual principles. As well, the molecular-scale dynamic behaviour and interaction of particles is difficult to convey using traditional lecture tools, but a video can use animations to depict such behaviours.

Finally, we had designed a course delivery strategy based on constructivist principles and the positive impacts of the high student engagement found in active learning and small group work. We felt that a single student passively watching a video, interacting with neither an instructor nor other learners, represents the antithesis of those principles; however, we believed that emerging technologies could permit the creation of truly interactive videos that better aligned with our pedagogy.

Guiding Principles for an Instructional Video Series

We therefore understood that we could create instructional videos operating at the intersection of the following guiding principles:

• Adopt principles for effective multimedia learning resources established by the scholarship and research of Mayer and others—particularly regarding those associated with maintaining viewer engagement and the pedagogical effectiveness of an on-screen instructor— but also adapt these principles to more advanced digital video formats.
• Adopt a visual and tonal style reminiscent of video series such as Crash Course, featuring a high-energy instructor figure, cuts and edits to maintain viewer interest and engagement, and a regular sequence of segments shared across all videos in the series.
• Formulate a video structure aligned with the principles of Johnstone’s Triangle, featuring different segments corresponding to the macroscopic, molecular, and symbolic representations of chemistry.
• Design instructional videos aligned with the pedagogical principles of the course as a whole by leveraging digital technologies to permit genuine viewer interactivity.

To achieve these goals, we created instructional videos with the following design elements:

• The regular visual presence of an instructor, including their (apparent) interaction with on-screen information, and a high-energy, engaging, and welcoming demeanour.
• Multiple short segments of presentation and summary designed to reduce cognitive load, with different segments within each video patterned after the corners of Johnstone’s Triangle: the macroscopic represented by laboratory experiments, the molecular by animations of atoms and molecules, and the symbolic by dynamic on-screen generation of written symbols and molecular structures.
• Interactive questions embedded within each video such that any response by the viewer to a multiple-choice prompt results in targeted feedback from the on-screen instructor, either through a suggestion to guide the viewer away from misconceptions leading to a given incorrect response or through reinforcement and positive feedback to a correct response.
• A consistent structure shared by all videos in the series: a short “cold open” segment in which the instructor provides an introduction and context, a title sequence and card, sequences in which the instructor presents information required to develop each conceptual learning objective followed by an interactive multiple-choice question to assess the achievement of that objective, cut sequences alerting the viewer to each new segment, and a conclusion by the instructor that summarizes the learning outcomes and teases their use in the following classroom activity.
• A characteristic graphical style shared across the video thumbnails, title card, logo, cut and animation sequences, and the outro sequence, including cartoon avatars of the instructor (Figure 12.2).

Development and Implementation of Interactive Instructional Videos

After identifying the learning objectives and course topics for our flipped-learning modules, we generated detailed scripts and storyboards that included our desired design elements and built a small set for the instructor segments. The instructor (Figure 12.3) and “To the Lab” segments (Figure 12.4a) were recorded using professional-level cameras and audio- recording equipment, graphics and animations for the molecular-scale “Let’s Get Small” segments were created using Adobe Illustrator and Adobe After Effects (Figure 12.4b), and “The Mighty Pen” screencasts were generated with Camtasia and a tablet PC (Figure 12.4c). Footage from all sources was compiled and edited using Adobe Premiere Pro.^[1]

To gauge student satisfaction with the first iteration of these instructional videos, and identify particular aspects of the videos that were either perceived favourably or might be improved, we undertook an initial research study (Petillion & McNeil, 2020a). At the end of our two-term first-year chemistry course sequence, 76% of 297 survey respondents reported some level of agreement with the prompt “the instructional videos helped me understand and apply the course concepts.” Semi-structured interviews with a small cohort (N = 12) gave participants the opportunity to describe positive and negative learning impacts and experiences with the videos in further detail. Students overall reported that they found the videos to be very useful and engaging learning activities.

However, a large number of less positive responses and explicit suggestions for improvement regarded the manner in which the interactive questions were used and navigated. The videos were initially hosted on YouTube, and the questions and instructor feedback had been designed to use a YouTube annotation feature whereby a viewer could click on a designated region in the video image and navigate to a different timestamp in the same video: that timestamp would play feedback appropriate to the chosen answer, followed by navigation back to the question if that answer was incorrect. During final editing of the videos, YouTube discontinued this feature, requiring us to adopt a cumbersome system of timestamp links placed in the video description box; this system required students to follow additional instructions to select each appropriate link in sequence depending on their chosen answers to a question. Students found this system confusing and disruptive.

To address these concerns, we revised the videos to make use of HTML5 Package (“H5P”), a free open-source JavaScript tool to add interactive HTML5 content to videos, presentations, web pages, and other media via a web-based editor. We used H5P to create multiple interactive questions within each video, with each following a similar sequence. The instructor poses a multiple-choice question to assess understanding of the material just presented, and the video pauses on a screen with different possible answers. When the viewer clicks on an answer, the video jumps to a pre-set timestamp where the instructor reappears on screen to offer targeted feedback: congratulations and a summary of the correct reasoning if the selected answer is correct, or a prompt that identifies the error and offers a hint if the selected answer is incorrect. The video then either continues to play to the next segment or returns the viewer to the question for another attempt. This technology transforms the video into a genuinely active and interactive learning experience, because the viewer receives immediate targeted feedback to assess and develop their understanding of the presented concepts.

Video Assessment and Impacts on Teaching Practice

After the incorporation of H5P interactivity and finalization of the video format, we conducted a more in-depth study to address the following research questions:

When considering various design factors of instructional videos used in a first-year university chemistry course:

1. Which factors of interactive instructional videos do students identify as most significantly contributing to their engagement and their learning?
2. How do student confidences in their learning differ when they learn a topic from videos with different design features? (Petillion & McNeil, 2025)

These were not questions that sought to quantify the learning impacts associated with our video design in an isolated learning intervention, as the videos were already part of our larger course delivery and suite of active learning activities. Rather, we sought an assessment of student perceptions of their learning from the videos and of the specific video design features that students reported as contributing most significantly to their learning and engagement. The focus of our research questions in these studies was grounded in subjective student perspectives and experiences: we therefore adopted an interpretivist paradigm for this study and developed a mixed-methods approach (Johnson & Christensen, 2012; Creswell, 2015) to generate both Likert-scale survey data and interview transcripts that were subjected to thematic analysis via inductive coding (Auerback & Silverstein, 2003). In one component of the study, surveys asked students (N = 488) to rank various video design factors according to their perceived impacts on viewer learning and engagement, while semi-structured interviews (N = 34) prompted participants to describe in greater detail their learning experiences with the videos in relation to specific design features. In a second component, students (N = 24) viewed instructional videos that dealt with the same topic but did so using different combinations of design elements, such as the presence or absence of an on-screen instructor or interactive questions. They were then asked to rate their engagement, learning experiences, and confidence in their ability to solve problems involving an application of concepts developed in the video. The data from these different study components repeatedly and consistently showed two factors as the most important to both student engagement and student learning: the visible on-screen presence of the instructor and the use of interactive questions.

A separate phenomenological research study at the onset of the pandemic in the spring of 2020 explored our students’ experiences during the transition to emergency remote teaching (Petillion & McNeil, 2020b). Our students reported that one of their greatest challenges was the loss of meaningful communication and interaction with their instructors and other students and the resulting severe reduction in engagement with their studies. Taken together, the findings from these research studies significantly impacted our decisions about our teaching practice during the following year of online instruction.

For example, in response to our findings that an on-screen instructor presence was a significant factor in promoting viewer learning and engagement, one of the authors (McNeil) ensured their face was always prominently visible in both pre-recorded videos and livestream lectures, by using a webcam feed that placed their live image alongside information elsewhere on screen and allowed them to gesture toward that information. Our studies showed that interactivity was a critical design feature of our videos, so McNeil revised their lecture delivery for online video streaming to incorporate far more regular use of web-based personal response systems so that students could remotely maintain active participation during online lectures. One of the authors (Petillion) delivered an organic chemistry laboratory as a synchronous multi-camera livestream rather than using pre-recorded videos so that the online laboratory session featured a live instructor physically present in the laboratory, with whom students could directly engage and interact. A research study showed that this was an overwhelmingly more positive learning experience (Petillion & McNeil, 2021).

Conclusion

Our development and implementation of instructional videos for our first-year chemistry course sequence, initially undertaken well before the COVID-19 pandemic, began with a critical examination of prior educational scholarship regarding the recommended design features and best practices for creating instructional videos. This scholarship, and our own studies examining student use of the videos we created, provided us with significant insight regarding the design elements that made such videos engaging and effective, which we then used to improve those same videos. A more in-depth research study clearly identified the most impactful design features.

These were insights that suddenly became of disproportionate importance when our entire teaching practice was moved unexpectedly into an online environment in which nearly all instructional delivery, both synchronous and asynchronous, involved a video component. However, upon further reflection on our experience with online instruction and ongoing scholarship examining best practices of both online and video-based educational resources, we realized there are additional evolving considerations we must contemplate in the design of any future video learning resources, compelling a wider scope of significant questions regarding the format and design of any video-based learning activity or resource (questions we also encourage the reader to consider):

1. What are the implications of existing theoretical frameworks of teaching and learning for the design and format
2. What innovative technologies might be used to improve the learning experience?
3. How can we assess the impacts and effectiveness of a new video learning resource? Is there an opportunity for further scholarship in exploring the design or use of the resource?

For example, the written-notes screen-capture components of our videos were recorded before our own studies demonstrated the high importance of having an on-screen instructor presence; they involve narration but no video representation of the instructor, and we intend to edit these portions to include a video image of the instructor speaking during these sequences. The original development of our videos did not make sufficient use of universal design principles (Burgstahler & Cory, 2008; Hall et al., 2012; Meyer et al., 2014; Navarro et al., 2024), so that, among other concerns, made captioning an after-the-fact consideration and the colour palettes not always colour-blind friendly (Kaspar & Crameri, 2022).

Additionally, our interpretation of our own studies and other scholarship is that the high production value, set design, and near-professional-level equipment and editing we employed in our video series, while appreciated and regarded favourably by most students, likely adds little value in the way of learning impacts. Instead, we believe that similar learning gains and engagement can result from a far simpler video design format, so long as it maintains the presence of an onscreen instructor who interacts with dynamic writing and simple slideshow animations and includes genuinely interactive features, such as those provided by H5P or similar tools. In fact, a small number of participants in our studies preferred such a minimalist format and reported that the cut sequences, bright colours, and animations made it harder for them to maintain focus on their learning. In the future, our instructional video design will focus only on those elements we believe to be most impactful, all of which are easily incorporated using readily available desktop computer systems.

Acknowledgements

We thank the many students of UBC Okanagan’s introductory chemistry courses who chose to take part in various research studies that supported this work. All research studies were approved by the UBC Okanagan Behavioural Research Ethics Board. The creation of the described learning resources, including the instructional videos, was supported by a UBC Okanagan Aspire Learning and Teaching Grant. The instructional videos described were designed and created by the authors in collaboration with Jacky Deng, who created the molecular animations and graphical elements.

References

Abraham, M. R. (2005). Inquiry and the l earning cycle approach. In N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemist’s guide to effective teaching (pp. 41–52). Prentice-Hall.

Auerbach , C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New York University Press.

Bancroft, S. F., Jalaeian, M., & John, S. R. (2021). Systematic review of flipped instruction in undergraduate chemistry lectures (2007–2019): Facilitation, independent practice, accountability, and measure type matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(7), 2143–2155. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01327

Biard, N., Cojean, S., & Jamet, E. (2018). Effects of segmentation and pacing on procedural learning by video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.002

Bokosmaty, R., Bridgeman, A., & Muir, M. (2019). Using a partially flipped learning model to teach first year undergraduate chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(4), 629–639. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00414

Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001

Box, M. C., Dunnagan, C. L., Hirsh, L. A. S., Cherry, C. R., Christianson, K. A., Gibson, R. J., Wolfe, M. I., & Gallardo-Williams, M. T. (2017). Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of three types of student-generated videos as instructional support in organic chemistry laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(2), 164–170. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00451

Burgstahler, S. E., & Cory, R. C. (Eds.). (2008). Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice. Harvard Education Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE.

CrashCourse. (n.d.). Home [YouTube Channel]. YouTube. Retrieved Jan 25, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/@crashcourse

Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). What works and doesn’t work with instructional video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.015

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Galloway, K. R., Stoyanovich, C., & Flynn, A. B. (2017). Students’ interpretations of mechanistic language in organic chemistry before learning reactions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(2), 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00231E

Gilley, B. H., & Clarkston, B. (2014). Research and teaching: Collaborative testing: Evidence of learning in a controlled in-class study of undergraduate students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43( 3). https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst14_043_03_83

Hall, T. E., Meyer, A. & Rose, D. H. (Eds.). (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom: Practical applications. Guilford Press.

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. SAGE.

Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x

Kaspar, F. & Crameri, F. (2022). Coloring chemistry—How mindful color choices improve chemical communication. Angewendte Chemie International Edition, 61(16), Article e202114910. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202114910

Kukla, A. (2000). Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. Routledge.

Kulak, V., & Newton, G. (2014). A guide to using case-based learning in biochemistry education. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 42(6), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20823

Liu, Y., Ferrell, B., Barbera, J., & Lewis, J. E. (2017). Development and evaluation of a chemistry-specific version of the academic motivation scale (AMS-Chemistry). Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 191–213. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00200E

Lundin, M., Rensfeldt, A. B., Hillman, T., Lantz-Andersson, A., & Peterson, L. (2018). Higher education dominance and siloed knowledge: A systematic review of flipped classroom research. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0101-6

Mahaffy, P. G., Matlin, S. A., Holme, T. A., & MacKellar, J. (2019). Systems thinking for education about the molecular basis of sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 2(5), 362–370. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0285-3

Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (1998). Constructivism in science education: A philosophical examination. Springer.

Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00016-6

Mayer, R., E. (2014). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 345–368). Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E., Fiorella, L., & Stull, A. (2020). Five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 837–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09749-6

Merkt, M., Weigand, S., Heier, A., & Schwan, S. (2011). Learning with videos vs. learning with print: The role of interactive features. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 687–704 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.03.004

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.

Navarro, N., Corrales, P., Vila-Bedmar, R., González-Montesino, R. H., de Luis, O., & Espada-Chavarria, R. (2024). Development of educational video capsules for active learning in environmental sciences through universal design for learning. Education Sciences, 14(8), Article 826. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080826

O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.002

Orgill, M., York, S., & MacKellar, J. (2019). Introduction to systems thinking for the chemistry education community. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(12), 2720–2729. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00169

Petillion, R. J., Freeman, T. K., & McNeil, W. S. (2019). United Nations sustainable development goals as a thematic framework for an introductory chemistry curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(12), 2845-2851. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00307

Petillion, R. J., & McNeil, W. S. (2020a). Johnstone’s triangle as a pedagogical framework for flipped-class instructional videos in introductory chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(6), 1536– 1542. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b01105

Petillion, R. J., & McNeil, W. S. (2020b). Student experiences of emergency remote teaching: Impacts of instructor practice on student learning, engagement, and well-being. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2486–2493. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00733

Petillion, R. J., & McNeil, W. S. (2021). Student satisfaction with synchronous online organic chemistry laboratories: Prerecorded video vs livestream. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(9), 2861–2869. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00549

Petillion, R. J. & McNeil W. S. (2025). Exploring student perceptions and learning impacts of design factors for effective and engaging instructional videos [Manuscript in preparation].

Pritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism and social learning. Routledge.

Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2014). A systematic review of pedagogical agents’ persona, motivation, and cognitive load implications for learners. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.888265

Seery, M. K. (2015). Flipped learning in higher education chemistry: Emerging trends and potential directions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(4), 758–768. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00136F

Smith, J. A. (Ed.). (2008). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. Sage.

Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Krauter, K., & Knight, J. K. (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101

Taber, K. S. (2019). Alternative conceptions and the learning of chemistry. Israel Journal of Chemistry, 59(6–7), 450–469. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijch.201800046

Talbert, R. (2017). Flipped l earning: A guide for higher education faculty. Stylus Publishing.

Terrion, J. L., & Aceti, V. (2012). Perceptions of the effects of clicker technology on student learning and engagement: A study of freshmen chemistry students. Research in Learning Technology, 20(2), Article 16150. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.16150

Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintrón, D. L., Cooper, J. D., Dunster, G., Grummer, J. A., Hennessey, K., Hsiao, J., Iranon, N., Jones, L., Jordt, H., Keller, M., Lacey, M. E., Littlefield, C. E., … Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117

Media Attributions

All images in this chapter have been created by the author, unless otherwise noted below.