<p><b>AIMS</b>
</p><p>
Diverse learning platforms facilitate accessibility of content for non-traditional students and
compensate for geographical limitations that universities might experience. In utilizing diverse learning
platforms, it is critical to ensure effective and equitable teaching and learning outcomes across
different student demographics. Based on the foundation and first year chemistry offerings at the
University of New England (UNE), we aim to develop a theoretical construct for the basis of a long
term quantitative study on student performance across multiple learning platforms.
</p><p>
<b>SOURCES OF EVIDENCE</b>
</p><p>
Pressure to speed up the evolution of blended learning in many courses comes from management,
students, industry, and certain cohorts of academics. Students suggest all content and activities
should be available online. Management emphasizes reaching a broader audience, and doing so
economically. Industry wants novice and veteran chemists to revisit some fundamental concepts and
lab skills. Educators want to embrace effective teaching strategies for every student population.
</p><p>
It is well established in the education literature that “diverse student groups bring with them a rich
prior experiences and knowledge about science as well as their own ways of knowing, thinking, and
communicating that influences their learning” (Walls, 2016). In a recent review (Cooper, 2018),
several studies were highlighted as reporting demographic disadvantages to online learning, and
other research (DeKorver, 2016) also suggests demographics and student goals correlate with
assessment outcomes; which demonstrates that not every iteration within the blended learning
spectrum is equal.
</p><p>
The learning platforms utilised to teach chemistry at UNE are diverse. Foundation and first-year
chemistry content is presented in several combinations of the following: conventional lectures
throughout the term, online lectures throughout the term, conventional laboratory experiments
throughout the term, expedited laboratory experiments during one ‘intensive’ week, flipped classroom
‘workshops’ on campus, evening ‘tutorials’ on campus, and evening online ‘Q&A’ sessions. All
students participate in a combination of the aforementioned learning platforms. Despite on-campus
and online students being given the same content and assessments, student performance remains
different.
</p><p>
<b>MAIN ARGUMENT</b>
</p><p>
Where do the learning platforms used in chemistry fit into the blended learning landscape? Are we
currently a precursor or product of the blended learning format? We are at a pivotal point in education
with the advent, flexibility, and economics of online study, and so we must re-evaluate the relative
effectiveness of our learning platforms and our traditional methods to assess student learning,
particularly in relation to diversity of learning platforms. As discussed, student demographics and
individual learning goals are critical factors in performance; and if the design and range of learning
platforms is satisfactory, they should be shown to support underperforming cohorts.
</p><p>
<b>CONCLUSIONS</b>
</p><p>
This work will elucidate the key components of first-year chemistry learning platforms and highlight
any underrepresented student populations who will require the next step in evolution within blended
learning. This information will be an important consideration in the design of future teaching and
learning strategies. The results of this study will be applicable to other fields of science traditionally
taught through a combination of lectures and activities in a laboratory (e.g., biology, physics) or field
settings (e.g., ecology, geology, environmental sciences).</p>