i-manager Publications

Augmenting Teaching-Learning with Google Classroom: A Chemistry Vignette

Sangeetha Balakrishnan*

Department of Education in Science and Mathematics, Regional Institute of Education, Mysuru, India.

Periodicity:July - September'2021
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.18.2.17944

Abstract

This paper presents a personal account of the use of Google Classroom as a Learning Management System in the Chemistry theory and laboratory courses with the undergraduate students. Some useful features of the application are presented, with the focus on its affordances to create engaging learning environments. In its professed role in augmenting in-class activities, particular attention is given to tapping into students' creativity on Google Classroom. A brief segue is also made into our personal teaching philosophies as reflected in our everyday teaching- learning. The final word in this article may well be that the paper is a timely contribution to the annals of best teaching practices.

Keywords

Google Classroom, Learning Management System, Learning Environment.

How to Cite this Article?

Balakrishnan, S. (2021). Augmenting Teaching-Learning with Google Classroom: A Chemistry Vignette. i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology, 18(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.18.2.17944

References

[1]. Balakrishnan, S. (2018). Who Wants to Be a Chemist? Formative assessment made fun and engaging. Journal of Educational Technology, 15(2), 1-7.

[2]. Chen, B., & Denoyelles, A. (2013). Exploring students' mobile learning practices in higher education. Educause Review, 7(1), 36-43.

[3]. Dash, S. (2019). Google classroom as a learning management system to teach biochemistry in a medical school. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 47(4), 404-407.

[4]. de los Santos, G. E., & Rosser, W. (2020). COVID-19 shines a spotlight on the digital divide. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 53(1), 22-25.

[5]. Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: The Falmer Press.

[6]. Heggart, K., & Yoo, J. (2018). Getting the most from Google Classroom: A pedagogical framework for tertiary educators. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 140-153.

[7]. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2003). Evaluating the participation and quality of thinking of pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion environment: Part I. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(3), 247–262.

[8]. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Attracting student participation in asynchronous online discussions: A case study of peer facilitation. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1111-1124.

[9]. Hunt, L., Koenders, A., & Gynnild, V. (2012). Assessing practical laboratory skills in undergraduate molecular biology courses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(7), 861-874.

[10]. Jones, G. R. (1997). Cyber schools: An Education Renaissance, Jones Digital Century, Englewood, Colorado.

[11]. Kember, D. & Kwan, K.P. (2000). Lecturers' approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(5), 469 - 490.

[12]. Kirkland, W. L. (1997). Teaching Biology through creative writing: Integrating abstract biological concepts into narrative contexts makes science come alive for apprehensive non-majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(4), 277-279.

[13]. Laakso, M. J., Myller, N., & Korhonen, A. (2009). Comparing learning performance of students using algorithm visualizations collaboratively on different engagement levels. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 267-282.

[14]. Longo, C. (2010). Fostering creativity or teaching to the test? Implications of state testing on the delivery of science instruction. The Clearing House, 83(2), 54-57.

[15]. McGill, T. J., & Klobas, J. E. (2009). A task–technology fit view of learning management system impact. Computers & Education, 52(2), 496-508.

[16]. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

[17]. Nagy A. (2005). The Impact of E-Learning. In: Bruck P. A., Karssen Z., Buchholz A., Zerfass A. (eds) E-Content. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

[18]. Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported co-operative learning. Journal of the American Society for Information science, 48(6), 484-495.

[19]. Prashanti, E., & Ramnarayan, K. (2019). Ten maxims of formative assessment. Advances in Physiology Education, 43(2), 99-102.

[20]. Riess, W., & Mischo, C. (2010). Promoting systems thinking through biology lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 705-725.

[21]. Simpson-Beck, V. (2011). Assessing classroom assessment techniques. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(2), 125-132.

[22]. Stead, D. R. (2005). A review of the one-minute paper. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(2), 118-131.

[23].Torrance, E. P. (1981). Creative teaching makes a difference. In J. C. Gowan, J. Khatena, & E. P. Torrance (Eds.). Creativity: Its educational implications (pp. 99–108). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

[24]. UNESCO. (n.d.). Distance learning solutions.

If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Single Article

	North Americas,UK, Middle East,Europe		India	Rest of world
	USD	EUR	INR	USD-ROW
Online	15	15

ADD TO CART

Options for accessing this content:

If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.