Computerized Molecular Modeling as a Tool To Improve Chemistry Teaching

Abstract

The use of molecular models to illustrate and explore phenomena in chemistry teaching is widespread. However, only one type of model is usually used, and not enough emphasis is put on its meaning. The advantage of computerized molecular modeling (CMM) stems from the convenience and simplicity of building molecules of any size and color in a number of presentations. To expose chemistry teachers to the use of CMM we developed a 14 h workshop on models. It consists of an introduction to the model concept, using various types of models (including CMM) and experiencing ways to use them for illustrating chemical structure and bonding via team projects. This workshop has been incorporated into pre- and in-service training at the Department of Education in Technology and Science at the Technion since 1994. As a final project, teachers were asked to plan a session of 1−2 lessons by building a miniature database of molecules along with working instructions. The new methodology is based on using CMM through a special booklet, designed in a constructivist approach. During 1995, it was implemented in three tenth grade experimental classes with two other classes serving as a control group. Overall, teachers' attitudes toward using molecular modeling to improve chemistry teaching were favorable. The effect of using molecular modeling on students' understanding and constructing new concepts was investigated in relation to chemical structure and bonding as well as to geometric and symbolic representation. In two representative questions related to three-dimensional molecule structure, the experimental group performed better than the control group. Students' attitudes toward the use of CMM have also been found to be positive. Most of the students enjoyed using the new methodology and indicated it helped them understand concepts in molecular geometry and bonding.

Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning

“…A third factor is spatial relations and one of the examples is card rotation test (Barnea & Dori, 1996) in which participants must judge which of the figures are the same as the target figure. This factor is similar to spatial visualization in that spatial relations also require mental transformations, but differ in that they involve simpler manipulations (usually within a single step) of 2D objects and tend to emphasize speed (Carroll, 1993).…”

“…With rapid development of technology, more and more computer-based visualizing tools have been developed such as 4M:Chem (Kozma et al, 1996), Cache (Crouch, Holden, & Samet, 1996), Chemsense (Schank & Kozma, 2002), CMM (Barnea & Dori, 1996), and eChem (Wu, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2001). These tools can be generally categorized into three types: model construction tools, multimedia learning tools, and learning environments.…”

The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter

“…Computer-based technology is playing an increasing role in supporting teaching and learning activities, utilizing the dynamic, interactive, and multimodal capabilities of computer displays. Encouraging results have been reported for the various computer-based modeling programs that have been developed to improve student learning of chemistry (Ardac & Akaygun, 2004;Barnea & Dori, 1996;Kozma et al, 1996;Schank & Kozma, 2002;Wu, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2001). For example, Kozma et al (1996) incorporated multiple representations into the program MultiMedia and Mental Models (4M: Chem) to support the understanding of chemical equilibrium by college students.…”

An Online Questionnaire for Evaluating Students' and Teachers' Perceptions of Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environments

“…One way of promoting higher-order thinking skills (Horak, 1991) involves engaging students in investigations using interactive multimedia (Barnea & Dori, 1996;Edelson, 2001;Kozma, 2000;Kozma & Russell, 1997;Krajcik, Simmons, & Lunetta, 1988) within socially-interactive classrooms. In a study of the use and perceived usefulness of educational multimedia resources and communication technologies in a biology program for first-year university students, communication technologies were used more frequently for social interactions rather than for course-specific needs (Peat, Franklin, & Lewis, 2003).…”