Chemistry Education
Research and Practice
View Article Online
PAPER
View Journal
Cite this: DOI: 10.1039/c3rp20157k
Interactive simulations as implicit support for
guided-inquiry†
Downloaded on 02/04/2013 16:48:58.
Published on 02 April 2013 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/C3RP20157K
Emily B. Moore,*a Timothy A. Herzogb and Katherine K. Perkinsa
We present the results of a study designed to provide insight into interactive simulation use during
guided-inquiry activities in chemistry classes. The PhET Interactive Simulations project at the University
of Colorado develops interactive simulations that utilize implicit – rather than explicit – scaffolding to
support student learning through exploration and experimentation. In the study, 80 students in a
General Chemistry class were given ten minutes to explore the PhET simulation Molecule Polarity in selfselected groups, with no instructions on how to interact with the simulation. Using mouse click data,
audio recordings and clicker question responses, we investigated: students’ ability to use the simulation
by analyzing the extent to which they explored the simulation, the discussions students engaged in
during simulation use, and student perceptions of simulation use. We found effective simulation use,
with the 22 groups exploring an average of 18 of the 23 available features in Molecule Polarity. Sixtyfour percent of student utterances were part of on-topic (polarity) discussion segments, with most offtopic discussions being intermittent and brief. Students largely found the simulation useful for their
learning and experienced either brief or no frustration during sim exploration. These results indicate
Received 26th November 2012,
Accepted 27th February 2013
that students in large classes can use interactive simulations designed with implicit scaffolding through
DOI: 10.1039/c3rp20157k
simulation use. This work suggests that implicitly scaffolded interactive simulations can provide
exploration, and can do so without frustration overwhelming the perception of value brought by the
environments that support guided-inquiry learning and channel students into productive inquiry while
www.rsc.org/cerp
minimizing the need for explicit guidance.
Introduction
There is increasing development and use of simulations in
chemistry classrooms (Kozma et al., 1997; Abraham et al., 2001;
Stieff and Wilensky, 2003; Xie and Tinker, 2006; Plass et al., 2012).
Previous work has shown the importance of simulation design.
For example, the presence of text and audio, as well as the location
and presence of different types of representations affect student
interpretation and use of simulations (Clark and Mayer, 2007;
Stieff et al., 2011; Rodrigues, 2012; Rosenthal and Sanger, 2012).
How simulations are used in the classroom also plays an important role in its effectiveness. In particular, the amount and style of
guidance provided by the instructor and supporting materials are
key factors in how simulations are used and perceived by students
(Akaygun and Jones, 2013; Rutten et al., 2012).
a
University of Colorado Boulder, Department of Physics, Boulder, Colorado 80305,
USA. E-mail: [email protected]
b
Weber State University, Department of Chemistry, Ogden, Utah 84408, USA
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: 10.1039/
c3rp20157k
This journal is
c
The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
In inquiry-based learning, students engage in the processes
of sense making, discussing ideas, developing evidence-based
explanations, and communicating ideas rather than solely
being told the content. Substantial research indicates that
inquiry learning is an effective approach to learning science
(Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007; Furtak et al., 2012). In chemistry,
guided-inquiry techniques, including Process Oriented GuidedInquiry Learning (POGIL) (2012) and Peer-Lead Team Learning
(PLTL) (2012), are gaining popularity (Farrell et al., 1999; Lewis
and Lewis, 2005; Schroeder and Greenbowe, 2008; Quitadamo
et al., 2009; Lewis, 2011; Hein, 2012). With guided-inquiry,
students are provided specifically designed materials, and
experienced and/or trained facilitators guide them through
productive inquiry processes.
Evidence suggests that inquiry learning can be supported by
the use of computer simulations (Lee et al., 2010; Smetana and
Bell, 2011; Rutten et al., 2012). Simulations can provide
students with the opportunity to: interact with dynamic visualizations, allowing for focused exploratory inquiry; engage in
rapid feedback cycles, making cause and effect relationships
readily apparent; and utilize multiple representations, linking
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
View Article Online
Downloaded on 02/04/2013 16:48:58.
Published on 02 April 2013 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/C3RP20157K
Paper
macroscopic, microscopic and/or symbolic representations
around a single concept. In this work, we investigate how
students use and perceive use of an interactive simulation –
designed with implicit scaffolding – in a large chemistry class
when given no explicit use instructions.
The simulation used in this work is part of the PhET
Interactive Simulations suite, which includes a growing list of
over 30 chemistry specific simulations, available for free at
http://phet.colorado.edu (Lancaster et al., 2013, in press). PhET
interactive simulations (sims) are unique in that they are designed
specifically to support inquiry with minimal explicit guidance
through the use of implicit scaffolding. Implicit scaffolding is
scaffolding built into the design elements and interactivity of PhET
sims – resulting in students being guided without feeling guided
(Paul et al., 2012). Implicit scaffolding shifts the source of guidance
from explicit, such as a set of written instructions, to implicit, where
the guidance is in the form of affordances and constraints designed
into the sim (Gibson, 1977; Norman, 1988; Podolefsky et al.,
unpublished work). The design, location, accessibility, presence
(or absence) and interactivity of each representation and tool in the
sims are carefully selected to guide students into productive inquiry
without the need for additional text or auditory guidance within the
sim. Each sim is student tested extensively during the design
process, ensuring that its design is intuitive and supports student
inquiry without requiring explicit guidance from sim use instructions. This design approach allows for flexible use by enabling
support through a range of external guidance styles – from none or
minimally guided to highly guided.
This work details a baseline study of the interaction between
students and a PhET interactive sim in a large classroom
context – without explicit guidance from a written activity sheet
or from instructor facilitation. From this data we can determine
in a classroom context how students use the sim, perceive
use of the sim and where explicit guidance may be beneficial –
in the form of written questions to guide exploration and
instructor facilitation. To accomplish this task, we address
the following questions:
– Can students use the sim without instructions?
– Does the sim support content discussion?
– Do students perceive sim interaction as easy and useful, or
frustrating and unproductive?
Methods
Data was collected from a single class period on the topics of
molecule geometry and polarity. Students were organized into
self-selected groups, ranging from 1–4 students each, with most
groups consisting of 3 students. Data consisted of video,
observation notes, mouse click data and audio recordings from
the 25 student groups, and student responses to clicker questions on ‘ease-of-use’, ‘frustration’ and ‘usefulness of the sim
for learning’.
Class description
Data was collected from a class session in a General Chemistry I
course at a public university serving 23 000 students in the
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
western United States. The General Chemistry I course is the
first of a two-semester introduction to chemistry sequence
required for science majors. Students were expected to have
either completed a chemistry course in high school or taken a
college chemistry preparatory course prior to enrolling in
General Chemistry I. The class met four times per week for
50 minutes. There were 89 students enrolled in the course.
On the date of data collection, there were 80 students in
attendance, based on the number of clicker question responses
recorded. The course was taught utilizing POGIL-based
activities, where students worked in groups to complete written
activities, supplemented with the use of clicker questions,
instructor mini-lectures and online homework assignments.
Prior to this study, the course had covered the topics
of nomenclature, stoichiometry, chemical bonding, thermodynamics and periodic trends. The course had utilized the
following sims during in-class activities: States of Matter; Build
an Atom; Reactants, Products and Leftovers; and Molecule Shapes.
Each group was expected to bring at least one personal laptop
to class during activities involving sims.
Class structure. On the day of the study, class began with a
ten-minute mini-lecture reviewing the topic introduced in the
previous class, molecule geometry. To make the transition into
the topic of molecule polarity, the instructor described two
contrasting cases, water and nitrogen. He highlighted the
difference in mass and boiling point between the two molecules, indicating that the difference in boiling points cannot be
explained by the mass of the molecules, but can be explained by
the difference in attraction between the molecules. The instructor then described how to access the sim, and prompted
students to ‘‘Just play with that sim for five or ten minutes.
Think about how the molecule shape impacts the polarity. Try
to understand what’s going on as you play.’’ During this time
for exploration with the sim, a slide was displayed at the front
of the room with the prompt ‘‘Play with the polarity sim and
explore polarity. Try to understand how shape and polarity are
related.’’ Students were given a total of ten minutes – from the end of
the ‘‘Play. . .’’ prompt to the start of the next instructor’s class
prompt – to explore the sim in their groups without further
instructions. Students were then asked four clicker questions
regarding: sim ‘ease-of-use’, ‘frustration’ and ‘usefulness of the
sim for learning’. Students then began working through a 25-minute
POGIL-based guided-inquiry activity developed by the instructor.
Sim access. During previous sim uses, students were
prompted to download the sim onto their computers prior to
class. For the purposes of this study, we did not want students
to access the Molecule Polarity sim before the start of the
in-class data collection. For the day of the study, students
were prompted by email and in-class reminders to bring their
laptops, but were not told to download the sim. Considering
that students might be less likely to bring their laptop when not
told why it was needed, the instructor and researcher brought 7
additional laptop computers to class. At the start of class,
students were asked to have their laptops open. During the
molecule geometry mini-lecture, a researcher downloaded the
sim onto half of the students’ computers. The remaining
This journal is
c
The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Paper
students with laptops were given a USB flash drive containing
the sim, and were given instructions to download it and open it
at the start of the exploration time. At the start of the exploration time, the additional laptops were handed out to groups
that had not brought a computer, and to groups that had more
than four members – splitting these larger groups into two
smaller groups.
Downloaded on 02/04/2013 16:48:58.
Published on 02 April 2013 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/C3RP20157K
Sim description
The Molecule Polarity sim was designed to address the following
learning goals for students: predict bond polarity using electronegativity values, indicate polarity with an arrow or partial
charge symbols, rank bonds in order of polarity and predict
molecular polarity using bond polarity and molecule shape. To
target these goals, the sim was designed with three tabs (Fig. 1).
Two Atoms tab. Upon opening the sim, students see the Two
Atoms tab. Here, students can increase and decrease the
electronegativity of generic atoms, and see in real-time how
this action affects the bond dipole of the two atom molecule
through the change in direction and size of the bond dipole arrow.
When students select ‘‘Partial Charges,’’ d+ and d symbols appear
which change in size and sign as electronegativity values are
changed. When students select ‘‘Bond Character,’’ they can explore
how the relative electronegativity affects the ionic or covalent
character of the bond. Students can select the ‘‘Electrostatic
Potential’’ surface in which blue indicates a positive potential
and red indicates a negative potential or they can select the
‘‘Electron Density’’ surface in which darker shading indicates
greater electron density. When students turn on the electric
field, they can observe the relationship between polarity and
charge as they see how the molecule orients in the field. They
can rotate the molecule with the mouse and observe the
molecule as it returns to a preferred orientation. This visualization allows students to see a physical effect that results from the
polarity – a physical property – of the molecule.
Three Atoms tab. In the Three Atoms tab, the same basic
controls are used, but students can now explore how the relative
electronegativity and orientation of three atoms affect the molecular dipole. Students can adjust the bond angle and the electronegativity of each atom and observe the bond angles, bond dipole,
molecular dipole, and partial charges. When students turn on the
electric field, they can observe the relationship between polarity
and charge as they see how the molecule orients in the field. With
the additional complexity of three atoms, the critical distinction
between molecular dipole and bond dipole can be elucidated.
Real Molecules tab. In the Real Molecules tab, students can
select from 19 molecules and explore their bond dipoles,
molecular dipole, and partial charges in three dimensions. As
a result, students are able to discover how symmetry and
relative electronegativity work together to determine the polarity
of a molecule. By selecting ‘‘Atom Electronegativities,’’ students
are provided with a table that highlights the electronegativity of
each atom in the molecule, thus providing an opportunity to
relate electronegativity to the location of atoms in the periodic
table. Students can rotate the molecules in three dimensions,
which is particularly useful for a tetrahedral molecule such as
This journal is
c
The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
Fig. 1 Two Atoms (upper), Three Atoms (middle) and Real Molecule (lower)
tabs of the Molecule Polarity sim.
CF4, which consists of symmetrical out-of-plane bond dipoles,
but no molecular dipole.
Through interaction with the electronegativity of the
molecule’s atoms, the Molecule Polarity sim allows for
students to connect the symbols used by chemists to denote
polarity with the physical meaning of electronegativity. For
example, connecting large bond dipoles to large differences
in electronegativity.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
View Article Online
Paper
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Downloaded on 02/04/2013 16:48:58.
Published on 02 April 2013 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/C3RP20157K
Sim data
For 22 student groups, we collected the features – tools and
representations – students clicked on and the time of the clicks.
Note that students were not given explicit instructions on how
to interact with the sim, e.g., students were not instructed to
click on specific features. Students’ use of the sim involves
many individual interactions, including repeating actions
to make comparisons. For example, in the Two Atoms tab,
students tend to move the electronegativity sliders from ‘‘less’’
to ‘‘more’’ and back many times, while observing the effect of
this change on the bond dipole. In one group (highlighted in
the transcript example in the Results section), the students
clicked a total of 74 times during the exploration time, and
used a total of 18 features. In this analysis, we focus on the use
of features for the first time, to determine the range of
exploration with respect to the available features. For example,
changing the electronegativity of Atom A for the first time
would count as a use of that electronegativity slider on that
tab. Further uses of the same feature on the same tab are not
included in the analysis below. Collection of this data required
students have the wireless Internet enabled on their computer
at the start of sim use. Sim use for three student groups was not
collected, likely due to a lack of Internet connection.
Sim features. Students can interact with many features
within the three tabs of Molecule Polarity (Table 1). For the
purposes of this analysis, we consider the use of 23 features not
‘on’ by default upon opening the sim. For example, when
students open the sim, they view the Two Atom tab with the
Table 1
Simulation features and their use during exploration time
Feature usea (%)
22 groups in total
Two Atoms tab: 8 total features
Atom A electronegativity slider
Atom B electronegativity slider
Molecule rotation
Partial charges checkbox
Bond character checkbox
Electrostatic potential radio button
Electron density radio button
Electric field radio button
95
95
68
91
82
95
86
68
Three Atoms tab: 8 total features
Atom A electronegativity slider
Atom B electronegativity slider
Atom C electronegativity slider
Molecule rotation
ABC-angle change
Bond dipole checkbox
Partial charges checkbox
Electric field radio button
73
77
82
36
36
45
55
64
Real Molecules tab: 7 total features
Dropdown menu of molecules
Bond dipole checkbox
Molecular dipole
Partial charges checkbox
Atom electronegativities checkbox
Electrostatic potential radio button
Electron density radio button
a
95
100
100
100
95
100
100
% of groups that used feature at least once during exploration time.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
‘‘Bond Dipole’’ view selected. While the ‘‘Bond Dipole’’ view is a
feature that students can interact with, we are interested in the
features that students choose to interact with.
In the Two Atom tab we consider a total of 8 features.
Students are able to change the electronegativity of atoms A
and B from ‘‘less’’ to ‘‘more’’ using sliders, as well as rotate the
diatomic molecule. Students can view the bond character (a scale
from ‘‘more ionic’’ to ‘‘more covalent’’) and partial charges of the
atoms. They can also choose to view either the electron density
or electrostatic potential surfaces and turn on an electric field
(with which the diatomic will align). The Three Atoms tab
contains similar features, with the ability to change the electronegativity of a third atom using a slider and change the bond
angle of the triatomic by dragging any of the atoms. This design
results in a total of 8 features in the Three Atoms tab.
The Real Molecules tab contains a dropdown box, from
which students can select different molecules to view inside
an embedded Jmol (2012) window. Students can add to the view
the bond dipoles, molecular dipole, partial charges and electronegativities, as well as view the electrostatic potential and
electron density surfaces. This design results in a total of 7
features in the Real Molecules tab, outside of the Jmol window.
We did not count the ‘‘Reset All’’, ‘‘File’’, ‘‘Options’’ or ‘‘Help’’
features for any tab or the interactions available inside the Real
Molecules Jmol window.
Screencapture data
Seven computers, supplied by the instructor and researcher,
were equipped with the screencapture software, Camtasia
(2012). This software recorded the computer screen during
students’ use, while simultaneously recording audio. This
screen capture data was used to provide the details of student
interaction with the sim during student discussion for the
transcript presented in the Results section.
Audio data
Each student group was given a digital audio recorder. Audio
recordings of the exploration portion of the class from a total of 23
groups were transcribed. The remaining two ‘groups’ consisted of
single students who did not talk during their sim use.
Because students were typically using the sim while discussing,
which sometimes resulted in pauses in verbalizations, audio data
was analyzed for topics of discussion rather than episodes of
continuous discussion. These topics were consolidated into the
following topic categories: ‘group arrangement’ (typically prior to
opening the sim), ‘polarity’, ‘polarity with instructor’, ‘school’ or
‘other’. Table 2 shows example transcript excerpts of student
discussion from each of the five topic categories.
Each transcript was subdivided into segments of discussion
on a single topic. Each segment had to contain utterances –
individual continuous verbalizations – from at least two
students. For example, this exchange – S1: ‘Cause that’s more
electronegative? S2: Mm-hmm. – consists of two utterances on
the topic of ‘polarity’. For a more detailed example of coding
and the coding rubric, see the ESI† materials. The authors
developed the coding rubric; two researchers – one had not
This journal is
c
The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Downloaded on 02/04/2013 16:48:58.
Published on 02 April 2013 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/C3RP20157K
Table 2
Paper
Topic category examples
Number of
utterances
Topic
Example transcript
Group arrangement (typically prior
to sim use):
Where to put the computer, who is
‘clicking’, etc.
S1: We did a lot of clicking yesterday. If you would like to do some clicking—that didn’t last
very long. S1: I think I’m gonna scootch over, make it easier. S1: Ok.
3
Polarity:
Sim, polarity & related topics
S1: Now I’m not sure what the electric field is showing. Oh, there we go. S2: Oh. S1: OK.
So it is showing its attraction. OK. S2: Yeah, so this one’s more attracted to the positive,
this one’s more attracted. . . OK, that makes sense.
4
Polarity with Instructor:
Polarity-related discussion between
instructor & student
I: Uh-huh. So this molecular dipole, that’s the overall, like, in balance, in charge present
in that molecule. S: OK. So since this is fluorine, it’s gonna pull that way all the time,
pretty much? I: Yup. S: Yup.
4
School:
Homework, Lab, etc. (Includes
non-chemistry courses)
S1: What tutor do you have? S2: I have [name], same one, right? S1: All three of us, right?
You got [name]? S2: Really? No way. That’s awesome.
4
Other:
Discussion not classified above
S1: I didn’t work yesterday morning. I usually work at 5. I slept until 10. I cleaned my room.
I found $10 cleaning my room. S2: Nice. S1: Did all my laundry. It was really nice.
3
observed the data collection and had not participated in
developing the coding rubric – completed the coding independently. The agreement between the coding of the 1832 total
utterances into discussion segments was 91%. The agreement
between the coding of each of the 141 total discussion
segments into the topic categories was 94%.
Clicker response data
Immediately after exploration time, individual student
responses to a series of questions were collected using personal
response devices, i.e. clickers. The questions probed: sim ‘easeof-use’, ‘frustration’ and ‘usefulness of the sim for learning.’
Results and discussion
Sim use
As an indicator of effective sim use, we present results on how
many sim features – tools and representations – the students
used during the ten minutes of exploration time. Fig. 2 shows
the students’ new use of features, in five second increments,
during the ten minutes of exploration time. Each line in Fig. 2
corresponds to one group’s use of new features over time for
that tab, each circle indicates the use of a new feature. Students
began interacting with the Two Atoms tab (Fig. 2, top panel),
indicated by the heavy new use of features for this tab from 0–3
minutes. After using most or all of the tab’s eight features,
students moved on to the Three Atoms (Fig. 2, middle panel)
and Real Molecules tabs (Fig. 2, lower panel). This tendency
results in a cluster of interactions at the beginning of the
exploration time (0–3 minutes) for the Two Atoms tab, while
the Three Atoms and Real Molecules tabs have group use
spread out over minutes 2 through 9. From audio analysis
(detailed in the next section) we find that students began
interacting with the sim immediately once it opened on their
computer screen. The offsets in first feature use for some
groups in Fig. 2 are due to the variation in sim access rather
than a delay in interaction – some students had the sim already
This journal is
c
The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
downloaded to their desktop and available for opening once
prompted, while others had to be given the USB flash drive and
download the sim before opening it.
The average number of new features – out of 23 available –
students interacted with during the ten minutes of exploration
time is shown in Table 3. Students used the most features in
the Two Atoms (6.8 out of 8 features) and the Real Molecules
tabs (6.9 out of 7 features). The Three Atoms tab has similar
features to the Two Atoms tab, which may explain the lower
new feature use for the Three Atoms tab (4.6 out of 8 features).
Students may have explored the Two Atoms tab to the extent
they felt necessary and then only used the features of the Three
Atoms tab that seemed relevant to the students’ inquiry. Of the
eight student groups that explored four or less features of the
Three Atoms tab, five groups had fully explored the Two Atoms
tab and the remaining three groups had explored at least five
features in the Two Atoms tab. Four groups did not explore the
Three Atoms tab at all, though these same groups explored the
Two Atoms tab and Real Molecules tab fully. These four groups
may have ‘jumped ahead’ to investigate the Real Molecules tab,
and then run out of exploration time before being naturally
inclined to ‘go back’ to investigate the Three Atoms tab.
While groups used the majority of features at least once
during exploration time, a few features were unexplored by
many groups (Table 2). One of the most commonly unexplored
features of the Three Atoms tab was the ABC-Angle Change –
dragging of an atom to change the bond angle. This feature is
particularly useful for exploring molecular dipole. Only five
of the groups (36%) explored this feature. This suggests that
a guided-inquiry activity question – e.g., ‘‘How does the
ABC-bond angle effect molecule polarity?’’ – or a prompt –
e.g., ‘‘Create a rule for predicting how a change of the ABC-bond
angle will effect the molecule polarity.’’ – would be beneficial in
guiding students to explore this productive sim interaction.
During the ten minutes of exploration with the Molecule
Polarity sim, students interacted with the sim and explored
most or all of the available features. This finding indicates that
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
View Article Online
Paper
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
provides insight into how students used the sim – sequentially
from the first tab to the last tab. This usage pattern suggests
that an accompanying guided-inquiry activity might best support the inquiry process promoted through sim design by
encouraging exploration of the sim without specific use instructions (which this study suggests may not be necessary) and by
posing conceptual questions in a sequence from the first tab to
the last before asking students to refer to tabs out of order. An
example annotated guided-inquiry activity is provided in the
ESI materials.†
Downloaded on 02/04/2013 16:48:58.
Published on 02 April 2013 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/C3RP20157K
Student discussion
Fig. 2 New feature use in the Two Atoms, Three Atoms and Real Molecules
tabs. Each line corresponds to one group’s use of new features on that tab, circles
indicate new feature use.
Here we analyze the student discussion data during the ten
minutes of exploration time, providing insight into the types of
discussion the sim use supported. Each group was given an audio
recorder, allowing analysis of all group discussions. First we present
a single transcript, qualitatively highlighting some of the ways the
sim supported discussion on the topic of ‘polarity’. We then present
a quantitative summary of all the transcripts, focusing on the range
of topics discussed and the amount of discussion on the topic of
‘polarity’ that occurred during sim exploration.
This transcript was selected as representative of student
exploration with minimal ‘school’ or ‘other’ topic discussion.
It was recorded using screen capture software, allowing for
detailed descriptions of sim use synced with student utterances. This group consisted of two male students. We present
the full transcript from the time the sim opened on the
students’ computer screen until the point the instructor ends
the exploration time. The only utterances not included in the
transcript occurred prior to the students opening the sim: four
utterances referring to a chemistry lab assignment. These two
students were originally part of a larger group that spanned two
seating levels in the classroom, but were given a computer and
asked to form their own group about two minutes into the
exploration time. They had not seen the Molecule Polarity sim in
their previous group configuration, as they were on the lower
level from the student with the computer. During exploration
time, Student 1 (S1) controlled the interaction with the computer. Time is indicated in the (min:sec) format, with respect to
the start of exploration time.
2:21
Table 3
Tab
Possible
features
Average features used SDMa SEMb
Two Atoms
8
Three Atoms
8
Real Molecules 7
All tabs
23
a
Molecule Polarity opens to the Two Atoms tab.
Feature use
Standard deviation of mean.
6.8
4.6
6.9
18.0
b
1.5
2.6
0.3
3.0
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.6
Standard error of mean.
the design of the sim is intuitive for students – supporting the
exploration of features – even in a large classroom context
where groups did not have access to written instructions or an
instructor for guidance. Analysis of the use of new features also
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
S1 began by exploring the electronegativity sliders, and
making sense of how this affected the bond dipole arrow.
2:23 S1: OK. So. OK. So let’s see here. [increases Atom B electronegativity to maximum] I’m just messin’ around.
2:42 S2: I think that’s what we’re supposed to do right now.
[increases to maximum then decreases to minimum Atom A
electronegativity]
2:50 S1: OK. So if electron, err, if atom A is more electronegative
[increases Atom A electronegativity]—what does this mean?
2:59 S2: That’s the—
3:00 S1: That means it [the bond dipole arrow] gets smaller?
[moves Atom A electronegativity higher, then lower]
This journal is
c
The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
View Article Online
Downloaded on 02/04/2013 16:48:58.
Published on 02 April 2013 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/C3RP20157K
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
3:01 S2: Yeah.
3:06 S1: OK, and the same thing here. [moves Atom B electronegativity slider higher, then lower] OK, so the less electronegative that is and the more that is, the farther apart
they’re gonna be. And if you bring ‘em [electronegativity
sliders for Atom A and Atom B] closer together [moves Atom
B electronegativity lower and Atom A electronegativity higher]—OK. [moves Atom A electronegativity slider higher and
lower] Oh, it switches [direction of bond dipole arrow].
‘Cause that’d be more [Atom A’s electronegativity] and
that’d be less [Atom B’s electronegativity]. [selects ‘‘Partial
Charges’’, then moves Atom A electronegativity to minimum
and Atom B electronegativity to maximum]
3:39 S1: Makes sense, all right.
3:40 S2: Yeah.
The size, color, location and interactivity of the sim’s
features indicated to the students that a place to start exploration was the electronegativity sliders. This slider interaction led
to their observation that atom electronegativity affected the
magnitude and direction of the bond dipole. Students then
explored the relationship between atom electronegativity and
the bond dipole.
Notice how the students were sense making through interaction with the sim, rather than observing some behavior and
then sense making. When using the sim, students are in
control of the feedback they get; they can pause in their
interaction, redo a particular interaction, extend an interaction
by going to larger extremes and explore other features, as their
inquiry requires. We think that this direct interactivity with the
features in the sim supports sense making with the representations, not just about the representations.
S1 started this sim use by changing one electronegativity
slider slightly, then exploring the range of the second electronegativity slider. Then he compared the behavior over a range
of electronegativity values for each atom. S1 seemed surprised
upon observing that his changing of one atom’s electronegativity resulted in the bond dipole changing direction, but was
quickly able to make sense of this behavior by noting that
this interaction had resulted in switching which atom had the
higher and lower electronegativity. Next, the students related
this effect of the atom electronegativity to what they had
learned previously in chemistry class about the periodic table.
3:41 S1: Is this done with the periodic table? Like, why that
[partial charge] would be positive and that [partial charge]
would be negative?
3:48 S2: Yeah.
3:49 S1: ‘Cause that’s more electronegative?
3:51 S2: Mm-hmm.
3:53 S1: OK. And doesn’t—electronegativity goes like that right?
3:59 S2: Yeah.
S1 actively connected his understanding from exploring the
sim – the electronegativity of bonded atoms affects the partial
charges of the atoms – to the previously introduced course topic
of periodic trends, which likely included an up-and-to-the-right
This journal is
c
The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
Paper
gesture to indicate the trend of increasing electronegativity
coupled with the utterance at 3:53. The students then moved
on to exploring the bond character.
[selects ‘‘Bond Character’’, moves Atom A electronegativity
from ‘less’ to ‘more’ slowly, sim shows change in bond
character from ionic to covalent]
4:00 S1: OK. Ionic—so what would cause it to be covalent? Does
that mean that they would have to be—
4:16 S2: —the same.
4:17 S1: —on the same side, right?
4:18 S2: Of the same atom, I think. The last two O’s.
4:22 S1: OK, which makes sense, ‘cause they’re both the same
with the negative. So if you were to go here [moves Atom A
electronegativity from ‘more’ to the middle] and there [moves
Atom B electronegativity from ‘more’ to the middle’], it’s still
gonna be covalent. OK. [moves Atom B electronegativity from
middle to ‘more’, moves Atom A electronegativity from the
middle to ‘more’, pauses, and then from ‘more’ to the middle]
In this excerpt, the students made a prediction – when the
electronegativity of two bonded atoms are the same, the bond
will always be covalent – and tested it with the sim. The
students then moved on to the ‘‘Electrostatic Potential’’ and
‘‘Electron Density’’ views, and were confronted with a challenge
interpreting the ‘‘Electron Density’’ view.
[Selects ‘‘Electrostatic Potential’’ view]
4:50 S1: OK, that makes sense, dealing with the charge. [selects
‘‘Electron Density’’ view, moves Atom A electronegativity from
middle to ‘less’]
5:08 S1: OK, so electron density deals with electronegativity, the
more dense it is, it has a higher electronegativity, right?
Why is that? I don’t know, either.
S1 was able to determine a relationship, the higher the
electronegativity the higher the electron density, but was not
able to make sense of exactly what the ‘‘Electron Density’’
surface view represented. The students decided to move on to
the Three Atoms tab rather than explore this question further
on the Two Atoms tab. In the Three Atoms tab, the students
investigated to make sense of the ‘‘Molecular Dipole’’ arrow.
5:35 Selects Three Atoms tab.
5:37 S1: [rotates molecule] Oh, wow. [moves Atom C electronegativity from ‘less’ to middle, pauses, then moves to ‘more’]
5:42 S1: OK.
5:50 S1: So what is this [molecular dipole arrow] pointing to?
I’m trying to think how this works here. [moves Atom C
electronegativity from ‘more’ to ‘less’] More, less—[moves
Atom B electronegativity from the middle to ‘less’ then to
‘more’, then back to the middle, moves Atom C electronegativity from ‘more’ to the middle, pauses, then to ‘less’,
selects ‘‘Partial Charges’’, then ‘‘Bond Dipole’’]
6:26 S1: OK. So those are just like when we were lookin’ at the
two [Two Atoms tab].
6:35 S2: Yeah.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
View Article Online
Paper
Downloaded on 02/04/2013 16:48:58.
Published on 02 April 2013 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/C3RP20157K
6:37 S1: So it’s always gonna be pointing towards the negative.
And then what does this [molecular dipole] signify?
6:46 S2: The dipole. I guess that’s—I don’t know.
6:51 S1: I don’t know how to explain that.
6:53 S2: Maybe the sum of the two bond dipoles.
6:55 S1: uh huh. [deselects ‘‘Molecular Dipole’’]
Notice how S1 explored first, rotating the molecule and
changing electronegativity multiple times, then started to use
the tools in the toolbar. When S1 got to the ‘‘Bond Dipole’’ tool,
he recognized that this arrow representation is the same as in
the Two Atom tab. Then S1 tried to make sense of ‘‘Molecular
Dipole’’ arrow with the ‘‘Bond Dipole’’ arrows showing, asking
what does it ‘‘signify’’. Their first vocalized attempt to make
sense of the ‘‘Molecular Dipole’’ is to name it, using the arrow
label in the toolbar. They seemed to find simply naming the
arrow unsatisfactory. S1 probed further, indicating a missing
ability to ‘‘explain’’ what the dipole arrow was (utterance at 6:51).
S2 contributed a key idea to the concept of molecular dipole,
suggesting that the relationship between the bond dipoles –
which they seemed comfortable with – and the molecular dipole
is that the latter is the sum of the former. S1 agreed.
Though the students did not explore this concept further on this
tab, with the support provided by the sim – the scaffolding provided
by the first tab, the juxtaposition of dipole representations, the
ability to choose the representations – the students were able to
construct an idea, albeit tentative, of what a molecular dipole arrow
represented. This idea could be further developed during a guidedinquiry activity, with guidance in the form of a written question
supplemented by instructor facilitation.
7:04 Selects Real Molecules tab.
7:09 S1: HF.
7:14 S1: So the arrow should be pointing that way, OK? [selects
‘‘Bond Dipole’’, then ‘‘Molecule Dipole’’] Same with that.
Partial charge, positive–negative, right? [selects ‘‘Partial
Charges’’, deselects, then selects, selects ‘‘Atom
Electronegativities’’]
7:38 S1: Yep, yeah that makes sense. [selects ‘‘Electrostatic
Potential’’ view]
7:45 S2: OK and that deals with the electronegativity it would be
higher and with the density—[selects ‘‘Electron Density’’
view, selects ‘‘Reset All’’]
7:58 S1: OK, I know this [selects H2 molecule] should be a
covalent bond. [selects ‘‘Bond Dipole’’, then deselects ‘‘Bond
Dipole’’, selects ‘‘Molecular Dipole’’ then deselects ‘‘Molecular Dipole’’, selects "Partial Charges", then deselects then
selects ‘‘Partial Charges’’ again]
8:47 S1: So it’s all the same, [selects ‘‘Molecular Dipole’’, then
‘‘Bond Dipole’’] which makes sense. [Turns ‘‘Atom Electronegativities’’ on.]
9:31 S1: All right. [reads] So what factors—
Instructor ends exploration time.
On the Real Molecules tab, the students focused on checking
their understanding. S1 made a prediction regarding the bond
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
dipole, and then checked it by turning on the ‘‘Bond Dipole’’ arrow.
He also checked the direction of the ‘‘Molecular Dipole’’. If the
‘‘Molecular Dipole’’ arrow had pointed in a direction not consistent
with their previous discussion about its meaning, this arrow could
have prompted the students to discuss it further to incorporate any
new behavior into their previous description, or they could have
decided to not discuss further and perhaps categorized ‘‘Molecular
Dipole’’ as a topic with which they need further assistance.
After successfully predicting dipole direction and electronegativity for two molecules, the group pauses sim interaction –
possibly listening to a loud discussion in a neighboring group –
and then S1 began to read the prompt that had been projected
at the front of the room during exploration. The instructor
interrupted by prompting students to start answering the
clicker questions regarding their sim use experience.
Throughout this sim use, the students interacted with the
sim heavily, explored the various tabs and features available,
discussed, engaged in sense making and ended by making
predictions that utilized knowledge gained during the exploration time. While this group was consistent in their discussion
about polarity throughout the exploration time, we observed
many other groups engaging in the same style of sim use, with
varying amounts of non-polarity discussion mixed in.
We now present results regarding the amount of polarity and
non-polarity discussion across all of the student groups in
Table 4. Each of the 23 group audio recordings was transcribed,
and each transcript was subdivided into discussion segments,
based on the topic of discussion – resulting in 141 discussion
segments across the 23 student groups. Each of these discussion
segments was coded as consisting of one of five topics (Table 2):
‘group arrangement’ (typically prior to sim use), ‘polarity’,
‘polarity with instructor’, ‘school’ and ‘other’. Each transcript
contained an average of six discussion segments (ranging from
2–12 segments) and 80 utterances (ranging from 23–143 utterances). Individual utterances ranged from a single interjection
up to 80 words in length, consisting of multiple sentences.
While the instructor had not intended to participate in
discussions during the exploration time, two groups asked
the instructor direct questions, and the instructor responded,
resulting in the small number of ‘polarity with instructor’
discussion segments. The majority of the discussions consisted
of segments on ‘polarity’ (38%), ‘school’ (15%) and ‘other’
(27%). There was a moderate amount of ‘group arrangement’
discussion segments, virtually all prior to the opening or start
of use of the sim. Interestingly, even though ‘school’ and ‘other’
segments made up a combined 42% of the total discussion
Table 4
Topics of discussion segments and utterances
Discussion segments (%)
141 in total
Topic
Group arrangement
(prior to sim use)
Polarity
Polarity with instructor
School
Other
Utterances (%)
1832 in total
16
6
38
4
15
27
62
2
10
20
This journal is
c
The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
View Article Online
Downloaded on 02/04/2013 16:48:58.
Published on 02 April 2013 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/C3RP20157K
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
segments, they only made up a combined 30% of the total
utterances. In comparison, chemistry concept discussion made
up 38% of the discussion segments, but 62% of the total utterances, more than twice that of the ‘school’ and ‘other’ utterances.
Most utterances were made during discussion segments about
‘polarity’, while ‘school’ and ‘other’ discussions segments contained comparatively less utterances. The average number of
utterances in ‘polarity’ topics was 21 (ranging from 2–85 utterances
per segment), compared to an average of 10 utterances for the
‘other’ segments (ranging from 2–49 utterances per segment).
These results are consistent with our general observations that
the student groups discussed primarily the topic of polarity with
some brief and intermittent non-polarity discussions.
The number of utterances on a specific topic does not necessarily
indicate amount of time spent on that topic. For example, in the
transcript above, the students were not necessarily verbalizing
during the time they were interacting with the sim, even when
the sim interactions indicated active sense making about polarity.
After first changing from the Two Atoms to the Three Atoms tab (at
5:35), nearly a minute went by during which there were only three
utterances (from 5:35–6:26), even though interaction with the sim
was consistent and systematic. In contrast, when the students were
discussing the relationship between electronegativity and the periodic table (3:41–3:59) less than twenty seconds went by during
which there were six utterances. From observations and audio
recording analysis it was common across groups that sim interaction resulted in pauses in conversation, suggesting that the
amount of time spent on the topic of polarity was even greater than
would be inferred based solely on the number of conversation
segments or utterances.
Clicker question results
With the sim data and audio recorders, we were able to capture
data that indicated what sim features students interacted with
Table 5
Paper
and what the students discussed. Student resistance to innovation in the classroom has been reported in the literature
(Phelps, 1996; Hein, 2012), so we also wanted to know if
students found the experience of using the sim with minimal
instruction easy and useful, or frustrating and useless. Here, we
present data on student perceptions of sim use, based on
responses to clicker questions asked immediately after exploration time (Table 5). Most students (70%) indicated that the sim
was ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to use. The remaining students
responded ‘neutral’, with no students responding that the
sim was difficult to use. This is consistent with observations
of the class during the exploration time and analysis of the
audio data; students were predominately using the sim and
discussing the sim topic, not discussing how to use the sim.
Regarding usefulness for learning and frustration, a large
majority of students (92%) responded that the sim would be
‘somewhat’ to ‘very’ useful for their learning, and when asked if
they felt frustrated during sim use, only 11% of students
responded ‘‘Yes’’. When asked to describe any frustration
with the sim, 57% of students responded that they had no
frustration, with 33% responding that they had experienced
‘very brief’ frustration. The ‘no frustration’ and ‘very brief
frustration’ responders made up 96% of students that
responded ‘‘No’’ to the previous yes/no frustration question.
Only 3% of students indicated feeling frustrated ‘for a significant amount of time’.
Possible study limitations
Prior to this study, students had used four PhET sims with
in-class activities. Student experience with the Molecule Polarity
sim could have been affected by these previous uses of PhET
sims, making the results we present dependent on prior
experience with PhET sims. We feel this does not diminish
the results, as informal feedback from PhET users suggests
Responses to clicker questions asked immediately after exploration time
Category
Question/prompt
Multiple choice options
Response (%)
Ease-of-use (N = 80)
The molecule polarity simulation was. . .
Very easy to use
Easy to use
Neutral
Difficult to use
Very difficult to use
29
41
30
0
0
Usefulness for learning (N = 76)
How useful do you think the simulation was or
will be for your learning?
Very useful
Useful
Somewhat useful
Mostly useless
Completely useless
8
37
47
7
1
Frustration (N = 80)
While playing with the molecule polarity simulation,
did you feel frustrated?
No
Yes
89
11
Frustration description (N = 79)
Which best describes any frustration you might have
had while using the Molecule Polarity simulation:
I was not frustrated at all.
I was very briefly frustrated.
I was frustrated for a short
amount of time.
I was frustrated for a significant
amount of time.
I was frustrated for more than
half the time.
57
33
8
This journal is
c
The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
3
0
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
View Article Online
Downloaded on 02/04/2013 16:48:58.
Published on 02 April 2013 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/C3RP20157K
Paper
that it is common for instructors to use more than one sim
during a course.
It is also possible that the explicit presence of audio recorders could have lead students to engage differently with the sim
than they would have without the presence of audio recorders.
While it is impossible to know exactly what affect the
audio recorders had on student behavior, instructor and observing researcher noted that student behavior appeared
consistent with previous observations of classroom sim
use without audio recorders. As described in the Student
Discussion Section, a range of student discussion topics were
recorded, suggesting that students felt comfortable having both
on-topic and off-topic discussions.
The role of implicit scaffolding
We posit that the implicit scaffolding designed into the sim
supported students’ use, discussion and perceptions through
multiple mechanisms. To highlight examples of what we consider to be support provided by implicit scaffolding, we focus
on a specific case – student’s use of the Three Atoms tab shown
in the transcript above (minutes 2:21–6:55). We believe that the
sim’s Two Atoms tab implicitly scaffolded the students’
productive interactions with the Three Atoms tab – concluding
that the molecular dipole is the sum of the bond dipoles –
through: (1) consistent design, (2) perceived ‘challenges’ and (3)
location of features across the two tabs.
The consistency across design features and layout between
the Two Atoms and Three Atoms tab could serve to minimize
cognitive load. On the Two Atoms tab, students interacted with
many of the same features available on the Three Atoms tab.
Thus, when switching to the Three Atoms tab, students would
have been familiar with many of the features, allowing
increased cognitive attention for sense making. In addition,
this consistency in design could also serve to cue students to
look for and focus on what features are new.
The sim was also designed to implicitly scaffold students to
attend to increasingly difficult – though related – challenges,
through the selection of available representations. The Two
Atoms tab was designed specifically to implicitly scaffold
students towards an understanding of bond dipoles, a component of the concept of molecular dipole. The students in the
transcript first attended to the ‘challenge’ of making sense of
the bond dipole with the sim, indicated by the effect of their
first action with the Two Atoms tab (moving the atom electronegativity sliders): a noticeable change in the bond dipole
arrow representation. Upon moving to the Three Atoms tab,
students encountered a similar scenario, interaction with the
atom electronegativity sliders effected an arrow representation
– bond dipole, but in this Three Atoms tab the effected arrow is
the molecular dipole. The students perceived the ‘challenge’ to
complete while on the Three Atoms tab was to make sense of
this new arrow representation. This perception of ‘challenge’
serves affective as well as conceptual goals. The students not
only perceived a specific conceptual goal while using the sim,
but successful completion of a perceived ‘challenge’ provides
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
a positive sense making experience for the students. This
positive experience could serve to increase students’ intrinsic
motivation to seek out other conceptual ‘challenges’. In the
example transcript, the students’ successful completion of the
‘challenge’ of making sense of the bond dipole arrow (indicated
by utterances at 3:39 and 3:40) could have contributed to their
motivation to persist through the ‘challenge’ of sense making
with the molecular dipole arrow.
The location of tools in the Three Atoms tab could also have
played a key role in implicitly scaffolding students sense
making. To make sense of the molecular polarity arrow, the
students utilized the ability to juxtapose the ‘‘Molecular
Dipole’’ arrow with the ‘‘Bond Dipole’’ arrow they had
previously explored successfully. The ‘‘Bond Dipole’’ checkbox
was intentionally located just below the ‘‘Molecular Dipole’’
checkbox, because it is a conceptually related representation
and the location near the top of the toolbox is where students
typically start tool exploration (based on student interviews
during sim development). The location made the ‘‘Bond
Dipole’’ checkbox readily accessible when students began
looking for tools to assist their sense making process.
Thus, while PhET sims avoid embedded directions, they
provide significant scaffolding for students’ interactions,
through the design.
Conclusion
In this study, students were given ten minutes of exploration
time with a PhET interactive sim – without explicit instructions
on sim use. During this exploration time, students interacted
with the majority of features available and engaged in chemistry content (molecule polarity) discussions with intermittent
‘school’ or ‘other’ discussions. After the exploration time, the
majority of students indicated that use of the sim was easy,
productive for their learning, and occurred without frustration.
Data on sim feature use indicates that students in large
lecture classes can use implicitly scaffolded sims without
explicit instructions on how to use the sim. From analysis
of audio transcripts, we found that students engaged in content-rich discussions while being supported by the implicitly
scaffolded interactive sim. This result suggests that it is
possible to have effective guided-inquiry group work in a large
lecture setting while minimizing the need for explicit instructions. This finding opens up opportunities, as well as further
questions, about the possible roles interactive simulations can
play in a guided-inquiry curriculum.
These findings suggest several promising avenues for
further research with the potential to lead to new classroom
innovations, such as detailed investigations of the mechanisms
through which implicit scaffolding can support productive
inquiry, and ways to effectively couple and facilitate guidedinquiry activities with interactive simulations. With less explicit
instructions, students could feel more autonomous and more
competent while engaging in productive guided-inquiry with
the supports provided by an interactive simulation. This
change in students’ role could also result in increased interest
This journal is
c
The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
in chemistry by students. Use of the supports provided by the
PhET sims might also allow students the opportunity to experience self-directed exploration and development of science
concepts in a classroom, which may shift their epistemological
framing of the classroom experience towards learning as
actively engaging rather than passively participating or following directions. (Bing and Redish, 2012)
Downloaded on 02/04/2013 16:48:58.
Published on 02 April 2013 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/C3RP20157K
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of
Sam Reid for sim data collection and analysis, Jesse Garrison
for his assistance in analysis of the audio transcripts and
the development team for the Molecule Polarity interactive
simulation, with design lead by Kelly Lancaster and software
development by Chris Malley. This work was funded by the
National Science Foundation (CCLI-0817582).
References
Abraham M. R., Gelder J. I. and Haines K., (2001), A web-based
molecular-level inquiry laboratory activity, Chem. Educ., 6,
307–308.
Akaygun S. and Jones L. L., (2013), How does level of guidance
affect understanding when students use a dynamic simulation of liquid–vapor equilibrium? in Devetak I. and Glazer
S. A. (ed.), Active Learning and Understanding in the Chemistry
Classroom, Springer, in press.
Bing T. J. and Redish E. F., (2012), Epistemic complexity and
the journeyman-expert transition, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ.
Res., 8, 010105.
Camtasia Studio: Screen Recording and Editing Software, (2012),
Retrieved November 9, 2012, from http://www.techsmith.
com/camtasia.html.
Clark R. C. and Mayer R. E., (2007), in Taff R. (ed.), e-Learning
and the science of instruction: proven guidelines for consumers
and designers of multimedia learning, 3rd edn, San Francisco,
CA: Pfeiffer.
Farrell J. J., Moog R. S. and Spencer J. N., (1999), A guidedinquiry general chemistry course, J. Chem. Educ., 76,
570–574.
Furtak E. M., Seidel T., Iverson H. and Briggs D. C., (2012),
Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based
science teaching: a meta-analysis, Rev. Educ. Res., 82, 300–329.
Gibson J., (1977), The theory of affordances, in Shaw R. and
Bransford J. (ed.), in Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward
an Ecological Psychology, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
pp. 67–82.
Hein S. M., (2012), Positive impacts using POGIL in organic
chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 89, 860–864.
Hmelo-Silver C. E., Duncan R. G. and Clark A. C., (2007),
Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry
learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006),
Educ. Psychol., 42, 99–107.
This journal is
c
The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
Paper
Jmol: an open-source Java viewer for chemical structures in 3D,
(2012), Retrieved November 9, 2012, from http://www.jmol.
org/.
Kozma R. B., Russell J. W., Jones T., Wykoff J., Marx N. and
Davis J., (1997), Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to
enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts,
J. Chem. Educ., 74, 330–334.
Lancaster K., Moore E. B., Parson R. and Perkins K., (2013),
Insights from using PhET’s design principles for chemistry
simulations, in Suits J. and Sanger M. (ed.), Pedagogic Roles
of Animations and Simulations, ACS Symposium Series, in
press.
Lee H.-S., Linn M. C., Varma K. and Liu O. L., (2010), How
do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? J. Res. Sci. Teach., 47, 71–90.
Lewis S. E., (2011), Retention and reform: an evaluation of
peer-led team learning, J. Chem. Educ., 88, 703–707.
Lewis S. E. and Lewis J. E., (2005), Departing from lectures: an
evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative, J. Chem.
Educ., 82, 135–139.
Norman D., (1988), The design of everyday things, New York:
Basic Books.
Paul A., Podolefsky N. and Perkins K., (2012), Guiding without
feeling guided: implicit scaffolding through interactive
simulation design, Proceedings of the 2012 Physics Education
Research Conference, AIP Press.
Podolefsky N., Moore E. B. and Perkins K., unpublished
work.
Phelps A. J., (1996), Teaching to enhance problem solving: it’s
more than the numbers, J. Chem. Educ., 73, 301–304.
Plass J. L., Milne C., Homer B. D., Schwartz R. N., Hayward
E. O., Jordan T., Verkuilen, J., et al., (2012), Investigating
the effectiveness of computer simulations for chemistry
learning, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 49, 394–419.
Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning, (2012), Retrieved
November 9, 2012, from http://www.pogil.org.
Quitadamo I. J., Brahler C. J. and Crouch G. J., (2009), Peer-led
team learning: a prospective method for increasing
critical thinking in undergraduate science courses, Science,
18, 29–39.
Rodrigues S., (2012), Using simulations in science: an exploration of pupil behaviour, in Issues and Challenges in Science
Education Research: Moving Forward, Berlin: Springer,
pp. 209–223.
Rosenthal D. P. and Sanger M. J., (2012), Student misinterpretations and misconceptions based on their explanations
of two computer animations of varying complexity depicting
the same oxidation–reduction reaction, Chem. Educ. Res.
Pract., 13, 471–483.
Rutten N., van Joolingen W. R. and van der Veen J. T., (2012),
The learning effects of computer simulations in science
education, Comput. Educ., 58, 136–153.
Schroeder J. D. and Greenbowe T. J., (2008), Implementing
POGIL in the lecture and the Science Writing Heuristic in
the laboratory—student perceptions and performance in
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
View Article Online
Paper
Stieff M., Hegarty M. and Deslongchamps G., (2011), Identifying
representational competence with multi-representational
displays, Cognition Instruct., 29, 123–145.
The Center for Peer Lead Team Learning, (2012), Retrieved
November 9, 2012, from http://www.pltl.org.
Xie Q. and Tinker R., (2006), Molecular dynamics simulations
of chemical reactions for use in education, J. Chem. Educ.,
83, 77–83.
Downloaded on 02/04/2013 16:48:58.
Published on 02 April 2013 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/C3RP20157K
undergraduate organic chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9,
149–156.
Smetana L. K. and Bell R. L., (2011), Computer simulations to
support science instruction and learning: a critical review of
the literature, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 34, 1337–1370.
Stieff M. and Wilensky U., (2003), Connected chemistry—
incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry
classroom, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 12, 285–302.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
This journal is
c
The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013