Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of 2 and 3D visualizations in students' understanding of structures of organic molecules

International Journal of Physical Sciences

Volumn 5, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 605-611

  Oke, Oloruntegbe Kunle ^a   Alam, Gazi Mahabubul ^b  

^a ADEKUNLE AJASIN UNIVERSITY   (Nigeria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

2; 3D visualizations; Effectiveness; Organic molecules; Structures and nomenclature

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953492925     PISSN: 19921950     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Barak M (2007). Transition from traditional to ICT-enhanced learning environments in undergraduate chemistry courses. Comput. Educat. 48: 30-43.
2. Barak P, Nater EA (2005). Virtual museum of minerals and molecules: molecular visualization in a virtual hands-on museum. J. Nat. Res. Life. Sci. Educat. 34: 67-71.
3. Barak M, Dori YJ (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students' chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Sci. Educat. 89(1): 117-139.
4. Barak M, Hussein-Farraj R (2009). Computerized Molecular Modeling as Means for Enhancing Students' Understanding of Protein Structure and Function. Proceedings of Chais Conference on Instructional Technologies Research, In Eishet-Alkali Y, Caspi A, Eden S, Geri N, Yair Y (eds) Learning in Technological Era, pp. 14-19.
5. Barnea N, Dori Y (2004). High-school chemistry students' performance and gender difference in computerized molecular modeling learning environment. J. Sci. Educat. Technol. 5 (4): 257-271.
6. Bon A (2007). Can the internet in tertiary education in Africa contribute to social and economic development? Inter. J.Educat. Develop. Using ICT, 3: 3.
7. Brown MH (1988). Algorithm Animation. Massachusetts; Cambridge, MIT Press.
8. Coll RK, Chapman R (2000). Evaluating science quality for comparative programmes. Asia Pacific J. Comparative Edu. 1 (2): 1-2.
9. Coll RK, Dalgety J, Salter D (2002). The development of chemistry attitudes and experience questionnaire (CAEQ). Chemist. Edu. Res. Practice Eur. 3(1): 19-32.
10. Dalgarno B, Bishop A, Bedgood D (2003). The potential of virtual laboratories for distance education science teaching: reflection from the development and evaluation of virtual chemisty laboratory. Poster presentation at uniscience Improving Learning Outcomes Symposium Proceedings.
11. Ealy JB (1999). A student evaluation of molecular modeling in first year college chemistry. J. Sci. Educat. Technol., 8(4): 309-321.
12. Ealy JB (2004). Students' understanding is enhanced through molecular modeling
13. Falvo D (2008). Animations and simulations for teaching and learning molecular chemistry. Inter. J. Techno. Teaching Learning 4(1): 68-77.
14. Grabowski JJ (2005). Projecting Computer Generated 3D Molecular Images in a Chemistry Lecture Hall. Confchem, Winter.
15. Gredler ME (2004). Games and Simulations and their relationships in learning. In Jonassen, D.H., Handbook of Research Edu. Communicat. Technology, Mahwah, NJ: IEA Publications, pp. 571-583.
16. Hundhausen CD, Douglas SA, Stasko JTA (2002). Metastudy of algorithm visualization effectiveness. J. Visual Languages and Computing (in print).
17. Kelly RM (2005). Exploring How Animation of Sodium Chloride Affect Students' Explanations. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley.
18. Kelly R, Jones L (2005). A Qualitative Study of How General Chemistry Students Interprete Features of Molecular Animations. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Washington DC.
19. Kozuma R, Russell J (2005). Students becoming chemists: developing representational competence. In Gilbert, J. (ed), Visualization in Science Education 7: 121-146.
20. Leahy W, Sweller J (2004). Cognitive load and the imagination effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology 18 (7): 857-873.
21. Ma J, Nickerson JV (2006). Hands-on, simulatedandremote laboratories: a comparative literature review. ACM computing Surveys 38(3): 7.
22. Morgil I, Erokten S, Yavus S, Ozyalcin Oskay O (2002). Computerized application on complexation in chemical compound. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 3, 4, article 1.
23. Naps IT, Robling G, Almstrum V, Dann W, Fleischer R, Hundhausen C, Korhonen A, Miami L, Macnally M, Rodger S, Velazquez-Iturbide JA (2003). Exploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 38(2): 131-152.
24. Prensky M (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. In On the Horizon, NCB, University Press 9(5): 66-84.
25. Ramsay B, Williams A, Erin A., Martin R (2002). Teaching and learning of Structural Organic Chemistry with Structure/Nomenclature Software. Showcase presented at 17th International Conference on Chemical Education, Beijing, PRC.
26. Romli R, Shiratuddin MF, Hashim S (2003).The virtual chemistry lab (VC-L): Virtual reality as a tool for Malaysian secondary school. J. Inform. Telecommunicat. Techno. 2(1): 81-92.
27. Sanger MJ, Badger SM (2001). Using computer-based visualization strategies to improve students' understanding of molecular polarity and miscibility. J. Chem. Edu. 78(10): 1412
28. Schmidt-Ehrenberg J, Baum D, Hege H (2002). Visualizing Dynamic Molecular Conformations. Proceedings of IEEE Visualization pp. 235-242.
29. Simpson ES (2005). What teachers need to know about the video game generations. Tech Trends: J. Ass. Edu. Communicat. Techno. 49(5): 17-22.
30. Savec VS, Vrtacnik M, Gilbert JK, Peklaj C (2006). In-service and preservice teachers' opinion on the use of models in teaching chemistry. Acta Chim. Slov. 53: 381-390.
31. Squire K, Glovanetto L, Devane B, Shree D (2005). From users to designers: building self-organizing game-based learning environment. Tech Trends: J. Ass. Edu. Communicat. Techno., 49(5): 34-42.
32. Srinivasan S, Pe'rez LC, Palmer RD, Brooks DW, Wilson K, Powler D (2006). Reality versus simulation. J. Sci. Edu. Techno., 15(2): 137-141.
33. Stasko JT (1990). A framework and system for algorithm animation. IEEF Computer 23: 27-39.
34. Strangman N, Hall T, Meyer A (2003). Virtual Reality and Computer Simulations and the Implications for UDL Implementation: Curriculum Enhancements Report. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.
35. Suits JP (2000). The effectiveness of a computer-interfaced experiment in helping students understand chemical phenomenon. In Robson, R. (ed). Mathematics/Science Education and Technology Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Charlottesville, VA. pp. 438-443.
36. Tasker R (2004). Using Multimedia to Visualize the Molecular World: Educational Theory into Practice. In Pienta, N., reenbowe T, Cooper M (eds), A Chemist's Guide to Effective Teaching, Prentice Hall. pp. 256-272.
37. Tasker R, Alton R (2006). Research into practice: visualization of the molecular world using animations. Chem.Edu. Res. Practice, 7(2): 41-159.
38. Thatcher JD (2006). Computer animation and improved student comprehension of basic science concepts. J. Amer. Osteopathic Ass., 106(1): 9-14.
39. Tuckey H, Selvaratnam M, Bradley J (1991). Computing in stereochemistry - 2D or 3D representations? J. Chem. Edu., 68(6): 460-464
40. Tuckey H, Selvaratnam (1993). Computing in stereochemistry - 2D or 3D. Studies Sci. Edu., 21: 99-121.
41. Tyversky B (2001). Spatial schemas in depictions. In Gattis, M. (ed), Spatial Schema and Abstract Thought, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 79-111
42. Valdez G (2005). Technology: A Catalyst for Teaching and Learning in the Classroom. Critical Issue. North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium (NCEMSC), North Central Regional Technology Laboratory.