Design, development and implementation of a technology enhanced hybrid course on molecular symmetry: Students' outcomes and attitudes

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 454-468

  Antonoglou, L D ^a   Charistos, N D ^a   Sigalas, M P ^a  

^a ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859311408     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/C0RP90013C     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Ainsworth S., (1999), The functions of multiple representations, Comput. Educ., 33(2-3), 31-152.
2. Ainsworth S., (2006), DeFT: A conceptual framework for learning with multiple representations, Learn. Instr., 16, 183-198.
3. Amrein-Beardsley A., Foulger T. S. and Toth M., (2007), Examining the development of a hybrid degree program: using student and instructor data to inform decision-making, J. Res. Technol. Educ., 39(4), 331-357.
4. Antonoglou L. D., Charistos N. D. and Sigalas M. P., (2008), Design of molecular visualization educational software for chemistry learning. In T. B. Scott and J. I. Livingston, Leading-edge educational technology (pp. 105-131). New York: Nova Publishers.
5. Barak M., (2007). Transition from traditional to ICT-enhanced learning environments in undergraduate chemistry courses, Comput. Educ., 48, 30-43.
6. Bonk C. J. and Graham C. R., (2005), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspective, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
7. Cass M. E. and Rzepa H. S., (2005), An animated interactive overview of molecular symmetry, J. Chem. Educ., 82, 1742-1743.
8. Charistos N. D., Tsipis C. A. and Sigalas M. P., (2005), 3D molecular symmetry shockwave: three-dimensional perception of molecular symmetry, J. Chem. Educ., 82, 131-132.
9. Cook M., Wiebe E. N. and Carter G., (2008), The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations, Sci. Educ., 92, 848-867.
10. Delialioglu O. and Yildirim Z., (2008), Design and development of a technology enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA model: its effectiveness in comparison to traditional instruction, Comput. Educ., 51, 474-483.
11. Dori Y. J. and Barak M., (2001), Virtual and physical molecular modelling: fostering model perception and spatial understanding, Educ. Technol. Soc., 4, 61-74.
12. Dziuban C. D., Hartman J. L. and Moskal P. D., (2004), Blended learning, ECAR Research Bulletin, 7. Retrieved from http://net. educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erb0407.pdf on 28 June 2011.
13. Ealy J. B., (2004), Students' understanding is enhanced through molecular modelling, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 13, 461-471.
14. Ernst J. V., (2008), A comparison of traditional and hybrid online instructional presentation in communication technology, J. Technol. Educ., 19(2), 40-49.
15. Ferk V. and Yrtacnik M., (2003), Students' understanding of molecular structure representations, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 25, 1227-1245.
16. Gall M. D., Borg W. R. and Gall J. P., (1996), Educational Research: An introduction (6th ed.). New York: Longman Publishers.
17. Garnham C. and Kaleta R., (2002), Introduction to hybrid courses, Teaching with Technology Today, 8(10), Retrieved from http://www.wisconsin.edu/ttt/articles/garnham.htm on 28 June 2011.
18. Garrison D. R. and Kanuka H., (2004), Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education, Internet High. Educ., 7(2), 95-105.
19. Graham C. R., (2006), Blended learning: Definition, Current trends and future directions. In C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
20. Graham C. R. and Dziuban C., (2008), Blended learning environments. In M. J. Spector, D. M. Merril, J. Merrienboer and M. P. Driscoll, Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 269-276). New York, Taylor & Francis.
21. Lin H., (2008), Blending online components into traditional instruction in pre-service teacher education: the good, the bad, and the ugly, Int. J. Scholarship Teach. Learn., 2(1), Retrieved from http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v2n1/articles/Lin/index.htm on 28 June 2011.
22. Johnston D. H., (2009), Visual-spatial learning: development of an interactive web-based symmetry tutorial, Fall 2009 CONFCHEM Conference: Excellence in Education with CCLI, Retrieved from http://www.ched-ccce.org/confchem/2009/Fall2009/P4-Johnston.html on 28 June 2011.
23. Johnstone A. H., (1993), The development of chemistry teaching, J. Chem. Educ., 70, 701-705.
24. Kirschner F., Kester L. and Corbalan G., (2011), Cognitive load theory and multimedia learning, task characteristics and learning engagement: The Current State of the Art, Comput. Hum. Behav., 27, 1-4.
25. Korkmaz A. and Harwood W. S., (2004), Web-supported chemistry education: design of an online tutorial for learning molecular symmetry, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 13(2), 243-253.
26. Kozma R. and Russell J., (1997), Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 34, 949-968.
27. Kozma R. B., Chin E., Russell J. and Marx N., (2000), The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning, J. Learn. Sci., 9, 105-144.
28. Kozma R. and Russel J., (2005), Multimedia Learning of Chemistry. In R. E.Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 409-428). New York: Cambridge University Press.
29. López-Pérez V. M., Pérez-López C. M. and Rodrŕguez-Ariza L., (2011), Blended learning in higher education: Students' perceptions and their relation to outcomes, Comput. Educ., 56(3), 818-826.
30. Marques O., Woodbury J., Hsu, S. and Charitos S., (1998), Design and development of a hybrid instruction model for a new teaching paradigm, In Proceedings of Frontier in Education Conference, Retrieved from http://fie-conference.org/fie98/papers/1229.pdf on June 28, 2011.
31. Martin-Blas T. and Serrano-Fernandez A., (2009), The role of new technologies in the learning process: Moodle as a teaching tool in physics, Comput. Educ., 52, 35-44.
32. Mayer R. E., (2001), Multimedia learning (1st ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. Mayer R. E., (2003), The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media, Learn. Instr., 13, 125-139.
34. McCray G. E., (2000), The hybrid course: merging on-line instruction and the traditional classroom, Inform. Technol. Manag., 1, 307-327.
35. Meyer D. E. and Sargent A. L., (2007), An interactive computer program to help students learn molecular symmetry elements and operations, J. Chem. Educ., 84, 1551-1552.
36. Nakhleh M. B. and Postek B., (2008), Learning Chemistry Using Multiple External Representations. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner and M. Nakhleh (ed.) Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (pp. 209-231). The Netherlands: Springer.
37. Olapiriyakul K. and Scher J.M., (2006), A guide to establishing hybrid learning courses: employing information technology to create a new learning experience, and a case study, Internet High. Educ., 9, 287-301.
38. Orton-Johnson K., (2009), 'I've stuck to the path I'm afraid': exploring studentnon-use of blended learning, Brit. J. Educ. Technol., 40(5), 837-847.
39. Rovai A. P. and Jordan H. M., (2004), Blended learning and sense of community: a comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/795 on 28 June 2011.
40. Riffell S. K. and Sibley D. F., (2003), Using web-based instruction to improve large undergraduate biology courses: an evaluation of a hybrid course format, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 44(3), 217-235.
41. Schnotz W. and Kürschner C., (2008), External and internal representations in the acquisition and use of knowledge: Visualization effects on mental model construction, Instr. Sci., 36(3), 175-190.
42. Shepard, L. A. (2001), The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 1066-1101). Washington, DC: AERA.
43. Stieff M., Ryu, M. and Dixon B. L., (2010), Students' use of multiple strategies for scientific problem solving. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons and J. Radinsky (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (Vol. 1, pp. 765-772). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
44. Stieff M. and Raje S., (2010), Expert algorithmic and imagistic problem solving strategies in advanced chemistry, Spat. Cognition Computat., 10(1), 53-81.
45. Stieff M., (2011), When is a molecule three dimensional? A taskspecific role for imagistic reasoning in advanced chemistry, Sci. Educ., 95, 310-336.
46. Stieff M., Hegarty M. and Deslongchamps G., (2011), Identifying Representational Competence with Multi-Representational Displays, Cognition Instruct., 29(1), 123-145.
47. Sweller J., (1988), Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning, Cognitive Sci., 12, 257-285.
48. Sweller J., van Merrienboer J. and Paas F., (1998), Cognitive architecture and instructional design, Educ. Psychol. Rev., 10, 251-296.
49. Talib O., Matthews R. and Secombe M., (2005), Computer-animated instruction and students' conceptual change in electrochemistry: Preliminary qualitative analysis, Int. Educ. J., 5(5), 29-42.
50. Treagust D. F., Chittleborough G. and Mamiala T. L., (2003), The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 25, 1353-1368.
51. Tuckey H. and Selvaratnam M., (1993), Studies involving threedimensional visualization skills in chemistry: a review, Stud. Sci. Educ., 21, 99-121.
52. Tuvi-Arad I. and Gorsky P., (2007), New visualization tools for learning molecular symmetry: a preliminary evaluation, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 8, 61-72.
53. Tuvi-Arad I. and Blonder R., (2010), Continuous symmetry and chemistry teachers: learning advanced chemistry content through novel visualization tools, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 11(1), 48-58.
54. Urhahne D., Nick S. and Schanze S., (2009), The effect of threedimensional simulations on the understanding of chemical structures and their properties, Res. Sci. Educ., 39(4), 495-513.
55. Vaughan N., (2007), Perspectives on Blended Learning in Higher Education, Int. J. E-Learn., 6(1), 81-94.
56. Williams N. A., Bland W. and Christie G., (2008), Improving student achievement and satisfaction by adopting a blended learning approach to inorganic chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9, 43-50.
57. Wu H.-K. and Shah P., (2004), Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning, Sci. Educ., 88, 465-492.