Abstract
In this chapter, Dori, Barak, and Carmi presents active learning in computerized chemical education environments. Authors presented results of some studies that involved the integration of innovative learning environments as part of the chemistry curriculum. Taking into account curriculum reforms dealing also with the applications of the ICT authors developed such learning environments that should promote more active chemistry learning from the perspective that students actively process information in order to learn in a meaningful way. Studies that were designed researched chemistry students’ and teachers’ learning outcomes in two technology-enhanced environments that enable active learning: Case-based Computerized Laboratories (CCL) and Computerized Molecular Modeling (CMM). The three studies presented in this chapter along with the tools for evaluating the effect of active learning on chemistry students and teachers will enable teachers, educators, and researchers, to investigate students’ higher order thinking skills both qualitatively and quantitatively, teachers’ professional development, and the process of implementation of a new learning unit in the classroom.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Abed, A. & Dori, Y. J. (2007). Fostering question posing and inquiry skills of high school Israeli Arab students in a bilingual chemistry learning environment. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), New Orleans, LA, USA.
Abed, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2013). Inquiry, chemistry understanding levels, and bilingual learning. Educación Química—Emergent topics on chemistry education, 24(1), 37–43.
Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students’ chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education, 89(1), 117–139.
Barak, M., & Hussein-Farraj, R. (2013). Integrating model-based learning and animations for enhancing students’ understanding of proteins’ structure and function. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 619–636.
Barnea, N., & Dori, Y. J. (1999). High-school chemistry student’s performance and gender differences in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(4), 257–271.
Barnea, N., & Dori, Y. J. (2000). Computerized molecular modeling the new technology for enhancing model perception among chemistry educators and learners. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 109–120.
Barnea, N., Dori, Y. J., & Hofstein, A. (2010). Development andimplementation of Inquiry-based and computerized-based laboratories: Reforming high school chemistry in Israel. Chemistry Education Research and Practice (CERP), 11, 218–228. http://www.rsc.org/Education/CERP
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals; Handbook I, cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press.
Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2008). An evaluation of a teacher intervention to promote students’ ability to use multiple levels of representation when describing and explaining chemical reactions. Research in Science Education, 38(2), 237–248.
Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Investigations of secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate learners’ mental models of ionic bonds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 464–486.
Cox, A. J., Belloni, M., Dancy, M., & Christian, W. (2003). Physlets in introductory physics. Physics Education, 38(5), 433–440.
Donovan, W. J., & Nakhleh, M. B. (2001). Students’ use of Web-based tutorial materials and their understanding of chemistry concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(5), 975–980.
Dori, Y. J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modeling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 61–74.
Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. W. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect students’ understanding of scientific concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243–279.
Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems—Symbol, macro, micro and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 278–302.
Dori, Y. J., & Kaberman, Z. (2012). Assessing high school chemistry students’ modeling sub-skills in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(1), 69–91.
Dori, Y. J., & Sasson, I. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 219–250.
Dori, Y. J., Barak, M., & Adir, N. (2003). A web-based chemistry course as a means to foster freshmen learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(9), 1084–1092.
Dori, Y. J., Sasson, I., Kaberman, Z., & Herscovitz, O. (2004). Integrating case-based computerized laboratories into high school chemistry. The Chemical Educator, 9, 1–5.
Dori, Y. J., Barak, M., Herscovitz, O., & Carmi, M. (2005). Prepraring pre- and in-service teachers to teach high school science with technology. In C. Vrasidas & G.V. Glass. (Eds.), Preparing teachers to teach with technology, 2nd Volume of the book series: Current perspective on applied information technologies. Charlotte :Information Age Publishing.
Fraser, B. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Giddings, G. J. (1993). Development and cross-national validation of a laboratory classroom environment instrument for senior high school science. Science Education, 77(1), 1–24.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (Eds.). (1992). Teacher development and educational change. London: FalmerPress.
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Education Research Journal, 6, 207–226.
Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implication for teaching. In B. J Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education, Part One (pp. 233-248). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Henze, I., van Driel, H. J., & Verloop, N. (2009). Experienced science teachers’ learning in the context of educational innovation (Report). Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 184.
Hofstein, A. (2004). The laboratory in chemistry education: thirty years of experience with developments, implementation and evaluation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(3), 247–264.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundation for the 21st century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.
Hofstein, A., Cohen, I., & Lazarowitz, R. (1996). The learning environment of high school students in chemistry and biology laboratories. Research in Science and Technological Education, 14(1), 103–116.
Hopson, M. H., Simms, R. L., & Knezek, G. A. (2001). Using a technology-enriched environment to improve higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 109–119.
Horsley, D. L., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1998). Tornado of change. Journal of Staff Development, 19(4), 17–20.
Hsi, S., Linn, M. C., & Bell, J. (1997). The role of spatial reasoning in engineering and the design of spatial instruction. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(2), 151–158.
Jackson, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Model-It: A Design Retrospective. In M. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds.), Advanced designs for the technologies of learning: Innovations in science and mathematics education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina: Interaction Book Company.
Johnston, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009a). Question posing, inquiry, and modeling skills of high school chemistry students in the case-based computerized laboratory environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 597–625.
Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009b). Metacognition in chemical education: Question posing in the case-based computerized learning environment. Instructional Science, 37(5), 403–436.
Kantardjieff, K. A., Hardinger, S. A., & Van Willis, W. J. (1999). Introducing computers early in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(5), 694–697.
Keyser, M. W. (2000). Active learning and cooperative learning: understanding the difference and using both styles effectively. Research Strategies, 17(1), 35–44.
Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 94–130). New-York: Macmillan.
Linn, M. C., Layman, J. W., & Nachmias, R. (1987). Cognitive consequences of microcomputer-based laboratories: Graphing skills development. Contemporary Education Psychology, 12(3), 244–253.
Lipkowitz, K. B., Jalaie, M., Robertson, D., & Barth, A. (1999). Interdisciplinary learning with computational chemistry: A collaboration between chemistry and geology. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(5), 684–687.
Lohman, M. C., & Woolf, N. H. (2001). Self-initiated learning activities of experienced public school teachers: Methods, sources, and relevant organizational influences. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 7(1), 59–74.
Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 370–391.
Marjieh, C. (2007). Assessing the learning environment of computerized case-based laboratory of high school chemistry students. Master Thesis, Technion, Haifa, Israel (In Hebrew with Abstract in English).
Martínez-Jiménez, P., Pontes-Pedrajas, A., Climent-Bellido, M. S., & Polo, J. (2003). Learning in chemistry with virtual laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(3), 346–347.
Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning – a cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 763–780.
Russell, D. W., Lucas, K. B., & McRobbie, C. J. (2004). Role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understanding in thermal physics. Journal of Research in Science Education, 41(2), 165–185.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harward Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Secondary students’ dynamic modeling processes: analyzing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(3), 215–234.
Towns, M. H., & Grant, E. R. (1997). “I believe I will go out of this class actually knowing something”: Cooperative learning activities in physical chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(8), 819–835.
Van Driel, J.H., & De Jong, O. (2001). Investigating the development of preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented during the NARST Annual Meeting, St. Louis, MO, March 25–28, 2001.
Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press.
Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 521–534.
Wu, H., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821–842.
Yagi, S. M. (2000). Language labs and translation booths: Simultaneous interpretation as a learner task. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13(2), 154–173.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dori, Y.J., Barak, M., Carmi, M. (2014). Active Learning in Computerized Chemical Education Environments. In: Devetak, I., Glažar, S. (eds) Learning with Understanding in the Chemistry Classroom. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4366-3_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4366-3_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4365-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4366-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)