Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 295–305

Using three-dimensional models to teach molecular structures in high school chemistry

  • Cynthia E Copolo
  • Paul B. Hounshell
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of using two- and three-dimensional model representations of molecular structures on student learning of organic chemical structures. Organic structures were taught to high school students using one of four methods of molecular representation: (1) two-dimensional textbook representations, (2) three-dimensional computer models, (3) three-dimensional ball and stick models, and (4) combination of the computer molecular models and the ball and stick models. The computer software used in this study wasMolecular Editor. Students in the combination group of using both computer and ball and stick models scored significantly higher on the retention test of isomeric identification compared to the other groups. Molecules were represented in this test in the same mode as the instructional representation. However, on a similar two-dimensional post-instructional test of isomeric identification, this group had a significantly lower mean than the other groups; the two-dimensional group had the highest mean. This difference was not observed with the two-dimensional retention test of isomeric identification. When given a two-dimensional test of isomeric construction, no significant difference was found among the group means with either the posttest or the retention test.

Key words

Molecular models manipulatives computer 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bobbert, L. C. (1982). The effects of using interactive computer simulated laboratory experiments in college chemistry courses.Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 07A.Google Scholar
  2. Gabel, D., and Sherwood, R. (1980). The effect of student manipulation of molecular models on chemistry achievement according to Piagetian level.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(1), 75–81.Google Scholar
  3. Goodstein, M., and Howe, A. (1978). The use of concrete methods in secondary chemistry instruction.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(5), 361–366.Google Scholar
  4. Kagan, H. (1979).Organic stereochemistry, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Lindsay, P. H. and Norman, D. A. (1977).Human information processing: An introduction to psychology (2nd ed.). Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Lipkowitz, K. (1984). Molecular models in the organic chemistry laboratory.Journal of Chemical Education, 61(12), 1051–1052.Google Scholar
  7. Paivio, A. (1986).Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Piaget, J. (1963).Psychology of intelligence. Littlefield, Adams and Co., Paterson, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  9. Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B. (1956).The child's conception of space, F. J. Langdon and J. L. Lunzer, Translators. The Humanities Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Pribyl, J., and Bodner, G. (1987). Spatial ability and its role in organic chemistry: A study of four organic courses.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(3), 229–240.Google Scholar
  11. Rochford, K. (1987).Students' visual learning disabilities and under-achievement in selected science subjects. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Chicago, Illinois. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 290 275.Google Scholar
  12. Rozzelle, A. A., and Rosenfeld, S. M. (1985). Stereoscopic projection in organic chemistry.Journal of Chemical Education, 62(12), 1084–1085.Google Scholar
  13. Rumelhart, D. E. (1977).Introduction to human information processing. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Seddon, G. M., and Shubber, K. E. (1984). The effects of presentation mode and colour in teaching the visualisation of rotation in diagrams of molecular structures.Research in Science and Technological Education, 2(2), 167–176.Google Scholar
  15. Shepard, R., and Chipman, S. (1970). Second order isomorphism of representations: Shapes of states.Cognitive Psychology, 1, 1–17.Google Scholar
  16. Small, M. Y., and Morton, M. E. (1983). Spatial visualization training improves performance in organic chemistry.Research in College Science Teaching, September/October, 41–43.Google Scholar
  17. Sowell, E. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 498–505.Google Scholar
  18. Talley, L. (1973). The use of three-dimensional visualization as a moderator in the higher cognitive learning of concepts in college level chemistry.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10(3), 263–269.Google Scholar
  19. Tuckey, H., Selvaratnam, M., and Bradley, J. (1991). Identification and rectification of student difficulties concerning threedimensional structures, rotation, and reflection.Journal of Chemical Education 68(6), 460–464.Google Scholar
  20. Winn, J. S. (1987). Molecular Editor.Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 27(3), 143–144.Google Scholar
  21. Wise, K. C. (1984). The impact of microcomputer simulations on the achievement and attitude of high school physical science students.Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2432A.Google Scholar
  22. Wise, K. C., and Okey, J. R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching strategies on achievement.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 419–435.Google Scholar
  23. Yamana, S. (1989). An easily constructed bicapped trigonal prism model.Journal of Chemical Education, 66(12), 1021–1022.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cynthia E Copolo
    • 1
  • Paul B. Hounshell
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Education CB#3500University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill

Personalised recommendations