Learning Effects of Different Digital-Based Approaches in Chemistry: A Quasi-experimental Assessment

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 993)


This study aimed at assessing the learning effects of different ways of integrating digital educational resources in chemistry education. The alternative hypothesis is that digital educational resources contribute more effectively for students’ learning than pen-and-paper consolidation worksheets. A sample of 61 students participated in a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design with four conditions (control, and three digital-based approaches: outside the classroom individual approach, inside the classroom individual approach, inside the classroom group approach). Three digital educational resources were developed to address three chemistry themes (particle motion, gas pressure, and electric current through a solution). Results revealed that the inside the classroom individual digital-based approach and the outside the classroom individual digital-based approach were more effective in helping students to perform better, thus partially supporting the alternative hypothesis. The study contributed for the progress of the state of the art by drawing our attention to the plethora of phenomena around the use of computer-based technologies in education, in particular, highlighting the need to consider carefully the resources and pedagogical strategies underpinning one-to-one computing.


Digital educational resources Chemistry education Quasi-experimental design Cognitive tools 



Luciano Moreira is supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Grant PD/BD/114152/2015).


  1. 1.
    Collins, A., Halverson, R.: The second educational revolution: rethinking education in the age of technology. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 26(1), 18–27 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tolani-Brown, N., McCormac, M., Zimmermann, R.: An analysis of the research and impact of ICT in education in developing country contexts. J. Edu. Int. Dev. 4(2), 79–90 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown, S.: From VLEs to learning webs: the implications of Web 2.0 for learning and teaching. Interact. Learn. Environ. 18(1), 1–10 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chatti, M.A., Jarke, A., Jarke, M., Specht, M., Maillet, K.: PLEM: a web 2.0 driven long tail aggregator and filter for e-learning. Int. J. Web Inf. Syst. 6(1), 5–23 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Helsper, E.J., Eynon, R.: Digital natives: where is the evidence? Br. Edu. Res. J. 36(3), 503–520 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jonassen, D.H.: Computadores, Ferramentas Cognitivas: desenvolver o pensamento crítico nas escolas [Computers, Cogntive Tools: Developing Critical Thinking in Schools]. Porto Editora, Porto (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W.R., Veen, J.T.: The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Comput. Educ. 58, 136–153 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zacharia, Z.C.: The impact of interactive computer simulations on the nature and quality of postgraduate science teachers’ explanations in physics. Int. J. Sci. Edu. 27(14), 1741–1767 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bajzek, D., Burnette, J., Brown, W.: Building cognitively informed simulators utilizing multiple, linked representations which explain core concepts in modern biology. In: Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, pp. 3773–3778 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Singer, S.R., Hilton, M.L., Schweingruber, H.A.: America’s Lab Report: INVESTIGATIONS in High School Science. National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khan, S.: New pedagogies on teaching science with computer simulations. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 20(3), 215–232 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olympiou, G., Zacharias, Z., de Jong, T.: Making the invisivel visible: enhancing students’ conceptual understanding by introducing representations of abstract objects in a simulation. Instr. Sci. 41, 575–596 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halim, N.A., Ali, M., Yahaya, N., Haruzuan, M.: Mental model in learning chemical bonding: a preliminary study. Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci. 97, 224–228 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dumon, A., MzoughiKhadhraoui, I.: Teaching chemical change modeling to Tunisian students: an “expanded chemistry triplet” for analyzing teachers’ discourse. Chem. Edu. Res. Pract. 15(1), 70 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Jong, O., Taber, K.S.: The many faces of high school chemistry. In: Learderman, N. (ed.) Handbook of Research in Science Education, vol. 2, pp. 457–480. Routledge, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shin, N., Jonassen, D.H., McGee, S.: Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 40(1), 6–33 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sokolowski, A.: Teaching the photoelectric effect inductively. Phys. Educ. 48(1), 35–41 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sarıa, U., Hassanb, A., Güvena, K., Şena, O.: Effects of the 5E teaching model using interactive simulation on achievement and attitude in physics education. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Edu. 25(3), 20–35 (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hew, K.F., Cheung, W.S.: Use of web 2.0 technologies in K-12 and higher education: the search for evidence-based practice. Edu. Res. Rev. 9, 47–64 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paiva, J.C., Costa, L.: Exploration guides as a strategy to improve the effectiveness of educational software in chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 87(6), 589–591 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dillenbourg, P.: What do you mean by collaborative learning? In: Dillenbourg, P. (ed.) Collaborative-Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, pp. 1–19. Elsevier, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cicconi, M.: Vygotsky meets technology: a reinvention of collaboration in the early childhood mathematics classroom. Early Child. Educ. J. 42(1), 57–65 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cooper, H., Robinson, J., Patall, E.: Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Rev. Edu. Res. 76(1), 1–62 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zimmerman, B.J., Kitsantas, A.: Homework practices and academic achievement: the mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility beliefs. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 30, 397–417 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morais, C.: Produção, implmentação e avaliação de recursos educativos digitais para o ensino da química no 3.º ciclo do ensino básico [Production, Implementation and assessment of digital education resources for Chemistry teaching at the Secondary level]. Ph.D., dissertation. Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paiva, J.C., Morais, C., Moreira, L.: Multimédia no ensino das ciências: cinco anos de investigação e ensino em Portugal [Multimedia in Science Teaching: Five Years of Research and Teaching in Portugal]. Fundação Francisco Manuel dos Santos, Lisboa (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paiva, J.C., Morais, C., Moreira, L.: Multimedia in science teaching: pedagogical designs and research options in the Portuguese education between 2010–2014. In: Chova, L.G., Martínez, A.L., Torres, I.C. (eds.) Proceedings of EDULEARN16 Conference, pp. 7690–7698. IATED, Barcelona (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bennett, S., Maton, K., Kervin, L.: The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 39(5), 775–786 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wallace, R.M.: A framework for understanding teaching with the internet. Am. Educ. Res. J. 41(2), 447–488 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kolikant, Y.B.-D.: Using ICT for school purposes: is there a student school disconnect? Comput. Educ. 59, 907–914 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mota, J., Morais, C., Paiva, J.C., Moreira, L.: mSciences: an affinity space for science teacher. Eur. J. Contemp. Edu. 6(3), 401–413 (2017)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Boon, M., Knuuttila, T.: Models as epistemic tools in engineering sciences: a pragmatic approach. In: Meijers, A. (ed.) Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, vol. 9, pp. 687–720. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIQUP, UEC, DQB, Faculdade de Ciências daUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.CIQUP, DEI, Faculdade de Engenharia daUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations