Active Learning in Computerized Chemical Education Environments

  • Yehudit Judy Dori
  • Miriam Barak
  • Miriam Carmi


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.


Learning Environment Pedagogical Content Knowledge Chemistry Teacher High Order Thinking Skill Learning Unit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Abed, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2013). Inquiry, chemistry understanding levels, and bilingual learning. Educación Química—Emergent topics on chemistry education, 24(1), 37–43.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.
  8. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals; Handbook I, cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cox, A. J., Belloni, M., Dancy, M., & Christian, W. (2003). Physlets in introductory physics. Physics Education, 38(5), 433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dori, Y. J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modeling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 61–74.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fullan, M. (2002). The change. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.Google Scholar
  25. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (Eds.). (1992). Teacher development and educational change. London: FalmerPress.Google Scholar
  26. Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Education Research Journal, 6, 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundation for the 21st century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. Horsley, D. L., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1998). Tornado of change. Journal of Staff Development, 19(4), 17–20.Google Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  38. Johnston, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Keyser, M. W. (2000). Active learning and cooperative learning: understanding the difference and using both styles effectively. Research Strategies, 17(1), 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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).Google Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning – a cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 763–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.Google Scholar
  53. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harward Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.Google Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yagi, S. M. (2000). Language labs and translation booths: Simultaneous interpretation as a learner task. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13(2), 154–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yehudit Judy Dori
    • 1
    • 2
  • Miriam Barak
    • 1
  • Miriam Carmi
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Education in Science and TechnologyTechnion—Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Electrical Engineering and Computer Science DepartmentMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.The Hebrew Gymnasium “Herzeliya”Tel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations