Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Combined Hands-on Laboratory and Computer Modeling on Student Learning of Gas Laws: A Quasi-Experimental Study

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Based on current theories of chemistry learning, this study intends to test a hypothesis that computer modeling enhanced hands-on chemistry laboratories are more effective than hands-on laboratories or computer modeling laboratories alone in facilitating high school students' understanding of chemistry concepts. Thirty-three high school chemistry students from a private all-girl high school in northeastern United States were divided into two groups to participate in a quasi-experimental study. Each group completed a particular sequence of computer modeling and hands-on laboratories plus pre-test and post-tests of conceptual understanding of gas laws. Each group also completed a survey of conceptions of scientific models. Non-parametric tests, i.e. Friedman's one-way analysis of ranks and Wilcoxon's signed ranks test, showed that the combined computer modeling and hands-on laboratories were more effective than either computer simulations or hands-on laboratory alone in promoting students' conceptual understanding of the gas law on the relationship between temperature and pressure. It was also found that student conception of scientific models as replicas is statistically significantly correlated with students' conceptual understanding of the particulate model of gases. The findings mentioned earlier support the recent call for model-based science teaching and learning in chemistry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ardac, D., and Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41: 317–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, V. (2004). Beyond Appearances: Students’ misconceptions about basic chemical ideas. A report prepared for the Royal Society of Chemistry. http://www.chemsoc.org/pdf/LearnNet/rsc/miscon.pdf (accessed November 15, 2005).

  • Barak, M., and Dori, Y. J. (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students’ chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education 89: 117–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnea, N. (2000). Teaching and learning about chemistry and modeling with a computer managed modeling system. In Gilbert, J. K., and Boulter, C. J. (Eds.), Developing Models in Science Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

  • Barnea, N., and Dori, Y. J. (2000). Computerized molecular modeling: The new technology for enhancing model perception among chemistry educators and learners. ChemistryEducation: Research and Practice in Europe 1: 109–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, P. E. (1978). The role o laboratory in secondary school science programs. In Rowe, M. B. (Ed.), What Research Says to the Science Teacher, National Science Teachers’ Association, Washington, DC, pp. 55–82.

  • Benson, D. L., Wittrock, M. C., and Baur, M. E. (1993). Students’ preconceptions of the nature of gases. Journal Of Research in Science Teaching 30: 587–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blosser, P. E. (1983). What research says: The role of the laboratory in science teaching. School Science and Mathematics 83: 165–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, B. C., Gobert, J. D., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R. F., Gerlits, B., (2004). Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogicaTM: What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? Journal of Science Education and Technology 13: 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmichael, P. (2000). Computers and the development of mental models. In Gilbert, J. K., and Boulter, C. J. (Eds.), Developing Models in Science Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

  • de Jong, T., Martin, E., Zamarro, J. M. Esquembre, F., Swaak, J., and van Joolingen, W. R. (1999). The integration of computer simulation and learning support: An example from the physics domain of collisions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36: 597–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebenezer, J. V. (2001). A hypermedia environment to explore and negotiate students’ conceptions: Animation of the solution process of table salt. Journal of Science Education and Technology 10: 73–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebenezer, J. V., and Erickson, G. (1996). Chemistry students’ conceptions of solubility. Science Education 80: 181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (1998). Realising authentic science learning through the adaptation of scientific practice. In Fraser, B. J., and Tobin, K. G. (Eds.), International Handbook of science education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherland, pp. 317–333.

  • Gabel, D. L. (1992). Modeling with magnets—A unified approach to chemistry problem solving. The Science Teacher, March, 58–63.

  • Gabel, D. L., and Bunce, D. M. (1994). Research on problem solving: Chemistry. In Gabel, D. L. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, Macmillan, New York, pp. 301–325.

  • Gilbert, J. (Ed.) (2005). Visualization in Science Education, Kluwer Academic publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., and Boutler, C. (Eds.) (2000). Developing Models in Science Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J. (2000). A typology of causal models for plate tectonics: Inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education 22: 937–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., and Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28: 799–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G., and Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education 80: 509–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, S. J. (2004). Chemistry is not a laboratory science. Journal of Chemical Education 81: 1257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hessley, R. K. (2004). A computational-modeling course for undergraduate students in chemical technology. Journal of Chemical Education 81: 1140–1144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, G., and Schwartz, G. (2004). Exploring organic mechanistic puzzles with molecular modeling. Journal of Chemical Education 81: 1136–1139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. (1998) Progression in children’s understanding of a ‘basic’ particle theory: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education 20: 393– 412

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review 64: 377–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 7: 75–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education 70: 701–705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R., and Gilbert, J. K. (2002a). Models and modeling in chemical education. In Gilbert, J. K., de Jong, O., Justi, R., Treagust, D. F., and van Driel, J. H. (Eds.), Chemical Education: Towards Research-Based Practice, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 47– 68.

  • Justi, R. S., and Gilbert, J. K. (2002b). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education 24: 369–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpen, M. E., Henderleiter, J., and Schaertel, S. A. (2004). Integrating computational chemistry into the physical chemistry laboratory curriculum: A web/dry lab approach. Journal of Chemical Education 81: 475–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korfiatis, K., Papatheodorou, E., Stamou, G. P., and Paraskevopoulous, S. (1999). An investigation of the effectiveness of computer simulation programs as tutorial tools for teaching population ecology at university. International Journal of Science Education 21: 1269– 1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korkmaz, A., and Harwood, W. (2004). Web-supported chemistry education: Design of an online tutorial for learning molecular symmetry. Journal of Science Education and Technology 13: 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B., and Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34: 949–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarowitz, R., and Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In Gabel, D. L. (Ed.), The Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, Macmillan, New York, pp. 94–128.

  • Lee, H. S., and Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education 25: 923–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education 25: 727–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., and Muilenburg, L. (1996). Creating lifelong science learners: What models form a firm foundation? Educational Researcher 25: 18–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf, S. J., and Tinker, R. F. (2004). Probeware and handhelds in elementary and middle school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology 13: 43–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, J. M., and Clement, J. (1999). Use of a computer simulation to develop mental simulation for understanding relative motion concepts. International Journal of Science Education 21: 921–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nameroff, T. J., and Busch, D. H. (2004). Exploring the molecular vision: Report from a SOCED invitational conference. Journal of Chemical Education 81: 177–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick, S., and Nussbaum, J. (1978) Junior high school pupils’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: An interview study. Science Education 62: 273–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novick, S., and Nussbaum, J. (1981) Pupils’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: A cross-age study. Science Education 65: 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, A., and Tinker, R. F. (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. Journal of Science Education and Technology 13: 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parr, C. S., Jones, T., and Songer, N. B. (2004). Evaluation of a handheld data collection interface for science learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology 13: 233–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N. B. (1998). Can technology bring students closer to science? In Fraser, B. J., and Tobin, K. G. (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherland, pp. 333–248.

  • Snir, J., Smith, C. L., and Raz, G. (2003). Linking phenomena with competing underlying models: A software tool for introducing students to the particulate model. Science Education 87: 794–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., and Passmore, C. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In Donovan, S., and Bransford, J. D. (Eds.), How Students’ Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom, Committee on How People Learn, A Targeted Report for Teachers, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 515– 565.

  • Stewart, J., Hafner, R., Johnson, S., and Finkel, E. (1992). Science as model building: Computers and high-school genetics. Educational Psychologist 27: 317–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stieff, M. (2004). Connected chemistry—A novel modeling environment for the chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education 82: 489–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., and 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: 215–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. (2002). Chemical Misconceptions: Prevention, Diagnosis and Cure. Vol. II: Classroom Resources, Royal Society of Chemistry, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., and Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education 24: 357–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., and Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In Gabel, D. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, Macmillan, New York, pp. 177–210.

  • Westbrook, S. L., and Marek, E. D. (1991). A cross-age study of student understanding of the concept of diffusion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28: 649–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2000). Supporting the development of science Inquiry skills with special classes of software. Educational Technology Research and Development 48: 81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodfield, B. F., Catlin, H. R., Waddoups, G. L., Moore, M. S., Swan, R., Allen, R., et al. (2004). The virtual chemlab project: A realistic and sophisticated simulation of inorganic qualitative analysis. Journal of Chemical Education 81: 1672–1678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H.-K., and Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education 88: 465–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Learning and Instruction, Graduate School of Education, SUNY—University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, 14260-1000, USA

    Xiufeng Liu

Authors
  1. Xiufeng Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiufeng Liu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liu, X. Effects of Combined Hands-on Laboratory and Computer Modeling on Student Learning of Gas Laws: A Quasi-Experimental Study. J Sci Educ Technol 15, 89–100 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-0359-7

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-0359-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation