Chemistry Education

Research and Practice

View Article Online

PAPER

View Journal | View Issue

Cite this: Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013,

14, 257

Interactive simulations as implicit support for

guided-inquiry
Emily B. Moore,*a Timothy A. Herzogb and Katherine K. Perkinsa

Published on 02 April 2013. Downloaded on 10/07/2016 06:32:52.

We present the results of a study designed to provide insight into interactive simulation use during
guided-inquiry activities in chemistry classes. The PhET Interactive Simulations project at the University
of Colorado develops interactive simulations that utilize implicit rather than explicit scaolding to
support student learning through exploration and experimentation. In the study, 80 students in a
General Chemistry class were given ten minutes to explore the PhET simulation Molecule Polarity in selfselected groups, with no instructions on how to interact with the simulation. Using mouse click data,
audio recordings and clicker question responses, we investigated: students ability to use the simulation
by analyzing the extent to which they explored the simulation, the discussions students engaged in
during simulation use, and student perceptions of simulation use. We found eective simulation use,
with the 22 groups exploring an average of 18 of the 23 available features in Molecule Polarity. Sixtyfour percent of student utterances were part of on-topic (polarity) discussion segments, with most otopic discussions being intermittent and brief. Students largely found the simulation useful for their
learning and experienced either brief or no frustration during sim exploration. These results indicate
Received 26th November 2012,
Accepted 27th February 2013

that students in large classes can use interactive simulations designed with implicit scaolding through

DOI: 10.1039/c3rp20157k

simulation use. This work suggests that implicitly scaolded interactive simulations can provide

exploration, and can do so without frustration overwhelming the perception of value brought by the
environments that support guided-inquiry learning and channel students into productive inquiry while

www.rsc.org/cerp

minimizing the need for explicit guidance.

Introduction
There is increasing development and use of simulations in
chemistry classrooms (Kozma et al., 1997; Abraham et al., 2001;
Stie and Wilensky, 2003; Xie and Tinker, 2006; Plass et al., 2012).
Previous work has shown the importance of simulation design.
For example, the presence of text and audio, as well as the location
and presence of dierent types of representations aect student
interpretation and use of simulations (Clark and Mayer, 2007;
Stie et al., 2011; Rodrigues, 2012; Rosenthal and Sanger, 2012).
How simulations are used in the classroom also plays an important role in its eectiveness. In particular, the amount and style of
guidance provided by the instructor and supporting materials are
key factors in how simulations are used and perceived by students
(Akaygun and Jones, 2013; Rutten et al., 2012).

University of Colorado Boulder, Department of Physics, Boulder, Colorado 80305,

USA. E-mail: emily.moore@colorado.edu
b
Weber State University, Department of Chemistry, Ogden, Utah 84408, USA
Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: 10.1039/
c3rp20157k

This journal is

The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

In inquiry-based learning, students engage in the processes

of sense making, discussing ideas, developing evidence-based
explanations, and communicating ideas rather than solely
being told the content. Substantial research indicates that
inquiry learning is an eective approach to learning science
(Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007; Furtak et al., 2012). In chemistry,
guided-inquiry techniques, including Process Oriented GuidedInquiry Learning (POGIL) (2012) and Peer-Lead Team Learning
(PLTL) (2012), are gaining popularity (Farrell et al., 1999; Lewis
and Lewis, 2005; Schroeder and Greenbowe, 2008; Quitadamo
et al., 2009; Lewis, 2011; Hein, 2012). With guided-inquiry,
students are provided specifically designed materials, and
experienced and/or trained facilitators guide them through
productive inquiry processes.
Evidence suggests that inquiry learning can be supported by
the use of computer simulations (Lee et al., 2010; Smetana and
Bell, 2011; Rutten et al., 2012). Simulations can provide
students with the opportunity to: interact with dynamic visualizations, allowing for focused exploratory inquiry; engage in
rapid feedback cycles, making cause and eect relationships
readily apparent; and utilize multiple representations, linking

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 257--268

257

View Article Online

Published on 02 April 2013. Downloaded on 10/07/2016 06:32:52.

Paper
macroscopic, microscopic and/or symbolic representations
around a single concept. In this work, we investigate how
students use and perceive use of an interactive simulation
designed with implicit scaolding in a large chemistry class
when given no explicit use instructions.
The simulation used in this work is part of the PhET
Interactive Simulations suite, which includes a growing list of
over 30 chemistry specific simulations, available for free at
http://phet.colorado.edu (Lancaster et al., 2013, in press). PhET
interactive simulations (sims) are unique in that they are designed
specifically to support inquiry with minimal explicit guidance
through the use of implicit scaolding. Implicit scaolding is
scaolding built into the design elements and interactivity of PhET
sims resulting in students being guided without feeling guided
(Paul et al., 2012). Implicit scaolding shifts the source of guidance
from explicit, such as a set of written instructions, to implicit, where
the guidance is in the form of aordances and constraints designed
into the sim (Gibson, 1977; Norman, 1988; Podolefsky et al.,
unpublished work). The design, location, accessibility, presence
(or absence) and interactivity of each representation and tool in the
sims are carefully selected to guide students into productive inquiry
without the need for additional text or auditory guidance within the
sim. Each sim is student tested extensively during the design
process, ensuring that its design is intuitive and supports student
inquiry without requiring explicit guidance from sim use instructions. This design approach allows for flexible use by enabling
support through a range of external guidance styles from none or
minimally guided to highly guided.
This work details a baseline study of the interaction between
students and a PhET interactive sim in a large classroom
context without explicit guidance from a written activity sheet
or from instructor facilitation. From this data we can determine
in a classroom context how students use the sim, perceive
use of the sim and where explicit guidance may be beneficial
in the form of written questions to guide exploration and
instructor facilitation. To accomplish this task, we address
the following questions:
Can students use the sim without instructions?
Does the sim support content discussion?
Do students perceive sim interaction as easy and useful, or
frustrating and unproductive?

Methods
Data was collected from a single class period on the topics of
molecule geometry and polarity. Students were organized into
self-selected groups, ranging from 14 students each, with most
groups consisting of 3 students. Data consisted of video,
observation notes, mouse click data and audio recordings from
the 25 student groups, and student responses to clicker questions on ease-of-use, frustration and usefulness of the sim
for learning.
Class description
Data was collected from a class session in a General Chemistry I
course at a public university serving 23 000 students in the

258

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 257--268

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

western United States. The General Chemistry I course is the
first of a two-semester introduction to chemistry sequence
required for science majors. Students were expected to have
either completed a chemistry course in high school or taken a
college chemistry preparatory course prior to enrolling in
General Chemistry I. The class met four times per week for
50 minutes. There were 89 students enrolled in the course.
On the date of data collection, there were 80 students in
attendance, based on the number of clicker question responses
recorded. The course was taught utilizing POGIL-based
activities, where students worked in groups to complete written
activities, supplemented with the use of clicker questions,
instructor mini-lectures and online homework assignments.
Prior to this study, the course had covered the topics
of nomenclature, stoichiometry, chemical bonding, thermodynamics and periodic trends. The course had utilized the
following sims during in-class activities: States of Matter; Build
an Atom; Reactants, Products and Leftovers; and Molecule Shapes.
Each group was expected to bring at least one personal laptop
to class during activities involving sims.
Class structure. On the day of the study, class began with a
ten-minute mini-lecture reviewing the topic introduced in the
previous class, molecule geometry. To make the transition into
the topic of molecule polarity, the instructor described two
contrasting cases, water and nitrogen. He highlighted the
dierence in mass and boiling point between the two molecules, indicating that the dierence in boiling points cannot be
explained by the mass of the molecules, but can be explained by
the dierence in attraction between the molecules. The instructor then described how to access the sim, and prompted
students to Just play with that sim for five or ten minutes.
Think about how the molecule shape impacts the polarity. Try
to understand whats going on as you play. During this time
for exploration with the sim, a slide was displayed at the front
of the room with the prompt Play with the polarity sim and
explore polarity. Try to understand how shape and polarity are
related. Students were given a total of ten minutes from the end of
the Play. . . prompt to the start of the next instructors class
prompt to explore the sim in their groups without further
instructions. Students were then asked four clicker questions
regarding: sim ease-of-use, frustration and usefulness of the
sim for learning. Students then began working through a 25-minute
POGIL-based guided-inquiry activity developed by the instructor.
Sim access. During previous sim uses, students were
prompted to download the sim onto their computers prior to
class. For the purposes of this study, we did not want students
to access the Molecule Polarity sim before the start of the
in-class data collection. For the day of the study, students
were prompted by email and in-class reminders to bring their
laptops, but were not told to download the sim. Considering
that students might be less likely to bring their laptop when not
told why it was needed, the instructor and researcher brought 7
additional laptop computers to class. At the start of class,
students were asked to have their laptops open. During the
molecule geometry mini-lecture, a researcher downloaded the
sim onto half of the students computers. The remaining

This journal is

The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

View Article Online

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Paper

students with laptops were given a USB flash drive containing

the sim, and were given instructions to download it and open it
at the start of the exploration time. At the start of the exploration time, the additional laptops were handed out to groups
that had not brought a computer, and to groups that had more
than four members splitting these larger groups into two
smaller groups.

Published on 02 April 2013. Downloaded on 10/07/2016 06:32:52.

Sim description
The Molecule Polarity sim was designed to address the following
learning goals for students: predict bond polarity using electronegativity values, indicate polarity with an arrow or partial
charge symbols, rank bonds in order of polarity and predict
molecular polarity using bond polarity and molecule shape. To
target these goals, the sim was designed with three tabs (Fig. 1).
Two Atoms tab. Upon opening the sim, students see the Two
Atoms tab. Here, students can increase and decrease the
electronegativity of generic atoms, and see in real-time how
this action aects the bond dipole of the two atom molecule
through the change in direction and size of the bond dipole arrow.
When students select Partial Charges, d+ and d symbols appear
which change in size and sign as electronegativity values are
changed. When students select Bond Character, they can explore
how the relative electronegativity aects the ionic or covalent
character of the bond. Students can select the Electrostatic
Potential surface in which blue indicates a positive potential
and red indicates a negative potential or they can select the
Electron Density surface in which darker shading indicates
greater electron density. When students turn on the electric
field, they can observe the relationship between polarity and
charge as they see how the molecule orients in the field. They
can rotate the molecule with the mouse and observe the
molecule as it returns to a preferred orientation. This visualization allows students to see a physical eect that results from the
polarity a physical property of the molecule.
Three Atoms tab. In the Three Atoms tab, the same basic
controls are used, but students can now explore how the relative
electronegativity and orientation of three atoms aect the molecular dipole. Students can adjust the bond angle and the electronegativity of each atom and observe the bond angles, bond dipole,
molecular dipole, and partial charges. When students turn on the
electric field, they can observe the relationship between polarity
and charge as they see how the molecule orients in the field. With
the additional complexity of three atoms, the critical distinction
between molecular dipole and bond dipole can be elucidated.
Real Molecules tab. In the Real Molecules tab, students can
select from 19 molecules and explore their bond dipoles,
molecular dipole, and partial charges in three dimensions. As
a result, students are able to discover how symmetry and
relative electronegativity work together to determine the polarity
of a molecule. By selecting Atom Electronegativities, students
are provided with a table that highlights the electronegativity of
each atom in the molecule, thus providing an opportunity to
relate electronegativity to the location of atoms in the periodic
table. Students can rotate the molecules in three dimensions,
which is particularly useful for a tetrahedral molecule such as

This journal is

The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

Fig. 1 Two Atoms (upper), Three Atoms (middle) and Real Molecule (lower)
tabs of the Molecule Polarity sim.

CF4, which consists of symmetrical out-of-plane bond dipoles,

but no molecular dipole.
Through interaction with the electronegativity of the
molecules atoms, the Molecule Polarity sim allows for
students to connect the symbols used by chemists to denote
polarity with the physical meaning of electronegativity. For
example, connecting large bond dipoles to large dierences
in electronegativity.

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 257--268

259

View Article Online

Paper

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Published on 02 April 2013. Downloaded on 10/07/2016 06:32:52.

Sim data
For 22 student groups, we collected the features tools and
representations students clicked on and the time of the clicks.
Note that students were not given explicit instructions on how
to interact with the sim, e.g., students were not instructed to
click on specific features. Students use of the sim involves
many individual interactions, including repeating actions
to make comparisons. For example, in the Two Atoms tab,
students tend to move the electronegativity sliders from less
to more and back many times, while observing the eect of
this change on the bond dipole. In one group (highlighted in
the transcript example in the Results section), the students
clicked a total of 74 times during the exploration time, and
used a total of 18 features. In this analysis, we focus on the use
of features for the first time, to determine the range of
exploration with respect to the available features. For example,
changing the electronegativity of Atom A for the first time
would count as a use of that electronegativity slider on that
tab. Further uses of the same feature on the same tab are not
included in the analysis below. Collection of this data required
students have the wireless Internet enabled on their computer
at the start of sim use. Sim use for three student groups was not
collected, likely due to a lack of Internet connection.
Sim features. Students can interact with many features
within the three tabs of Molecule Polarity (Table 1). For the
purposes of this analysis, we consider the use of 23 features not
on by default upon opening the sim. For example, when
students open the sim, they view the Two Atom tab with the

Table 1

Simulation features and their use during exploration time

Feature usea (%)

22 groups in total
Two Atoms tab: 8 total features
Atom A electronegativity slider
Atom B electronegativity slider
Molecule rotation
Partial charges checkbox
Bond character checkbox
Electrostatic potential radio button
Electron density radio button
Electric field radio button

95
95
68
91
82
95
86
68

Three Atoms tab: 8 total features

Atom A electronegativity slider
Atom B electronegativity slider
Atom C electronegativity slider
Molecule rotation
ABC-angle change
Bond dipole checkbox
Partial charges checkbox
Electric field radio button

73
77
82
36
36
45
55
64

Real Molecules tab: 7 total features

Dropdown menu of molecules
Bond dipole checkbox
Molecular dipole
Partial charges checkbox
Atom electronegativities checkbox
Electrostatic potential radio button
Electron density radio button
a

95
100
100
100
95
100
100

% of groups that used feature at least once during exploration time.

260

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 257--268

Bond Dipole view selected. While the Bond Dipole view is a

feature that students can interact with, we are interested in the
features that students choose to interact with.
In the Two Atom tab we consider a total of 8 features.
Students are able to change the electronegativity of atoms A
and B from less to more using sliders, as well as rotate the
diatomic molecule. Students can view the bond character (a scale
from more ionic to more covalent) and partial charges of the
atoms. They can also choose to view either the electron density
or electrostatic potential surfaces and turn on an electric field
(with which the diatomic will align). The Three Atoms tab
contains similar features, with the ability to change the electronegativity of a third atom using a slider and change the bond
angle of the triatomic by dragging any of the atoms. This design
results in a total of 8 features in the Three Atoms tab.
The Real Molecules tab contains a dropdown box, from
which students can select dierent molecules to view inside
an embedded Jmol (2012) window. Students can add to the view
the bond dipoles, molecular dipole, partial charges and electronegativities, as well as view the electrostatic potential and
electron density surfaces. This design results in a total of 7
features in the Real Molecules tab, outside of the Jmol window.
We did not count the Reset All, File, Options or Help
features for any tab or the interactions available inside the Real
Molecules Jmol window.
Screencapture data
Seven computers, supplied by the instructor and researcher,
were equipped with the screencapture software, Camtasia
(2012). This software recorded the computer screen during
students use, while simultaneously recording audio. This
screen capture data was used to provide the details of student
interaction with the sim during student discussion for the
transcript presented in the Results section.
Audio data
Each student group was given a digital audio recorder. Audio
recordings of the exploration portion of the class from a total of 23
groups were transcribed. The remaining two groups consisted of
single students who did not talk during their sim use.
Because students were typically using the sim while discussing,
which sometimes resulted in pauses in verbalizations, audio data
was analyzed for topics of discussion rather than episodes of
continuous discussion. These topics were consolidated into the
following topic categories: group arrangement (typically prior to
opening the sim), polarity, polarity with instructor, school or
other. Table 2 shows example transcript excerpts of student
discussion from each of the five topic categories.
Each transcript was subdivided into segments of discussion
on a single topic. Each segment had to contain utterances
individual continuous verbalizations from at least two
students. For example, this exchange S1: Cause thats more
electronegative? S2: Mm-hmm. consists of two utterances on
the topic of polarity. For a more detailed example of coding
and the coding rubric, see the ESI materials. The authors
developed the coding rubric; two researchers one had not

This journal is

The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

View Article Online

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Published on 02 April 2013. Downloaded on 10/07/2016 06:32:52.

Table 2

Paper

Topic category examples

Number of
utterances

Topic

Example transcript

Group arrangement (typically prior

to sim use):
Where to put the computer, who is
clicking, etc.

S1: We did a lot of clicking yesterday. If you would like to do some clickingthat didnt last
very long. S1: I think Im gonna scootch over, make it easier. S1: Ok.

Polarity:
Sim, polarity & related topics

S1: Now Im not sure what the electric field is showing. Oh, there we go. S2: Oh. S1: OK.
So it is showing its attraction. OK. S2: Yeah, so this ones more attracted to the positive,
this ones more attracted. . . OK, that makes sense.

Polarity with Instructor:

Polarity-related discussion between
instructor & student

I: Uh-huh. So this molecular dipole, thats the overall, like, in balance, in charge present
in that molecule. S: OK. So since this is fluorine, its gonna pull that way all the time,
pretty much? I: Yup. S: Yup.

School:
Homework, Lab, etc. (Includes
non-chemistry courses)

S1: What tutor do you have? S2: I have [name], same one, right? S1: All three of us, right?
You got [name]? S2: Really? No way. Thats awesome.

Other:
Discussion not classified above

S1: I didnt work yesterday morning. I usually work at 5. I slept until 10. I cleaned my room.
I found $10 cleaning my room. S2: Nice. S1: Did all my laundry. It was really nice.

observed the data collection and had not participated in

developing the coding rubric completed the coding independently. The agreement between the coding of the 1832 total
utterances into discussion segments was 91%. The agreement
between the coding of each of the 141 total discussion
segments into the topic categories was 94%.
Clicker response data
Immediately after exploration time, individual student
responses to a series of questions were collected using personal
response devices, i.e. clickers. The questions probed: sim easeof-use, frustration and usefulness of the sim for learning.

Results and discussion

Sim use
As an indicator of eective sim use, we present results on how
many sim features tools and representations the students
used during the ten minutes of exploration time. Fig. 2 shows
the students new use of features, in five second increments,
during the ten minutes of exploration time. Each line in Fig. 2
corresponds to one groups use of new features over time for
that tab, each circle indicates the use of a new feature. Students
began interacting with the Two Atoms tab (Fig. 2, top panel),
indicated by the heavy new use of features for this tab from 03
minutes. After using most or all of the tabs eight features,
students moved on to the Three Atoms (Fig. 2, middle panel)
and Real Molecules tabs (Fig. 2, lower panel). This tendency
results in a cluster of interactions at the beginning of the
exploration time (03 minutes) for the Two Atoms tab, while
the Three Atoms and Real Molecules tabs have group use
spread out over minutes 2 through 9. From audio analysis
(detailed in the next section) we find that students began
interacting with the sim immediately once it opened on their
computer screen. The osets in first feature use for some
groups in Fig. 2 are due to the variation in sim access rather
than a delay in interaction some students had the sim already

This journal is

The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

downloaded to their desktop and available for opening once

prompted, while others had to be given the USB flash drive and
download the sim before opening it.
The average number of new features out of 23 available
students interacted with during the ten minutes of exploration
time is shown in Table 3. Students used the most features in
the Two Atoms (6.8 out of 8 features) and the Real Molecules
tabs (6.9 out of 7 features). The Three Atoms tab has similar
features to the Two Atoms tab, which may explain the lower
new feature use for the Three Atoms tab (4.6 out of 8 features).
Students may have explored the Two Atoms tab to the extent
they felt necessary and then only used the features of the Three
Atoms tab that seemed relevant to the students inquiry. Of the
eight student groups that explored four or less features of the
Three Atoms tab, five groups had fully explored the Two Atoms
tab and the remaining three groups had explored at least five
features in the Two Atoms tab. Four groups did not explore the
Three Atoms tab at all, though these same groups explored the
Two Atoms tab and Real Molecules tab fully. These four groups
may have jumped ahead to investigate the Real Molecules tab,
and then run out of exploration time before being naturally
inclined to go back to investigate the Three Atoms tab.
While groups used the majority of features at least once
during exploration time, a few features were unexplored by
many groups (Table 2). One of the most commonly unexplored
features of the Three Atoms tab was the ABC-Angle Change
dragging of an atom to change the bond angle. This feature is
particularly useful for exploring molecular dipole. Only five
of the groups (36%) explored this feature. This suggests that
a guided-inquiry activity question e.g., How does the
ABC-bond angle eect molecule polarity? or a prompt
e.g., Create a rule for predicting how a change of the ABC-bond
angle will eect the molecule polarity. would be beneficial in
guiding students to explore this productive sim interaction.
During the ten minutes of exploration with the Molecule
Polarity sim, students interacted with the sim and explored
most or all of the available features. This finding indicates that

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 257--268

261

View Article Online

Paper

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

provides insight into how students used the sim sequentially
from the first tab to the last tab. This usage pattern suggests
that an accompanying guided-inquiry activity might best support the inquiry process promoted through sim design by
encouraging exploration of the sim without specific use instructions (which this study suggests may not be necessary) and by
posing conceptual questions in a sequence from the first tab to
the last before asking students to refer to tabs out of order. An
example annotated guided-inquiry activity is provided in the
ESI materials.

Published on 02 April 2013. Downloaded on 10/07/2016 06:32:52.

Student discussion

Fig. 2 New feature use in the Two Atoms, Three Atoms and Real Molecules
tabs. Each line corresponds to one groups use of new features on that tab, circles
indicate new feature use.

Here we analyze the student discussion data during the ten

minutes of exploration time, providing insight into the types of
discussion the sim use supported. Each group was given an audio
recorder, allowing analysis of all group discussions. First we present
a single transcript, qualitatively highlighting some of the ways the
sim supported discussion on the topic of polarity. We then present
a quantitative summary of all the transcripts, focusing on the range
of topics discussed and the amount of discussion on the topic of
polarity that occurred during sim exploration.
This transcript was selected as representative of student
exploration with minimal school or other topic discussion.
It was recorded using screen capture software, allowing for
detailed descriptions of sim use synced with student utterances. This group consisted of two male students. We present
the full transcript from the time the sim opened on the
students computer screen until the point the instructor ends
the exploration time. The only utterances not included in the
transcript occurred prior to the students opening the sim: four
utterances referring to a chemistry lab assignment. These two
students were originally part of a larger group that spanned two
seating levels in the classroom, but were given a computer and
asked to form their own group about two minutes into the
exploration time. They had not seen the Molecule Polarity sim in
their previous group configuration, as they were on the lower
level from the student with the computer. During exploration
time, Student 1 (S1) controlled the interaction with the computer. Time is indicated in the (min:sec) format, with respect to
the start of exploration time.
2:21

Table 3

Tab

Possible
features

Average features used SDMa SEMb

Two Atoms
8
Three Atoms
8
Real Molecules 7
All tabs
23
a

Standard deviation of mean.

6.8
4.6
6.9
18.0
b

1.5
2.6
0.3
3.0

0.3
0.6
0.1
0.6

Standard error of mean.

the design of the sim is intuitive for students supporting the

exploration of features even in a large classroom context
where groups did not have access to written instructions or an
instructor for guidance. Analysis of the use of new features also

262

Molecule Polarity opens to the Two Atoms tab.

Feature use

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 257--268

S1 began by exploring the electronegativity sliders, and

making sense of how this aected the bond dipole arrow.
2:23 S1: OK. So. OK. So lets see here. [increases Atom B electronegativity to maximum] Im just messin around.
2:42 S2: I think thats what were supposed to do right now.
[increases to maximum then decreases to minimum Atom A
electronegativity]
2:50 S1: OK. So if electron, err, if atom A is more electronegative
[increases Atom A electronegativity]what does this mean?
2:59 S2: Thats the
3:00 S1: That means it [the bond dipole arrow] gets smaller?
[moves Atom A electronegativity higher, then lower]

This journal is

The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

View Article Online

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Published on 02 April 2013. Downloaded on 10/07/2016 06:32:52.

3:01 S2: Yeah.

3:06 S1: OK, and the same thing here. [moves Atom B electronegativity slider higher, then lower] OK, so the less electronegative that is and the more that is, the farther apart
theyre gonna be. And if you bring em [electronegativity
sliders for Atom A and Atom B] closer together [moves Atom
B electronegativity lower and Atom A electronegativity higher]OK. [moves Atom A electronegativity slider higher and
lower] Oh, it switches [direction of bond dipole arrow].
Cause thatd be more [Atom As electronegativity] and
thatd be less [Atom Bs electronegativity]. [selects Partial
Charges, then moves Atom A electronegativity to minimum
and Atom B electronegativity to maximum]
3:39 S1: Makes sense, all right.
3:40 S2: Yeah.
The size, color, location and interactivity of the sims
features indicated to the students that a place to start exploration was the electronegativity sliders. This slider interaction led
to their observation that atom electronegativity aected the
magnitude and direction of the bond dipole. Students then
explored the relationship between atom electronegativity and
the bond dipole.
Notice how the students were sense making through interaction with the sim, rather than observing some behavior and
then sense making. When using the sim, students are in
control of the feedback they get; they can pause in their
interaction, redo a particular interaction, extend an interaction
by going to larger extremes and explore other features, as their
inquiry requires. We think that this direct interactivity with the
features in the sim supports sense making with the representations, not just about the representations.
S1 started this sim use by changing one electronegativity
slider slightly, then exploring the range of the second electronegativity slider. Then he compared the behavior over a range
of electronegativity values for each atom. S1 seemed surprised
upon observing that his changing of one atoms electronegativity resulted in the bond dipole changing direction, but was
quickly able to make sense of this behavior by noting that
this interaction had resulted in switching which atom had the
higher and lower electronegativity. Next, the students related
this eect of the atom electronegativity to what they had
learned previously in chemistry class about the periodic table.
3:41 S1: Is this done with the periodic table? Like, why that
[partial charge] would be positive and that [partial charge]
would be negative?
3:48 S2: Yeah.
3:49 S1: Cause thats more electronegative?
3:51 S2: Mm-hmm.
3:53 S1: OK. And doesntelectronegativity goes like that right?
3:59 S2: Yeah.
S1 actively connected his understanding from exploring the
sim the electronegativity of bonded atoms aects the partial
charges of the atoms to the previously introduced course topic
of periodic trends, which likely included an up-and-to-the-right

This journal is

The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

Paper
gesture to indicate the trend of increasing electronegativity
coupled with the utterance at 3:53. The students then moved
on to exploring the bond character.
[selects Bond Character, moves Atom A electronegativity
from less to more slowly, sim shows change in bond
character from ionic to covalent]
4:00 S1: OK. Ionicso what would cause it to be covalent? Does
that mean that they would have to be
4:16 S2: the same.
4:17 S1: on the same side, right?
4:18 S2: Of the same atom, I think. The last two Os.
4:22 S1: OK, which makes sense, cause theyre both the same
with the negative. So if you were to go here [moves Atom A
electronegativity from more to the middle] and there [moves
Atom B electronegativity from more to the middle], its still
gonna be covalent. OK. [moves Atom B electronegativity from
middle to more, moves Atom A electronegativity from the
middle to more, pauses, and then from more to the middle]
In this excerpt, the students made a prediction when the
electronegativity of two bonded atoms are the same, the bond
will always be covalent and tested it with the sim. The
students then moved on to the Electrostatic Potential and
Electron Density views, and were confronted with a challenge
interpreting the Electron Density view.
[Selects Electrostatic Potential view]
4:50 S1: OK, that makes sense, dealing with the charge. [selects
Electron Density view, moves Atom A electronegativity from
middle to less]
5:08 S1: OK, so electron density deals with electronegativity, the
more dense it is, it has a higher electronegativity, right?
Why is that? I dont know, either.
S1 was able to determine a relationship, the higher the
electronegativity the higher the electron density, but was not
able to make sense of exactly what the Electron Density
surface view represented. The students decided to move on to
the Three Atoms tab rather than explore this question further
on the Two Atoms tab. In the Three Atoms tab, the students
investigated to make sense of the Molecular Dipole arrow.
5:35 Selects Three Atoms tab.
5:37 S1: [rotates molecule] Oh, wow. [moves Atom C electronegativity from less to middle, pauses, then moves to more]
5:42 S1: OK.
5:50 S1: So what is this [molecular dipole arrow] pointing to?
Im trying to think how this works here. [moves Atom C
electronegativity from more to less] More, less[moves
Atom B electronegativity from the middle to less then to
more, then back to the middle, moves Atom C electronegativity from more to the middle, pauses, then to less,
selects Partial Charges, then Bond Dipole]
6:26 S1: OK. So those are just like when we were lookin at the
two [Two Atoms tab].
6:35 S2: Yeah.

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 257--268

263

View Article Online

Paper

Published on 02 April 2013. Downloaded on 10/07/2016 06:32:52.

6:37 S1: So its always gonna be pointing towards the negative.

And then what does this [molecular dipole] signify?
6:46 S2: The dipole. I guess thatsI dont know.
6:51 S1: I dont know how to explain that.
6:53 S2: Maybe the sum of the two bond dipoles.
6:55 S1: uh huh. [deselects Molecular Dipole]
Notice how S1 explored first, rotating the molecule and
changing electronegativity multiple times, then started to use
the tools in the toolbar. When S1 got to the Bond Dipole tool,
he recognized that this arrow representation is the same as in
the Two Atom tab. Then S1 tried to make sense of Molecular
Dipole arrow with the Bond Dipole arrows showing, asking
what does it signify. Their first vocalized attempt to make
sense of the Molecular Dipole is to name it, using the arrow
label in the toolbar. They seemed to find simply naming the
arrow unsatisfactory. S1 probed further, indicating a missing
ability to explain what the dipole arrow was (utterance at 6:51).
S2 contributed a key idea to the concept of molecular dipole,
suggesting that the relationship between the bond dipoles
which they seemed comfortable with and the molecular dipole
is that the latter is the sum of the former. S1 agreed.
Though the students did not explore this concept further on this
tab, with the support provided by the sim the scaolding provided
by the first tab, the juxtaposition of dipole representations, the
ability to choose the representations the students were able to
construct an idea, albeit tentative, of what a molecular dipole arrow
represented. This idea could be further developed during a guidedinquiry activity, with guidance in the form of a written question
supplemented by instructor facilitation.

7:04 Selects Real Molecules tab.

7:09 S1: HF.
7:14 S1: So the arrow should be pointing that way, OK? [selects
Bond Dipole, then Molecule Dipole] Same with that.
Partial charge, positivenegative, right? [selects Partial
Charges, deselects, then selects, selects Atom
Electronegativities]
7:38 S1: Yep, yeah that makes sense. [selects Electrostatic
Potential view]
7:45 S2: OK and that deals with the electronegativity it would be
higher and with the density[selects Electron Density
view, selects Reset All]
7:58 S1: OK, I know this [selects H2 molecule] should be a
covalent bond. [selects Bond Dipole, then deselects Bond
Dipole, selects Molecular Dipole then deselects Molecular Dipole, selects "Partial Charges", then deselects then
selects Partial Charges again]
8:47 S1: So its all the same, [selects Molecular Dipole, then
Bond Dipole] which makes sense. [Turns Atom Electronegativities on.]
9:31 S1: All right. [reads] So what factors
Instructor ends exploration time.
On the Real Molecules tab, the students focused on checking
their understanding. S1 made a prediction regarding the bond

264

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 257--268

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

dipole, and then checked it by turning on the Bond Dipole arrow.
He also checked the direction of the Molecular Dipole. If the
Molecular Dipole arrow had pointed in a direction not consistent
with their previous discussion about its meaning, this arrow could
have prompted the students to discuss it further to incorporate any
new behavior into their previous description, or they could have
decided to not discuss further and perhaps categorized Molecular
Dipole as a topic with which they need further assistance.
After successfully predicting dipole direction and electronegativity for two molecules, the group pauses sim interaction
possibly listening to a loud discussion in a neighboring group
and then S1 began to read the prompt that had been projected
at the front of the room during exploration. The instructor
interrupted by prompting students to start answering the
clicker questions regarding their sim use experience.
Throughout this sim use, the students interacted with the
sim heavily, explored the various tabs and features available,
discussed, engaged in sense making and ended by making
predictions that utilized knowledge gained during the exploration time. While this group was consistent in their discussion
about polarity throughout the exploration time, we observed
many other groups engaging in the same style of sim use, with
varying amounts of non-polarity discussion mixed in.
We now present results regarding the amount of polarity and
non-polarity discussion across all of the student groups in
Table 4. Each of the 23 group audio recordings was transcribed,
and each transcript was subdivided into discussion segments,
based on the topic of discussion resulting in 141 discussion
segments across the 23 student groups. Each of these discussion
segments was coded as consisting of one of five topics (Table 2):
group arrangement (typically prior to sim use), polarity,
polarity with instructor, school and other. Each transcript
contained an average of six discussion segments (ranging from
212 segments) and 80 utterances (ranging from 23143 utterances). Individual utterances ranged from a single interjection
up to 80 words in length, consisting of multiple sentences.
While the instructor had not intended to participate in
discussions during the exploration time, two groups asked
the instructor direct questions, and the instructor responded,
resulting in the small number of polarity with instructor
discussion segments. The majority of the discussions consisted
of segments on polarity (38%), school (15%) and other
(27%). There was a moderate amount of group arrangement
discussion segments, virtually all prior to the opening or start
of use of the sim. Interestingly, even though school and other
segments made up a combined 42% of the total discussion

Table 4

Topics of discussion segments and utterances

Discussion segments (%)

141 in total

Topic
Group arrangement
(prior to sim use)
Polarity
Polarity with instructor
School
Other

Utterances (%)
1832 in total

16

38
4
15
27

62
2
10
20

This journal is

The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

View Article Online

Published on 02 April 2013. Downloaded on 10/07/2016 06:32:52.

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

segments, they only made up a combined 30% of the total
utterances. In comparison, chemistry concept discussion made
up 38% of the discussion segments, but 62% of the total utterances, more than twice that of the school and other utterances.
Most utterances were made during discussion segments about
polarity, while school and other discussions segments contained comparatively less utterances. The average number of
utterances in polarity topics was 21 (ranging from 285 utterances
per segment), compared to an average of 10 utterances for the
other segments (ranging from 249 utterances per segment).
These results are consistent with our general observations that
the student groups discussed primarily the topic of polarity with
some brief and intermittent non-polarity discussions.
The number of utterances on a specific topic does not necessarily
indicate amount of time spent on that topic. For example, in the
transcript above, the students were not necessarily verbalizing
during the time they were interacting with the sim, even when
the sim interactions indicated active sense making about polarity.
After first changing from the Two Atoms to the Three Atoms tab (at
5:35), nearly a minute went by during which there were only three
utterances (from 5:356:26), even though interaction with the sim
was consistent and systematic. In contrast, when the students were
discussing the relationship between electronegativity and the periodic table (3:413:59) less than twenty seconds went by during
which there were six utterances. From observations and audio
recording analysis it was common across groups that sim interaction resulted in pauses in conversation, suggesting that the
amount of time spent on the topic of polarity was even greater than
would be inferred based solely on the number of conversation
segments or utterances.
Clicker question results
With the sim data and audio recorders, we were able to capture
data that indicated what sim features students interacted with

Table 5

Paper
and what the students discussed. Student resistance to innovation in the classroom has been reported in the literature
(Phelps, 1996; Hein, 2012), so we also wanted to know if
students found the experience of using the sim with minimal
instruction easy and useful, or frustrating and useless. Here, we
present data on student perceptions of sim use, based on
responses to clicker questions asked immediately after exploration time (Table 5). Most students (70%) indicated that the sim
was easy or very easy to use. The remaining students
responded neutral, with no students responding that the
sim was dicult to use. This is consistent with observations
of the class during the exploration time and analysis of the
audio data; students were predominately using the sim and
discussing the sim topic, not discussing how to use the sim.
Regarding usefulness for learning and frustration, a large
majority of students (92%) responded that the sim would be
somewhat to very useful for their learning, and when asked if
they felt frustrated during sim use, only 11% of students
responded Yes. When asked to describe any frustration
with the sim, 57% of students responded that they had no
frustration, with 33% responding that they had experienced
very brief frustration. The no frustration and very brief
frustration responders made up 96% of students that
responded No to the previous yes/no frustration question.
Only 3% of students indicated feeling frustrated for a significant amount of time.
Possible study limitations
Prior to this study, students had used four PhET sims with
in-class activities. Student experience with the Molecule Polarity
sim could have been aected by these previous uses of PhET
sims, making the results we present dependent on prior
experience with PhET sims. We feel this does not diminish
the results, as informal feedback from PhET users suggests

Responses to clicker questions asked immediately after exploration time

Category

Question/prompt

Multiple choice options

Response (%)

Ease-of-use (N = 80)

The molecule polarity simulation was. . .

Very easy to use

Easy to use
Neutral
Dicult to use
Very dicult to use

29
41
30
0
0

Usefulness for learning (N = 76)

How useful do you think the simulation was or

will be for your learning?

Very useful
Useful
Somewhat useful
Mostly useless
Completely useless

8
37
47
7
1

Frustration (N = 80)

While playing with the molecule polarity simulation,

did you feel frustrated?

No
Yes

89
11

Frustration description (N = 79)

Which best describes any frustration you might have

had while using the Molecule Polarity simulation:

I was not frustrated at all.

I was very briefly frustrated.
I was frustrated for a short
amount of time.
I was frustrated for a significant
amount of time.
I was frustrated for more than
half the time.

57
33
8

This journal is

The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

3
0

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 257--268

265

View Article Online

Paper

Published on 02 April 2013. Downloaded on 10/07/2016 06:32:52.

that it is common for instructors to use more than one sim

during a course.
It is also possible that the explicit presence of audio recorders could have lead students to engage dierently with the sim
than they would have without the presence of audio recorders.
While it is impossible to know exactly what aect the
audio recorders had on student behavior, instructor and observing researcher noted that student behavior appeared
consistent with previous observations of classroom sim
use without audio recorders. As described in the Student
Discussion Section, a range of student discussion topics were
recorded, suggesting that students felt comfortable having both
on-topic and o-topic discussions.

The role of implicit scaolding

We posit that the implicit scaolding designed into the sim
supported students use, discussion and perceptions through
multiple mechanisms. To highlight examples of what we consider to be support provided by implicit scaolding, we focus
on a specific case students use of the Three Atoms tab shown
in the transcript above (minutes 2:216:55). We believe that the
sims Two Atoms tab implicitly scaolded the students
productive interactions with the Three Atoms tab concluding
that the molecular dipole is the sum of the bond dipoles
through: (1) consistent design, (2) perceived challenges and (3)
location of features across the two tabs.
The consistency across design features and layout between
the Two Atoms and Three Atoms tab could serve to minimize
cognitive load. On the Two Atoms tab, students interacted with
many of the same features available on the Three Atoms tab.
Thus, when switching to the Three Atoms tab, students would
have been familiar with many of the features, allowing
increased cognitive attention for sense making. In addition,
this consistency in design could also serve to cue students to
look for and focus on what features are new.
The sim was also designed to implicitly scaold students to
attend to increasingly dicult though related challenges,
through the selection of available representations. The Two
Atoms tab was designed specifically to implicitly scaold
students towards an understanding of bond dipoles, a component of the concept of molecular dipole. The students in the
transcript first attended to the challenge of making sense of
the bond dipole with the sim, indicated by the eect of their
first action with the Two Atoms tab (moving the atom electronegativity sliders): a noticeable change in the bond dipole
arrow representation. Upon moving to the Three Atoms tab,
students encountered a similar scenario, interaction with the
atom electronegativity sliders eected an arrow representation
bond dipole, but in this Three Atoms tab the eected arrow is
the molecular dipole. The students perceived the challenge to
complete while on the Three Atoms tab was to make sense of
this new arrow representation. This perception of challenge
serves aective as well as conceptual goals. The students not
only perceived a specific conceptual goal while using the sim,
but successful completion of a perceived challenge provides

266

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 257--268

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

a positive sense making experience for the students. This
positive experience could serve to increase students intrinsic
motivation to seek out other conceptual challenges. In the
example transcript, the students successful completion of the
challenge of making sense of the bond dipole arrow (indicated
by utterances at 3:39 and 3:40) could have contributed to their
motivation to persist through the challenge of sense making
with the molecular dipole arrow.
The location of tools in the Three Atoms tab could also have
played a key role in implicitly scaolding students sense
making. To make sense of the molecular polarity arrow, the
students utilized the ability to juxtapose the Molecular
Dipole arrow with the Bond Dipole arrow they had
previously explored successfully. The Bond Dipole checkbox
was intentionally located just below the Molecular Dipole
checkbox, because it is a conceptually related representation
and the location near the top of the toolbox is where students
typically start tool exploration (based on student interviews
during sim development). The location made the Bond
Dipole checkbox readily accessible when students began
looking for tools to assist their sense making process.
Thus, while PhET sims avoid embedded directions, they
provide significant scaolding for students interactions,
through the design.

Conclusion
In this study, students were given ten minutes of exploration
time with a PhET interactive sim without explicit instructions
on sim use. During this exploration time, students interacted
with the majority of features available and engaged in chemistry content (molecule polarity) discussions with intermittent
school or other discussions. After the exploration time, the
majority of students indicated that use of the sim was easy,
productive for their learning, and occurred without frustration.
Data on sim feature use indicates that students in large
lecture classes can use implicitly scaolded sims without
explicit instructions on how to use the sim. From analysis
of audio transcripts, we found that students engaged in content-rich discussions while being supported by the implicitly
scaolded interactive sim. This result suggests that it is
possible to have eective guided-inquiry group work in a large
lecture setting while minimizing the need for explicit instructions. This finding opens up opportunities, as well as further
questions, about the possible roles interactive simulations can
play in a guided-inquiry curriculum.
These findings suggest several promising avenues for
further research with the potential to lead to new classroom
innovations, such as detailed investigations of the mechanisms
through which implicit scaolding can support productive
inquiry, and ways to eectively couple and facilitate guidedinquiry activities with interactive simulations. With less explicit
instructions, students could feel more autonomous and more
competent while engaging in productive guided-inquiry with
the supports provided by an interactive simulation. This
change in students role could also result in increased interest

This journal is

The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

View Article Online

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

in chemistry by students. Use of the supports provided by the
PhET sims might also allow students the opportunity to experience self-directed exploration and development of science
concepts in a classroom, which may shift their epistemological
framing of the classroom experience towards learning as
actively engaging rather than passively participating or following directions. (Bing and Redish, 2012)

Published on 02 April 2013. Downloaded on 10/07/2016 06:32:52.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of
Sam Reid for sim data collection and analysis, Jesse Garrison
for his assistance in analysis of the audio transcripts and
the development team for the Molecule Polarity interactive
simulation, with design lead by Kelly Lancaster and software
development by Chris Malley. This work was funded by the
National Science Foundation (CCLI-0817582).

References
Abraham M. R., Gelder J. I. and Haines K., (2001), A web-based
molecular-level inquiry laboratory activity, Chem. Educ., 6,
307308.
Akaygun S. and Jones L. L., (2013), How does level of guidance
aect understanding when students use a dynamic simulation of liquidvapor equilibrium? in Devetak I. and Glazer
S. A. (ed.), Active Learning and Understanding in the Chemistry
Classroom, Springer, in press.
Bing T. J. and Redish E. F., (2012), Epistemic complexity and
the journeyman-expert transition, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ.
Res., 8, 010105.
Camtasia Studio: Screen Recording and Editing Software, (2012),
Retrieved November 9, 2012, from http://www.techsmith.
com/camtasia.html.
Clark R. C. and Mayer R. E., (2007), in Ta R. (ed.), e-Learning
and the science of instruction: proven guidelines for consumers
and designers of multimedia learning, 3rd edn, San Francisco,
CA: Pfeier.
Farrell J. J., Moog R. S. and Spencer J. N., (1999), A guidedinquiry general chemistry course, J. Chem. Educ., 76,
570574.
Furtak E. M., Seidel T., Iverson H. and Briggs D. C., (2012),
Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based
science teaching: a meta-analysis, Rev. Educ. Res., 82, 300329.
Gibson J., (1977), The theory of aordances, in Shaw R. and
Bransford J. (ed.), in Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward
an Ecological Psychology, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
pp. 6782.
Hein S. M., (2012), Positive impacts using POGIL in organic
chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 89, 860864.
Hmelo-Silver C. E., Duncan R. G. and Clark A. C., (2007),
Scaolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry
learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006),
Educ. Psychol., 42, 99107.

This journal is

The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

Paper
Jmol: an open-source Java viewer for chemical structures in 3D,
(2012), Retrieved November 9, 2012, from http://www.jmol.
org/.
Kozma R. B., Russell J. W., Jones T., Wyko J., Marx N. and
Davis J., (1997), Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to
enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts,
J. Chem. Educ., 74, 330334.
Lancaster K., Moore E. B., Parson R. and Perkins K., (2013),
Insights from using PhETs design principles for chemistry
simulations, in Suits J. and Sanger M. (ed.), Pedagogic Roles
of Animations and Simulations, ACS Symposium Series, in
press.
Lee H.-S., Linn M. C., Varma K. and Liu O. L., (2010), How
do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? J. Res. Sci. Teach., 47, 7190.
Lewis S. E., (2011), Retention and reform: an evaluation of
peer-led team learning, J. Chem. Educ., 88, 703707.
Lewis S. E. and Lewis J. E., (2005), Departing from lectures: an
evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative, J. Chem.
Educ., 82, 135139.
Norman D., (1988), The design of everyday things, New York:
Basic Books.
Paul A., Podolefsky N. and Perkins K., (2012), Guiding without
feeling guided: implicit scaolding through interactive
simulation design, Proceedings of the 2012 Physics Education
Research Conference, AIP Press.
Podolefsky N., Moore E. B. and Perkins K., unpublished
work.
Phelps A. J., (1996), Teaching to enhance problem solving: its
more than the numbers, J. Chem. Educ., 73, 301304.
Plass J. L., Milne C., Homer B. D., Schwartz R. N., Hayward
E. O., Jordan T., Verkuilen, J., et al., (2012), Investigating
the eectiveness of computer simulations for chemistry
learning, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 49, 394419.
Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning, (2012), Retrieved
November 9, 2012, from http://www.pogil.org.
Quitadamo I. J., Brahler C. J. and Crouch G. J., (2009), Peer-led
team learning: a prospective method for increasing
critical thinking in undergraduate science courses, Science,
18, 2939.
Rodrigues S., (2012), Using simulations in science: an exploration of pupil behaviour, in Issues and Challenges in Science
Education Research: Moving Forward, Berlin: Springer,
pp. 209223.
Rosenthal D. P. and Sanger M. J., (2012), Student misinterpretations and misconceptions based on their explanations
of two computer animations of varying complexity depicting
the same oxidationreduction reaction, Chem. Educ. Res.
Pract., 13, 471483.
Rutten N., van Joolingen W. R. and van der Veen J. T., (2012),
The learning eects of computer simulations in science
education, Comput. Educ., 58, 136153.
Schroeder J. D. and Greenbowe T. J., (2008), Implementing
POGIL in the lecture and the Science Writing Heuristic in
the laboratorystudent perceptions and performance in

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 257--268

267

View Article Online

Paper

Stie M., Hegarty M. and Deslongchamps G., (2011), Identifying

representational competence with multi-representational
displays, Cognition Instruct., 29, 123145.
The Center for Peer Lead Team Learning, (2012), Retrieved
November 9, 2012, from http://www.pltl.org.
Xie Q. and Tinker R., (2006), Molecular dynamics simulations
of chemical reactions for use in education, J. Chem. Educ.,
83, 7783.

Published on 02 April 2013. Downloaded on 10/07/2016 06:32:52.

undergraduate organic chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9,

149156.
Smetana L. K. and Bell R. L., (2011), Computer simulations to
support science instruction and learning: a critical review of
the literature, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 34, 13371370.
Stie M. and Wilensky U., (2003), Connected chemistry
incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry
classroom, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 12, 285302.

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

268

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2013, 14, 257--268

This journal is

The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013