Modes of technology integration in chemistry teaching: theory and practice
Itsik
Aroch
*,
Dvora
Katchevich
and
Ron
Blonder
*
Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. E-mail: itsik.aroch@weizmann.ac.il; ron.blonder@weizmann.ac.il
First published on 19th April 2024
Abstract
The rise of digital technologies since the second half of the 20th century has transformed every aspect of our lives and has had an ongoing effect even on one of the most conservative fields, education, including chemistry education. During the Covid-19 pandemic, chemistry teachers around the world were forced to teach remotely. This situation provided the authors with an opportunity to investigate how chemistry teachers integrate technology into their teaching, compared with how the research literature suggests that it is done. The theoretical framework used in this explorative qualitative study involves chemistry teachers' technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). In particular, the study focused on different modes of technology integration (MOTIs) in chemistry teaching, which is a part of the teachers’ TPACK. In the first stage, five expert chemistry teachers were interviewed so that they could share their extensive experience with technology during online chemistry teaching. Analysis of their interviews revealed that the teachers applied 7 MOTIs in their chemistry teaching. Of these MOTIs, 4 were reported in the chemistry teaching literature: (1) using digital tools for visualization, (2) using open digital databases, (3) using computational methods, and (4) using virtual laboratories and videos of chemical experiments. In addition, the interviews revealed three new MOTIs in chemistry teaching not previously reported: (5) supporting multi-level representations, (6) enabling outreach of chemistry research, and (7) presenting chemistry in everyday life phenomena. In the second research stage, we collected the perspectives of other chemistry teachers (N = 22) regarding the 7 MOTIs. This stage enabled us to validate the findings of the first stage on a wider population and provided data to rate the importance of the seven different MOTIs according to the teachers. We wish to stress that understanding the MOTIs will not only enrich teachers’ theoretical knowledge base regarding integrating technology into chemistry teaching—it will also contribute to chemistry teachers' preparation and professional development programs.
Introduction
Since the dawn of humanity, men and women have always tried to find the most recent technologies that would improve their daily life, and as a result, technology has served as an important growth driver in the development and progress of human societies. The rise of digital technologies since the middle of the 20th century has transformed every aspect of our lives and has had an ongoing effect even on one of the most conservative fields, education, including chemistry education (Seery and McDonnell, 2013). The year 2019 can be considered as a turning point in using and integrating technology in education. The Covid-19 pandemic, bursting onto the global scene in late 2019, and consequently the shift to online teaching and learning forced almost all teachers to use digital technology for planning their lessons, organizing learning environments (Guo and Lee, 2023), teaching (Díez-Pascual and Jurado-Sánchez, 2022), supporting students' emotional needs (Kaplan-Rakowski, 2021; Davis et al., 2022), and for their own professional development (Kalman et al., 2022). Many teachers had to adapt quickly to teaching online without training and with little preparation (Dietrich et al., 2020; Rap et al., 2020). Many courses successfully adapted to online platforms (Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2020; Sunasee, 2020; Marchak et al., 2021), as well as to challenges in the assessment methods (Rupnow et al., 2020) and to the issues of academic integrity (McDowell, 2020). The current study took advantage of this widespread use of technology in chemistry teaching to gain insights regarding integrating technology from the teachers' perspective.Although the uses of technology in education encompass numerous aspects (Trust, 2018), here we divided them into two branches, in order to understand their relevance to chemistry teaching: general uses and chemistry-specific uses (Tuvi-Arad and Blonder, 2019). Examples of general uses are using technology to organize learning materials with learning management systems (Muzyka, 2015) and establishing interactions between learners using interactive communication platforms (Rap and Blonder, 2016). Examples of specific uses of technology in chemistry education include using (1) visualizations of submicroscopic structures (Hati and Bhattacharyya, 2016; Peterson et al., 2020), (2) digital chemistry databases (Battle et al., 2010a,b), and (3) sophisticated computations to better understand chemical phenomena (Sendlinger et al., 2008; Tuvi-Arad and Blonder, 2019). Tuvi-Arad and Blonder (2019) presented these three specific modes of technology integration (MOTIs) for chemistry teaching. The focus of the current paper will be on chemistry-specific MOTIs, as reflected from teachers' experience.
Teachers’ knowledge of using technology for teaching specific chemistry content and skills can be discussed and examined by using the TPACK (technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge) framework (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). This framework has evolved from the fundamental work of Shulman (1987) regarding pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), along with the need to include the teachers' technological knowledge and skills. TPACK allows researchers to investigate teachers’ pedagogical and technological considerations in their specific area of expertise. The literature is replete with studies that have adopted this framework for both in-service (Blonder et al., 2013; Dorfman et al., 2019; Anci et al., 2020; Gong et al., 2023) and pre-service teachers (Özdilek and Robeck, 2019; Schmid et al., 2021; Zimmermann et al., 2021; Thohir et al., 2022). While considering the TPACK framework, it is important to distinguish between two approaches: the integrative approach and the transformative approach. The integrative approach states that several bodies of knowledge (PCK, TPK and TCK) are integrated by the teacher during teaching; these TPACK components allow teachers to make decisions regarding the use of technology in class. The integrative approach had developed by including additional components to the TPACK framework. For example, Thyssen et al. (2023), suggested to incorporate sociocultural knowledge and its interactions with the original TPACK components, resulting in the sociocultural technological pedagogical content knowledge (STPCK). This framework highlights the additional knowledge needed in STEM education, given the transformations in communication, mediatization, and society, and aids in analyzing the broader implications of learning in the digital age. The transformative approach, on the other hand, states that TPACK is a unique body of knowledge that develops from the contribution of content, context, technology, pedagogy, and knowledge of learners (Angeli and Valanides, 2009). Empirical studies (Angeli, 2005; Angeli and Valanides, 2009) have concluded that the growth of TPACK components (namely, PCK, TPK and TCK) does not necessarily result in the growth of the complete TPACK, and that only by addressing TPACK as a whole are teachers able to benefit from it. In this study, the transformative approach was adopted, focusing on the ways teachers described how and why they used technology to support their chemistry teaching. Further justification for this approach is discussed in the methodology section. Although teachers’ attitudes (Rusek et al., 2017; Rap et al., 2020; Chroustová et al., 2022) as well as their concerns (Shwartz et al., 2017) regarding adopting technology play a major role in understanding the extent to which teachers integrate technology in their practice, this study focused on teachers' knowledge. More specifically, we aimed at the specific modes of technology integration that chemistry teachers implement that are related to the TPACK framework.
Chemistry teachers’ TPACK includes prominent uses of technology that address the teachers’ unique pedagogical needs in chemistry teaching. These uses, also termed MOTIs, constitute only part of the teachers’ full TPACK. This study aims to illustrate how these MOTIs can assist in developing teachers' TPACK. Four MOTIs were identified in the literature: (1) using digital tools for visualization, (2) using open digital databases, (3) using computational methods, and (4) using virtual laboratories and videos of chemical experiments. Next, we will briefly describe these MOTIs.
Using digital tools for visualization
Students' profound understanding of chemistry is based on their mastering and being able to connect three levels of understanding: the macroscopic level, the submicroscopic level, and the symbolic level (Johnstone, 1991; Dori and Hameiri, 2003; O. de Jong et al., 2013). However, understanding chemical concepts at the submicroscopic level is often challenging for students, since they must apply abstract thinking (O. de Jong et al., 2013). In trying to support this challenge, chemistry teachers have been using digital tools to visualize chemical structures and processes (Bernholt et al., 2019; Dorfman et al., 2019; Broman et al., 2021). Simulations, for example, can serve as an effective tool for visualizing the submicroscopic particles and structures in 3D, in attempting to make the submicroscopic world more tangible and clearer for students to understand (Kozma and Russell, 1997). Hati and Bhattacharyya (2016) described the use of computer modeling and simulations to teach students about the relationships between structure, dynamics, and function in proteins, as part of a biophysical chemistry course. Following the course, students could contribute to the scientific community by publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals, which serves as an example of teachers using their TPACK to promote presentation skills among students. In recent years, games and applications involving virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) have become increasingly abundant and popular, allowing students to experience chemistry learning by using an advanced technological platform. Peterson et al. (2020) depicted an AR application used to visualize the complex three-dimensional structures of macromolecules such as proteins or DNA. Alrige et al. (2021) described the development of an AR application in which students can visualize the structures of chemical elements at the submicroscopic level by using their smartphone camera to scan special cards of chemical elements. In both examples, there were clear benefits of utilizing AR-assisted visualization regarding students' interests and their understanding of 3D structures. Advanced technology could also be applied to provide teachers with information regarding students' attention during learning, which was recently applied in science education research using eye-tracking methodology (Tóthová and Rusek 2022; Rusek et al., 2024).In summary, technology-assisted visualization was found to serve as an effective tool to support students' understanding of submicroscopic structures, while increasing their interest in science and enhancing their learning. The abundance of digital tools, computers and smartphones enables teachers to integrate technology more easily in class and to improve their pedagogy.
Using open digital databases
Another aspect in which technology can be integrated into chemistry teaching is the use of open digital databases. Databases, which are commonly used by chemists, may include a variety of chemical, physical, and spectral data, information regarding chemical reactions that elucidate synthetic processes or textual resources that explain content-related terms and concepts (Tuvi-Arad and Blonder, 2019). Battle et al. (2010a) mentioned the abundance of digital databases in chemistry, in contrast to the scarcity of their use among educators and students. In a series of articles, they presented an accessible subset of crystal structure data within the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD) (Battle et al., 2010a) and described the development of five teaching units available for teachers to utilize that database (Battle et al., 2010b). They suggested that the added value of using the digital CSD included the critical thinking employed by students regarding bonding and molecular structures as well as their encouragement to carefully examine the measurement methods and the limitations of data collection (Battle et al., 2010a).Using computational methods
Computational chemistry (CC) is a field of chemistry that uses mathematical algorithms, statistics, and large databases to integrate chemical theory and modeling with experimental observations (Rodríguez-Becerra et al., 2020). CC methods applied in chemistry teaching are aimed to help students explore and better understand chemical principles and properties and are targeted mostly at undergraduate students (Grushow and Reeves, 2019). The advantage of CC is that the calculation results can be easily visualized and students can gain insights from them (Grushow and Reeves, 2019). Using CC can provide chemistry teachers with an opportunity to present to their students the numerical justification for a variety of problems and phenomena, e.g., interactions between molecules and the thermodynamic principle of minimum of energy (Traube and Blonder, 2023). In addition, training chemistry teachers to use and implement CC software in their teaching significantly contributed to their contemporary content knowledge in chemistry, which was reflected in their motivation to integrate these tools in class (Traube and Blonder, 2023). Regarding the benefits of using CC methods, there is not much evidence of their use, and the available evidence mainly refers to undergraduate students (Silva et al., 2015; Esselman and Hill, 2016; Snyder and Kucukkal, 2021). This uncommon implementation could be due to infrastructure issues (e.g., software prices, maintenance, and technical support), the need for technical training, students' limited theoretical background regarding the calculations, lecturers' TPASK (technological, pedagogical, and scientific knowledge) that is not fully developed, and their self-efficacy, especially when CC is not their area of expertise (Tuvi-Arad, 2022).Using virtual laboratories and videos of chemical experiments
Chemistry educators often highlight the importance of hands-on experience in chemistry and the significance of scientific inquiry in the laboratory (Lunetta et al., 2007). In recent years, it has been suggested that technology can be used to replace the wet chemical laboratory, to complement it, or to supplement it (Accettone, 2022; Krüger et al., 2022; Qu et al., 2022). Virtual laboratories can be used as an alternative when the experiments to be conducted are complex or hazardous (Hou et al., 2023), when no real laboratory is available, or when access to the laboratory is limited, such as in times of emergency (Kelley, 2021; Díez-Pascual and Jurado-Sánchez, 2022). The laboratory can also be computerized to allow various parameters to be measured and analyzed by using multiple sensors (Barnea et al., 2010). The effect of a virtual laboratory compared to “in the laboratory” chemistry experience on students' learning experience and outcomes was studied in both high-school (Winkelmann et al., 2014) and college students (Winkelmann et al., 2020). The results indicated that the virtual laboratory displayed equivalent or greater learning gains regarding lab reports and quizzes compared with “in-the-lab” experiments, which indicated the educational benefits of the virtual lab. These benefits can be added to lower the costs of space, equipment, and personnel resources while using virtual laboratory activities (Ramnarain and Penn, 2019). A chemistry teacher who wishes to apply virtual laboratories with her students should also be aware of the skills developed and lost by using these applications. Although it appears that conducting measurements skills may be hindered by this technology, skills such as teamwork and collaboration (Rogers, 2011), safety considerations (Makransky et al., 2019), and critical thinking (Rowe et al., 2018) may by enhanced.Here, videos of chemical experiments could be a reasonable alternative and could also be useful when safety regulations forbid the use of certain substances or methods, or when students miss class for various reasons. Videos of lab experiments can be applied in chemistry education to present experiments in class or to the public (Benedict and Pence, 2012; Blonder et al., 2013). This example provides other evidence of teachers’ use of TPACK to develop their students’ science presentation and communications skills.
Challenges and limitations of integrating technology in chemistry teaching
Digital technology is often presented as a factor that can positively affect teaching and learning. However, reports regarding the benefits and advantages of technology in teaching should be balanced by considering its limitations and challenges. We will address these challenges next.Among the general challenges concerning online teaching, Adedoyin and Soykan (2023) mentioned infrastructure issues such as the lack of internet access, inconsistent power supply (especially in developing countries), slow internet speed, the low digital competency of students, and sociological issues such as the limited interactions between students in digital spaces. In addition, issues such as equity should not be overlooked when discussing educational technology. In considering the effect of learning with VR technology on 5th grade students, Brown et al. (2021) emphasized the need for teachers and designers to address social and cultural differences while implementing technology in schools, in order to promote equity in education.
Digital technology may affect only certain aspects of learning. AR technology, for example, was found to affect learning outcomes only at the higher levels of learning (the level of analysis); teachers were advised to take this finding into consideration while implementing AR in their classes (Weng et al., 2020). Erbas and Demirer (2019) showed that there were no significant differences in students' achievements while using AR technology for learning, and suggested that the students' focus was on the technology rather than on the content itself. Artun et al. (2020) found that technology did not statistically significantly influence the science processing skills of pre-service science teachers when they conducted VR-enriched science laboratory activities, emphasizing that the technology should suit the learning goals.
Other challenges are related to the chemistry laboratory, which has a central place in chemistry learning (Lunetta et al., 2007). For example, remote laboratory alternatives in the form of video-recorded experiments and online simulations were found to be less valuable to the overall student learning experience than face-to-face laboratories (Accettone, 2022). Practical laboratory skills, including troubleshooting of machinery and experiencing the challenges that scientists face when planning experiments may be hindered by virtual laboratories (T. de Jong et al., 2013). Furthermore, physical experiments typically include authentic delays between trials that encourage careful planning and reflection of the next investigation (Renken and Nunez, 2013). Simulations of experiments often allow students to conduct many experiments consecutively or concomitantly; however, students pay less attention to controlling the variables during the simulation (Renken and Nunez, 2013). Finally, physical investigations offer students the opportunity to learn about the complexities of science by dealing with unanticipated events, such as measurement errors, and thus, develop students' inquiry and critiquing skills (Erdosne Toth et al., 2009). In this study, the teachers mostly referred to the advantages of using digital technology in teaching; however, they also reported its limitations.
In summary, from the chemistry education literature we were able to identify four MOTIs. To apply these MOTIs in teaching the chemistry curriculum, teachers must connect the MOTIs to chemistry contents, hence, to develop their TPACK. During the Covid-19 remote teaching period, teachers extensively applied technology in their chemistry teaching; this was an opportunity for the authors to study chemistry teachers' TPACK in relation to different MOTIs. We aimed to determine whether the theoretical MOTIs were relevant to teachers' practice, and to identify possible new MOTIs based on the teachers' extensive experience.
Research question
Based on the research aims, we posed the following research question:What are the modes of technology integration, as reflected by remote teaching practice of expert chemistry teachers, and how do these modes compare with the research literature on this topic?
Methods
This was an exploratory qualitative study, aiming to present the insights and practices of chemistry teachers regarding integrating digital technology into chemistry teaching. Hence, we analyzed authentic descriptions of practicing teachers regarding their online chemistry teaching experience (Creswell and Clark Plano, 2017).Participants
The study has both an exploratory stage and a validation stage. In the exploratory stage, five expert chemistry teachers (female) from Israel, with 10 to 30 years of teaching experience were interviewed. In the interviews, all the teachers referred to their 10th to 12th grade chemistry teaching. The participating teachers were selected based on their high expertise and reputation in integrating technology in chemistry teaching and their willingness to share their insights during the interviews, along with a signed research consent form. Pseudonyms were used to protect the privacy of the participating teachers. In the validation stage, 22 chemistry teachers with 3–36 years of teaching experience were interviewed. Their average use of technology in a 1–6 scale was 4.16 (S.D. = 1.29), (when 1 denotes not using technology at all and 6 denotes using technology in every lesson). The interviews led them to reflect on their technology integration through the lenses of the seven MOTIs that were identified in the exploratory stage.Research tools
Exploratory stage: Teachers’ semi-structured interviews:Semi-structured interviews with chemistry teachers were conducted and recorded using ZOOMTM, from January to February of 2022. The interviews were of a descriptive/interpretive nature (McIntosh and Morse, 2015), focusing on chemistry teachers' perspectives and experiences from online teaching during the Covid-19 remote teaching period. During the interviews, the researchers encouraged the teachers to refer to technology integration that is chemistry specific, rather than generic technology, which could serve general pedagogical purposes (e.g., students' engagement, class management, and immediate feedback). The following questions were asked in a flexible order during the interviews, considering the progress of the conversation. An opening question was: What digital tools did you use while teaching chemistry remotely?
For each tool, please explain:
1. What content did you teach using the digital tool?
2. Can you detail your pedagogical considerations?
3. How did you teach specific chemical content using the digital tool?
4. What were the advantages or the added value of the digital tool in terms of understanding the content or other goals of chemistry teaching?
5. Why did you choose this specific digital tool?
The teachers were also asked specifically about the limitations of the digital tools they used and the difficulties they encountered while using them. Although this information was not analyzed during the study, some limitations of digital technology were noted and are presented in the analysis.
Following the transformative view of TPACK (Angeli and Valanides, 2005, 2009; Yeh et al., 2014), the interview questions focused on TPACK as a unique body of knowledge and not as an integration of its constituents (Karabuz and Ogan-Bekiroglu, 2020). The teachers were asked to refer mainly to their pedagogical considerations of using specific technological tools, to their advantages, and to the way these tools affected their teaching goals. The aim was to get teachers to talk about the amalgamated knowledge they had developed through years of experience, and especially during remote teaching. Their vast experience in teaching and in integrating technology in teaching assisted the interviewers in elucidating their use of technology as part of their transformative TPACK.
Validation stage interviews: To validate the findings from the exploratory stage and to search for a possible hierarchy in the different MOTIs, 22 chemistry teachers (4 males and 18 females) were interviewed by phone. The teachers gave their oral consent to be interviewed and to record the conversation.
They were asked the following questions in a structured interview that lasted between 20 and 45 minutes:
1. What is your teaching experience?
Please refer to the following questions on a scale of 1 to 6 from (1 – not using it at all, 6 – using it all the time)
2. Please state the extent to which you think you are using digital technology in teaching.
The interviewer (the first author) introduced each of the seven MOTIs including some examples (the description of the introduction is detailed in the Appendix) and asked:
3. To what extent do you use this MOTI in teaching?
4. Following your previous answer, please give an example of how you used this MOTI in your practice.
At the end of the interview, there was a reflective summarizing question:
5. After having been exposed to the MOTI framework, would you please share your thoughts, feelings, and critiques?
Data analysis
Exploratory stage: The goal of analyzing the interviews was to identify the specific modes in which digital technologies were used by chemistry teachers during their online teaching. Furthermore, an attempt was made to capture the implicit TPACK that the teachers developed during the extensive period of online teaching, by shedding light on their pedagogical considerations. The interviews were analyzed in two stages. First, deductive analysis (Creswell and Creswell, 2017) was conducted to validate the MOTIs in chemistry teaching that were previously reported in the literature (Tuvi-Arad and Blonder, 2019). Second, an inductive analysis, using the grounded theory approach (Strauss and Corbin, 1998), was applied to identify new MOTIs in chemistry teaching that could not fit the existing ones.Teachers' interviews were conducted until the MOTIs in chemistry teaching were repeated without any new modes emerging, thus suggesting that the categories were saturated (see Table 1).
| # | MOTI | Ella | Yaara | Michal | Daphna | Nataly |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teachers' pseudonyms are presented in chronological interview order. | ||||||
| 1 | Using digital tools for visualization | X | X | X | X | X |
| 2 | Using open digital databases | X | X | X | ||
| 3 | Using computational methods | X | X | |||
| 4 | Using virtual laboratories and videos of chemical experiments | X | X | X | ||
| 5 | Supporting multi-level representations | X | X | X | ||
| 6 | Enabling the outreach of chemistry research | X | X | X | ||
| 7 | Presenting chemistry in everyday life phenomena | X | X | |||
During the analysis, the following stages were followed (Saldaña, 2013):
(1) The interviews were transcribed and divided into utterances. An utterance starts when the speaker changes the topic of the discourse.
(2) Statements referring to technology integration in teaching were coded following the descriptive coding method (Saldaña, 2013).
(3) The codes were then attributed to the four MOTIs reported in the literature: using digital tools for visualization, using open digital databases, using computation methods, and using virtual laboratories and videos of chemical experiments.
(4) Codes that could not fit these MOTIs were clustered into new categories according to a common denominator agreed upon by the researchers.
(5) Coding and categorization were done separately by two researchers (the first and second authors); each validated the coding of the other. Disagreements in coding were resolved by each researcher presenting his or her reasoning, and discussing the appropriate MOTI, until a consensus was reached. Then, an inter-rater validation was conducted with the third author, as described below.
Inter-rater validation
Inter-rater validation was conducted by the third author by assigning MOTIs to 20 randomly selected quotes from the teachers' interviews, which were previously coded as described above. The raters' coding was compared and discussed, and validation analysis resulted in a Cohen's Kappa inter-rater agreement of 85%, which suggests a very good agreement between the raters (Altman, 1990). Following the inter-rater validation, the descriptions of the MOTIs were modified and refined. We decided to include videos of chemical experiments in the category “Using virtual laboratories”. Another insight was the need to consider the wider context of the quote in the entire interview and not as an isolated sentence, as in the following example:“…[regarding] Structure and Bonding, we talked about it last year in the PLC [professional learning community]; I am using the infographics from Compound Interest, but I used it even before the Covid-19 pandemic.”
This teacher described her use of the website “Compound Interest”, which contains infographics that are mostly connected to the MOTI “Presenting chemistry in everyday life phenomena”. However, analyzing the quote in a wider context of the interview, the teacher later said that she used it as a database when she taught carbon compounds, functional groups, their functions, and their characteristics. The use of infographics for that purpose suggested that the utterance should be classified as “Using open digital databases.”
Validation stage: Descriptive statistics measures were calculated regarding the extent of using the different MOTIs. The open-ended answers were transcribed and served to illustrate teachers' TPACK while reflecting on their technology integration.
Results and discussion
Seven MOTIs in chemistry teaching were identified: (1) using digital tools for visualization, (2) using open digital databases, (3) using computational methods, (4) using virtual laboratories and videos of chemical experiments, (5) supporting multi-level representations, (6) enabling the outreach of chemistry research, and (7) presenting chemistry in everyday life phenomena.MOTIs 1–3 comply with what was previously reported by Tuvi-Arad and Blonder (2019). The MOTI dealing with virtual laboratories that includes the use of videos of chemical experiment was also identified in the literature (Josephsen and Kristensen, 2006; Hawkins and Phelps, 2013; Wu et al., 2019; Avcı, 2022). MOTIs 5–7 were identified in the current study and portray the unique perspectives of the chemistry teachers. The study characterizes all seven MOTIs of chemistry teaching as part of teachers' TPACK and their potential applications.
The seven MOTIs are presented in Table 2, followed by an explanation of each mode, including a discussion and a comparison to the literature. In addition, Table 2 provides quotes from teachers’ interviews that refer to the digital tools they applied in each MOTI, and an example of how those quotes were analyzed and attributed to the different MOTIs. Next, the validation process of the 7 MOTIs will be presented, along with a rating of their importance as perceived by the chemistry teachers.
| MOTIs in chemistry teaching | Sample of teachers' quotes | The connection between MOTI and chemistry teaching |
|---|---|---|
| (1) Using digital tools for visualization | “The heart of the project was the 3D… We saw primary and secondary structures: alpha helix and beta sheets. [on the website] You can see the hydrogen bonds and the amino acids composing the protein.” (Dalia) | The teacher described a digital tool that enabled her students to view the 3D structure of proteins. |
| “I use the PhET TM website to illustrate spatial shapes of molecules, because students without spatial vision find them hard to grasp. The site illustrates it in 3D.” (Michal) | The teacher described a digital illustration of molecules in 3D and the way it supported students that faced difficulties in spatial visualization. | |
| (2) Using open digital databases | “Proteopedia TM is the Wikipedia of proteins. It is a great database.” (Ella) | The teacher described a website as a database for protein structures. |
| “I showed the students that in the periodic table that we usually use, the different isotopes are not shown, but in Ptable TM it is nicely shown. You click on the atomic symbol of an element, and it shows all its isotopes. Students can then understand how the atomic mass is calculated based on the abundance of the different isotopes.” (Yaara) | The teacher described an interactive periodic table that she used with her students as a source for data, especially to investigate the abundance of isotopes. | |
| (3) Using computational methods | “You draw the molecules and optimize them. It was amazing how the students suddenly understood how hydrogen bonds are formed, with the correct angles. They were fascinated and said WOW. I think it is worth a thousand words.” (Nataly) | The teacher demonstrated a program that can calculate the minimum of energy for a specific system. However, this cannot be done without the aid of the software's computation algorithms and its graphical illustrations. |
| (4) Using virtual laboratories and videos of chemical experiments | “There is an advantage for the use of digital technology in teaching when I need to conduct a virtual experiment in which I can change the parameters, and I cannot use the lab equipment… The students had to select the lab equipment and the amount of reactants… They did the titration and calculated the concentration. I think it was an acid with an unknown concentration.” (Michal) | The teacher described the use of a simulation to conduct a titration experiment, and the ease in which students could change the variables in the experiment. |
| (5) Supporting multi-level representations | “A couple of days ago, I showed the students a simulation of sugar dissolving in water. It helped them to see at the submicroscopic level, because we looked at the dissolving sugar in a glass (the macroscopic level) and then went to the submicroscopic level. It was very helpful to see the relationship between both representations.” (Nataly) | The teacher explained how the simulation that she presented in class captured both the macroscopic and the submicroscopic levels and enabled the students to see the connection between the two. |
| (6) Enabling the outreach of chemistry research | “I really wanted the students to work with an authentic inquiry tool, like scientists do. I wanted them to feel that they can work and investigate using the same tools just like scientists use.” (Daphna) | The teacher expressed her educational view: She wanted to enable her students to experience the same tools that scientists apply in their research. |
| (7) Presenting chemistry in everyday life phenomena | “At the end of teaching a specific topic, I always mention its connection to everyday life. For example, in acids and bases, there are a lot of smelly body odors that are acidic, so I showed the students a digital poster on that topic.” (Ella) | The teacher explained how digital technology can be applied to connect chemistry to everyday phenomena as part of her philosophy in chemistry teaching. In this example, she used that approach and applied technology to expose her students to the chemistry of body odors after she taught acids and bases. |
Using digital tools for visualization
One of the definitions of visualization is “Make [it] visible to the eye.” (Pearsall, 1999). This definition makes sense when dealing with the submicroscopic world, in which the laws of physics do not allow the particles to be seen by the naked eye. Students and teachers therefore use visual models to simplify abstract phenomena and concepts, since these models and representations are crucial in constructing scientific knowledge (Gilbert, 2005). Visualization in chemistry refers to the chemical symbols and formulas, particulate drawings, graphs, pictures, animations, videos, simulations, and VR/AR applications used to visually represent core components of the theoretical model (Talanquer, 2011, 2022).Bearing in mind the macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic levels in chemistry, teachers often emphasize the importance of understanding the submicroscopic world, when students make their first steps in chemistry, rather than just relying on a description of the phenomena at the macroscopic level (Johnstone, 1991; O. de Jong et al., 2013). However, grasping and understanding the submicroscopic structure of matter is often challenging for students (Johnstone, 1991), because they are unable to visualize atomic and molecular systems. The MOTI “Using digital tools for visualization” addresses this challenge. Visualization of matter includes, for example, the 3D structure of molecules, the lattice structure of matter, or submicroscopic phenomena such as the dissolution of salt in water.
Teachers' TPACK to implement the visualization MOTI includes their pedagogical considerations regarding why they should use technology-assisted visualization and how they should use digital tools for this purpose. As will be exemplified next, their TPACK also includes their considerations regarding the efficiency and the accuracy of the digital tools they implement.
Next, we present several examples of the technological integration that promoted visualization in different curricular topics using technological means, as described in the teachers' interviews. For each of the examples we also provide a reference to the specific technological tool.
“When I talk in class about atomic structure, I always begin with orders of magnitude. You can go deeper and deeper (zoom in) starting from a coffee bean and ending in a carbon atom.”
Ella expressed the importance she finds in teaching the size of the atom before she starts teaching atomic structure. However, she realized that it is hard for students to grasp the meaning of the very small scale of atoms. She therefore enacted her TPACK to use the technology-assisted visualization application, which enabled her students to visualize and compare objects at different orders of magnitude and supported their understanding of the atomic scale.
“I showed the students a video of two hydrogen atoms and described what happens to their valence electrons. When I explained it on the whiteboard and talked about the potential well, the students did not understand what happened, and what the attractive forces were. Some of them could not imagine; however, the video completed the picture for them.”
In this example, the teacher's TPACK enabled her to find a video that visualized chemical bonding, a topic that she knows students generally struggle to understand.
“While teaching about fatty acids during remote teaching, I could not show my students the tangible models and they were unable to touch them. Instead, I showed them the 3D representation of the molecules in “Molview TM ” ( Bergwerf, 2014 ). I wanted to show them the ‘cis’ and ‘trans’ configurations.”
The teacher's TPACK enabled her to replace tangible molecular models that are useful for presenting small molecules, such as fatty acids or smaller ones, with a 3D digital visualization. This is more important when dealing with complex and bigger molecules such as proteins, where the tangible molecular models are more challenging to handle. Digital visualization of the 3D structure of proteins, which includes elements such as amino acids, functional groups, and hydrogen bonds, can address this need. Dalia stated the advantages of digital visualization in understanding the structure of proteins. Her TPACK is demonstrated when she referred to a project she launched with her students in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) (Berman et al., 2000):
“The heart of the project was the 3D… We saw primary and secondary structures. We saw alpha helix and beta sheet structures. You can see the hydrogen bonds and the amino acids composing the protein.”
While analyzing the teachers' interviews, we decided to distinguish between ‘simple’ and ‘complex’ visualizations. The ‘simple’ visualizations, presented above, address only one level of representation (mostly at the submicroscopic level); their goal is for students to understand only one aspect of the phenomenon, for example, a 3D structure of a molecule. The ‘complex’ visualizations support the connection between the various representation levels, connect several mental models to a more comprehensive one, and contribute to a deeper understanding of the chemical concepts, for example, a simulation that shows the macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic representations of salt dissolving in water. Therefore, the “Supporting multi-level representations” (‘complex’) MOTI was separated from the “Using digital tools for visualization” (‘simple’) MOTI.
Supporting multi-level representations
Although visualization can often be used to represent a “model”, most of the theoretical models in chemistry rely on a variety of assumptions that make it difficult for a single visualization to capture (Talanquer, 2011, 2022). Chandrasegaran et al. (2008) emphasized the importance of multi-level representations in chemistry education for describing and understanding chemical reactions. Learning how to navigate between the three levels of representations was found to be critical for gaining a meaningful understanding and for successful problem solving among chemistry students (Kozma and Russell, 1997; Gabel, 1999). However, research shows that students often find it difficult to understand, use, and transfer multi-level representations (Gabel, 1999; Davidowitz and Chittleborough, 2009; Gilbert and Treagust, 2009; O. de Jong et al., 2013). This challenge can be addressed by harnessing the advantages of digital technology to mediate between the different representations, and to link them to a comprehensive model.Ella mentioned the importance she attributes to exposing students to different representations and to connecting between them.
“Understanding the connection between the macroscopic and the submicroscopic levels is often difficult for students. For me, this connection is very important throughout chemistry teaching.”
Ella also gave an example of how she utilizes images to achieve this pedagogical goal, showing a picture that captures both the macroscopic and the submicroscopic levels.
“Here is something that indicates to the students that they do not understand the difference between the macroscopic and the submicroscopic levels. In a glass of water, they can see the molecular structure of the water molecules, there is a pencil with the structure of graphite, and a snack that contains salt, with the lattice structure of sodium chloride, and an orange with vitamin C. I am always looking for images that show both the macroscopic and the submicroscopic levels.”
Ella's TPACK was able to connect the macroscopic and the submicroscopic levels by using digital technology. For her, this connection is crucial for students to understand chemistry.
Showing how different types of representations supplement one another and relate to each other, Nataly described an animation she showed her students, which focused on the relationship between the macroscopic and the sub-microscopic levels.
“A couple of days ago, I showed the students a simulation of sugar dissolving in water. It helped them see at the submicroscopic level, because we looked at the dissolving sugar in a glass from a macroscopic perspective and then went to the submicroscopic level. It was very helpful to see the relationship between both representations.”
The interviews exemplified various ways in which chemistry teachers harnessed digital technology for simultaneously representing the macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic levels. By doing so, the teachers aimed at strengthening students' ability to connect the different levels of representations, which enabled them to better understand the chemical phenomena at the submicroscopic scale. Therefore, it can be concluded that whereas visualization assists students to see, multi-level representations assist students to understand. Note that this MOTI was found in the current study but was not included in previous literature regarding technology integration in chemistry teaching.
Using open digital databases
Using databases is a common and useful practice in chemistry research, and it can be applied for teaching as well (Tuvi-Arad and Blonder, 2019). Over the years, teachers have been using printed databases to provide their students with the opportunity to search for data on the physical and chemical properties of substances, and to use the data for calculations. Digital databases enable easier search options, exposure to numerous data on substances, a comparison of properties between substances, and they can be used for promoting inquiry skills among students.While describing the use of the PDB with her students, Dalia talked about the variety of information that this database provides, which is not always easy to find in printed databases. She explained that this information could expose students to the story behind the discovery of the protein's structure.
“I explained to the students that the protein's name is its ID in the PDB. Here is [showing the location on the web page] the article that published the structure of the protein, here are the scientists who solved the structure of the protein, here is the year when the data were published, the methods that the scientists used to solve the protein's structure, and the origin of the protein, Homo sapiens.”
That database was a good example of how technological knowledge based on the teacher's experience was used to promote a pedagogical goal, namely, exposing students to a rich and diverse database. Choosing the right digital tool for that purpose is part of the teacher's TPACK. Dalia also mentioned how she used this database to develop students' self-efficacy.
“I wanted the students to feel that they have the efficacy to use the same tools that scientists use when they conduct research.”
Sometimes applications or websites could serve as databases even if this is not their primary use. The application MolviewTM, mostly used for 3D visualization of molecular structures, could be an excellent example, according to Yaara:
“It is also a database. If someone wants, he can write the molecule's name and see its structure or draw the molecule and go to the information card to find out its name and all sorts of information. It can open a window to a lot of discoveries.”
Another example, mentioned by Yaara, was using the dynamic periodic table (PtableTM) (Dayah, 1997) to explore different isotopes of chemical elements.
“I showed the students that in the periodic table we usually use the different isotopes are not shown, but in Ptable TM it is nicely shown. You click on the atomic symbol of an element, and it shows all its isotopes.”
Ella mentioned another kind of periodic table she used with her students and noted its advantages.
“Where do the students take the data? From a dynamic periodic table ( Mahaffy et al., 2014 ), which shows all the elements' isotopes along with their abundance. It is very colorful and inviting.”
Digital chemistry databases are a good resource for obtaining rich chemical information and can make learning meaningful by providing a venue for developing inquiry skills and digital literacy. Teachers used digital databases to increase students' self-efficacy, to introduce them as authentic research tools, and to enable students to use them in the same way that scientists do. Using an interactive periodic table (mostly used for finding the atomic number and the molar mass of elements) or a software such as MolviewTM (mostly used for visualizing molecules) for extracting chemical data, nicely exemplifies the modifications teachers made in using digital tools as sources for data. The teachers’ transformations, by utilizing the database-like nature of other applications, suggest a novel implementation of their TPACK, and even imply the use of more than one MOTI in a specific digital tool.
Using computational methods
The field of computational chemistry has been applied by researchers to solve contemporary problems, for example, for finding the structure of proteins (Zheng et al., 2018), for determining the mechanisms of chemical reactions (Cheng et al., 2015), and for discovering new drugs (Leelananda and Lindert, 2016). In education, computational methods can convey contemporary science knowledge to teachers and help students visualize and understand chemical phenomena (Traube and Blonder, 2023).Evidence supporting the use of CC methods in chemistry teaching was also found in the teachers’ interviews. Nadia described her use of the software AvogadroTM (Hanwell et al., 2012) to explain to her students how the principle of “a minimum of energy” is applied in forming hydrogen bonds.
“…I added the water molecules and did the optimization. It was amazing how they [the students] suddenly understood how hydrogen bonds are formed, in the correct angles. They were fascinated and said WOW. I think it is worth a thousand words.”
Sometimes the graphics are so attractive that students might overlook the fact that they are based on calculations. Michal thought that showing the polarity of a molecule based on the relative polarity of its covalent bonds is a great example.
“For determining the polarity and the geometric structure of molecules, the Phet TM website ( Moore et al., 2014 ) is very helpful. The students had to fill-in the geometric structure and the polarity of the molecules in a sheet I gave them. The simulation calculates it automatically, and the students could check their own predictions regarding the polarity of different molecules.”
Note that in the teachers' interviews we could find only a few examples where CC was applied in chemistry teaching. This finding is not surprising, when considering that applying high-level CC usually requires learning the designated software or coding (Grazioli et al., 2023). The evidence supporting this MOTI was characterized mainly by the way teachers overcame the problem of implementing CC in high-school classes, using simple software that are easy to support. Working with this program in class allowed Nadia to convey to her students a basic scientific principle. In this way, she can facilitate students’ understanding and contribute to their trust in explanations based on the scientific method. This high level of TPACK was found only in Nadia's interview.
Using virtual laboratories and videos of chemical experiments
Laboratory-based learning activities were found to enhance learners’ conceptual and procedural understanding of submicroscopic chemical phenomena (Ramnarain and Penn, 2019). Although a virtual laboratory can be beneficial by reducing resources such as the space needed, laboratory equipment, and laboratory assistants (Ramnarain and Penn, 2019), a question was raised regarding the effectiveness of virtual simulation of a lab experiment compared to a face-to-face laboratory (Krüger et al., 2022). Ramnarain and Penn (2019) compared the achievements of pre-service chemistry teachers and reported that virtual laboratory interventions yielded significantly higher achievement scores than did traditional laboratory ones. In Avci's (2022) study, students reported that they enjoyed the virtual lab activity and experienced meaningful and effective learning. The virtual laboratory was also found to decrease the cognitive load of students and to increase students' motivation (Sypsas and Kalles, 2018).The face-to-face chemistry laboratory has an advantage over the virtual one in developing the skills needed to work in an actual lab, skills such as conducting measurements and working with lab equipment. These experiences are considered “real lab work” by teachers, thus favoring the face-to-face laboratories. However, the virtual laboratory can still preserve and develop some lab skills, sometimes even to a greater extent than the face-to-face lab can. Pyatt and Sims (2012) found that the virtual lab was considered by students to be a more divergent approach to experimentation and more useful than the face-to-face lab. An important laboratory skill is assembling the experiment system. Surprisingly, this skill was not found to be significantly different between students experiencing the virtual and face-to-face laboratories (Hawkins and Phelps, 2013). This supports another study indicating that experience in the virtual lab was sufficient for the students to perform well in the face-to-face lab (Winkelmann et al., 2020). On the other hand, Wu et al. (2019) suggested that learning in VR may not be as effective for users in operating real equipment. Other studies highlighted the virtual lab as a tool to develop teamwork and collaboration skills (Rogers, 2011; Desai et al., 2017), to deliver appropriate safety skills (Makransky et al., 2019), to develop independent critical thinking (Rowe et al., 2018), to help students see the practical application of their knowledge (Josephsen and Kristensen, 2006), and to have the potential to enhance students' research skills (Bortnik et al., 2017). It is possible that adopting a hybrid approach (both face-to-face and virtual experiences) might be the best option. Students taught using a hybrid approach developed similar cognitive and psychomotor skills compared with students taught using a traditional laboratory curriculum; however, their affective outlook toward chemistry was significantly lower (Enneking et al., 2019).
Chemistry teachers often talk about the importance of giving their students the opportunity to plan and conduct experiments on their own, and to experience hands-on inquiry activities. Yet, while facing issues such as lab equipment that is not available, denied access to the laboratory (as experienced during the lockdowns caused by the Covid-19 pandemic), or exposure to hazardous materials that are prohibited to use, teachers sought alternatives. One of the most basic alternatives to a face-to-face lab experiment was to show videos of experiments, e.g., from YouTubeTM. Yaara mentioned the following in her interview:
“During the Covid-19 remote teaching period, the laboratory experience consisted of watching videos of experiments, and that was the basis for conducting data analysis and writing a lab report.”
Watching a video of an experiment conducted in the lab could be a solution for students that missed classes, but it could not be a substitute for an authentic lab experience. It could not develop ‘hands-on’ lab skills. However, it could provide the opportunity to analyze the data and the ‘minds-on’ aspects of the laboratory. Yaara also discussed the usefulness and the challenges that she faced in using YouTubeTM video experiments:
“Last week I sent my students an experiment to watch on YouTube TM . There are hundreds of videos of this experiment in different scales and variations. So, I had to find the closest version of the experiment that we conducted in the lab. However, the video of the experiment is never as good as the experience in the lab.”
Yaara even brought up her concerns regarding the extensive use of videos for teaching laboratory and inquiry skills.
“I found a drawback in the filmed experiments. Some students may figure out that everything is on YouTube TM and they wouldn't see any point in conducting the experiment in the lab.”
A more advanced alternative for teaching the laboratory unit in chemistry is to use the available virtual laboratory websites. Although it might not be the preferred practice for teachers during face-to-face teaching, since most of them cherish the hands-on activities, it serves as a reasonable alternative during remote teaching.
Michal: “There is an advantage for the use of digital technology in teaching when I need to conduct a virtual experiment in which I can change the parameters, and I cannot use the lab equipment. The students had to pick the lab equipment and the amount of reactants. The students performed the titration and calculated the concentration. I think it was an acid with an unknown concentration. So, that was also an advantage since I did not have to physically give the students the lab equipment.”
Using videos of experiments or a virtual laboratory could replace hands-on experiences if the students cannot conduct the experiments. However, the virtual experiment is a kind of a compromise also regarding the affective aspects of learning in the lab. Evidence of this was found in Yaara's response to the question, “What do the students miss when they watch a video of the experiment?”.
“What does it mean? They miss touching the substances!”
Chemistry teachers often aspire to develop a sense of exploration among their students while conducting experiments in the lab. They want their students to experience the enthusiasm of doing science and they refer to the ‘emotions-on’ aspect of the lab (Yonai and Blonder, 2022) that promotes their situational interest (Krüger et al., 2022). Yaara wanted her students to experience the excitement of discovering new things, a feeling that cannot be achieved in a filmed experiment.
“Every time they will conduct an experiment in the laboratory, they may find something new and exciting, something they did not see before.”
Teachers' TPACK was demonstrated by sharing the pedagogical aspects of using this MOTI (which video to show), including its advantages and drawbacks, and by expressing their concerns about its extensive use. Using this MOTI was not on the teachers' agenda; however, they tried to maximize its use in light of the social distance constraints.
Three new MOTIs were found in the current study (“Supporting multi-level representations”, which was presented earlier, and two that will be presented next). These three MOTIs were not explicitly reported in the literature. They add the teachers’ perspective and knowledge regarding integrating technology in chemistry teaching.
Enabling the outreach of chemistry research
Technology could be integrated into chemistry teaching to introduce the authentic practice of scientists (Bass and Lachish-Zalait, 2018), to experience using authentic research tools (Hancock et al., 2023), and to operate advanced scientific equipment via remote access (Yonai et al., 2022). The teachers explained that exposing students to contemporary scientific content and skills is aimed to develop their motivation to study chemistry, to make them feel that they are connected to the scientific community, and to develop their self-efficacy.Dalia perceived that an authentic experience of working with the tools that scientists use was necessary for promoting students’ scientific thinking.
“If I want the students to think like scientists, I must expose them to the tools of a scientist. It was very clear to me that I want them to get to know the Protein Data Bank.”
Authenticity was achieved using digital tools because the teachers perceived that it opened a window to contemporary science and closed the gap between classroom chemistry and real-life chemistry. It demonstrated again how a teacher's technological knowledge promoted her pedagogical agenda. Yonai et al. (2022) found further evidence of the impact of operating an authentic scientific research device (scanning electron microscope). Students reported that they had learned about research devices and had contact with scientists. The importance of this category and its evidence in teachers' interviews will be further discussed in the section “Developing a framework for technology integration in chemistry teaching.”
Presenting chemistry in everyday life phenomena
An important message that chemistry teachers aim to convey to their students is that chemistry is not just what is being taught and discussed in school. Chemistry is all around us and it can be useful to understand numerous phenomena that are relevant to our everyday life (Hofstein and Kesner, 2006; Childs et al., 2015). In modern society, chemistry knowledge can assist students to understand and form an opinion on issues such as health, energy, environment, and diet (Childs et al., 2015). In addition, connecting chemistry to everyday life can influence students' motivation to study chemistry and to develop interest and curiosity in science (Mandler et al., 2012). The connection to everyday life could be an integral part of teaching the content and could be achieved via technological tools, as Ella said in her interview regarding her fondness for digital infographics:“At the end of teaching a specific topic, I always introduce the connection to everyday life. For example, in acids and bases, there are a lot of smelly body odors that are acidic, so I showed the students a digital poster on that topic.”
Despite the importance that teachers attribute to connecting chemistry to everyday life, they do not always manage to implement it in class due to time constraints. However, they still want to expose students to this aspect, even outside the scope of the lesson, and use technological means for that purpose, as Ella mentioned:
“I send my students links to videos [for them to watch at home] that explain everyday life phenomena. I do not always have time to show it during class.”
Sometimes the connection to everyday life is unexpected and surprising, in a way that makes students think of chemistry in a broader connection. Yaara explained it by referring to a discussion she had with her students during class regarding isotopes shown in the interactive periodic table, PtableTM (Dayah, 1997):
“I want them to see that chemistry is an international language. They were amazed that scientists dug in quarries to find new isotopes. I hope it enables them to see that chemistry has a span much beyond what we are discussing in class.”
Digital technology enables teachers to leverage their educational philosophy, to understand the importance of connecting the curricular contents to everyday life, and by doing so to contribute to the relevancy of chemistry classes (Stuckey et al., 2013) and to increase students' motivation to learn science (Blonder and Dinur, 2011). Connecting chemistry to everyday life is a common practice among chemistry teachers. In the current study, this practice was expressed by using teachers' TPACK and applying digital technology.
Validation of the MOTIs framework
The MOTIs and their usability for chemistry teachers were validated by expanding the sample size and interviewing 22 additional chemistry teachers. A summary of teachers' average level of technology use, as well as the median and standard deviation (Norman, 2010; Harpe, 2015) is presented in Table 3. In addition, the percentage of using this MOTI (the level of use higher than 1) was also calculated.| # | MOTIs | Average | Median | S.D. | % of usea |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a ![[thin space (1/6-em)]](https://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_2009.gif) “% of use” was calculated by calculating the percentage of teachers (from the 22 who were interviewed) who reported that they use this MOTI.
|
|||||
| 1 | Using digital tools for visualization | 3.95 | 4.25 | 1.88 | 77 |
| 2 | Using open digital databases | 3.41 | 3.50 | 1.86 | 77 |
| 3 | Using computational methods | 1.45 | 1.00 | 1.05 | 27 |
| 4 | Using virtual laboratories and videos of chemical experiments | 3.23 | 3.00 | 1.35 | 91 |
| 5 | Supporting multi-level representations | 4.48 | 4.75 | 1.30 | 100 |
| 6 | Enabling the outreach of chemistry research | 1.52 | 1.00 | 1.05 | 27 |
| 7 | Presenting chemistry in everyday life phenomena | 3.48 | 4.00 | 1.91 | 73 |
Not all the MOTIs were similar in nature; some were more abundant and perhaps more important than others. In the validation stage, we tried to determine a possible hierarchy. Supporting multi-level representation was the MOTI that all the teachers reported using, and its level of use was the highest (average = 4.48, median = 4.75). Of the three new MOTIs (5, 6, and 7), “Enabling the outreach of chemistry research” was found to have a lower level of use. However, “Using computational methods” had the lowest level of use, which can be explained by the resources needed to implement this MOTI (as reported for computational chemistry by Tuvi-Arad (2022)) and its enrichment nature that goes beyond the school curriculum.
Reflecting on theory and practice
When the teachers were requested, toward the end of the validation interviews, to share their opinions about the MOTIs, they could, without being specifically asked, to reflect on their practice through the lens of TPACK. They discussed the need to adjust the use of technology to the students' level, to use different digital tools, depending on the complexity of the learning material, to use technology to increase students’ interest in learning chemistry, and to use digital tools in accordance with the curriculum. These reactions emphasized the importance of the MOTIs framework in connecting theory and practice. Teachers' TPACK was not merely a combination of technology, pedagogy, and content, but rather, it introduced its transformative nature.Research limitations
This is an exploratory study based on a small sample of Israeli teachers. Although the validation stage involved numerous teachers, there is a need for further research on the MOTIs framework. To increase the generalization power of the study, we recommend conducting large-scale research that will include a bigger and perhaps an international sample. The seven MOTIs found in the study can be updated with technology advances. We suggest continuing the search for additional MOTIs, e.g., those related to GenAI in chemistry education.Conclusions and implications
Developing a framework for technology integration in chemistry teaching
This study aimed to investigate teachers' perspectives regarding integrating technology in chemistry teaching and enriching the literature by applying a bottom-up approach. Clearly, over the years and especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, the teachers developed bodies of knowledge in technology integration. As researchers, it is important to create partnerships with the chemistry teachers and to implement their practical knowledge and insights into a comprehensive theoretical framework. This form of collaboration can be described as a Research-Practice Partnership (Coburn and Penuel, 2016), and it guided us in our study.The development of TPACK among teachers has received much attention in the science teaching community. The TPACK of chemistry teachers has been studied regarding different technologies, e.g., strengthening video editing skills (Blonder et al., 2013; Dorfman et al., 2019), analyzing Facebook interactions (Rap and Blonder, 2016), analyzing lesson planning (Özdilek and Robeck, 2019; Zimmermann et al., 2021), and implementing simulations in class (Gong et al., 2023). Developing TPACK components is not always intuitive to teachers and lecturers. The development of TPACK in its transformative aspect can be very challenging. Without explicit instructions, some of the TPACK components may be overlooked or even neglected (Blonder et al., 2022). MOTIs in chemistry teaching can provide a framework to guide teachers' TPACK development and can contribute to the research and practice of chemistry educators.
In this study, seven MOTIs in chemistry teaching (Fig. 1) were identified: the three categories already reported by Tuvi-Arad and Blonder (2019) (using digital tools for visualization, using computational methods, and using open digital databases), one MOTI was identified in the literature (using virtual laboratories and videos of chemical experiments), and three newly added MOTIs were identified in the current study (supporting multi-level representations, enabling the outreach of chemistry research, and presenting chemistry in everyday life phenomena). The common denominator of these new MOTIs was that they emerged from the teachers' perspective. We suggest that the seven MOTIs be used as a framework for integrating technology that can support the development of chemistry teachers' TPACK (Fig. 1).
 | ||
| Fig. 1 A framework for integrating technology in chemistry teaching that can be used for developing chemistry teachers' TPACK. On the left: MOTIs that were previously identified and reported in the literature. On the right: MOTIs that were identified in the current study. | ||
Next, we will discuss two insights regarding the 3 new MOTIs that emerged in the study: the difference between the categories of “Using digital tools for visualization” and “Supporting multi-level representations”, and the added value of these new MOTIs following the teachers' perspective.
The distinction between “Using digital tools for visualization” and “Presenting multi-level representations” might seem unjustified at first. However, according to the teachers, there is a clear difference between these two MOTIs. Although both categories utilize the sense of sight, visualization does so because there is no other way to experience the molecular structures of chemical phenomena. In contrast, multi-level representations create a mental image in students' minds by synergistically connecting different aspects of visualization: the macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic levels. The simultaneous presentation of these three levels can be achieved by using digital technology in the form of animations, simulations, and videos (Ardac and Akaygun, 2004; Chandrasegaran et al., 2008; Treagust and Chandrasegaran, 2009). Thus, these three levels allow students to understand chemical phenomena from various viewpoints, and they make students’ mental models more comprehensive and complete. In the validation stage, a distinction between the “Supporting multi-level representation” and the “Using digital tools for visualization” MOTI is supported by the difference in their level of use. Although both MOTIs are based on visual representations, teachers distinguished between the two and reported using the more ‘complex’ visual representations.
The two additional detected MOTIs “Enabling the outreach of chemistry research” and “Presenting chemistry in everyday life phenomena” are related to each other because they support chemistry teachers' pedagogical agenda, indicating that chemistry does not only consist of the chemistry contents taught and discussed in class. Connecting chemistry studies to authentic research practices was demonstrated by using professional databases or software. However, this connection could also be created by using sophisticated scientific equipment such as NMR and UV-vis spectroscopy (Hancock et al., 2023), mass spectrograph (Cheng et al., 2023), gas chromatography (Nolvachai et al., 2023), and SEM (Yonai et al., 2022). SEM was also shown to be operated in a remote-operating mode as students “take over” SEM located hundreds of kilometers away and examine samples they sent to the SEM operators (Childers and Jones, 2017; Yonai et al., 2022). Such activities of operating authentic research equipment can support the students' areas of interest, through the chemistry perspective brought by a teacher or a scientist. These kinds of activities served as excellent alternatives during remote teaching forced by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Implications for teachers' professional development
Combining all these MOTIs could create a framework for designing professional development programs for in-service teachers and for preparing pre-service teachers to implement technology in chemistry teaching. These MOTIs are the practical expression of teachers' TPACK. The teachers' comments in the study also helped in conceptualizing their knowledge and experiences.While writing this paper, it was clear that the 7 MOTIs described here do not represent the full list of MOTIs. As technology advances, teachers' TPACK related to MOTIs also evolve. A current example is the integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for teaching in general, and for chemistry teaching in particular. The TPACK model is an evolving framework designed to address emerging issues in technology development and their impact on society. The advent of GenAI is said to influence every domain of human activity reliant on abstract knowledge (Li, 2020). Mishra et al. (2023) explored GenAI's effect on teachers' TPACK and its components, suggesting educators need to help students comprehend GenAI's challenges and discern its strengths and weaknesses (TPK), as well as recognize new forms of content knowledge shaped by GenAI advancements (TCK). Given that TPACK encompasses contextual knowledge (XK) (Mishra, 2019), it is crucial to also consider the context in which GenAI technologies are applied and used, as this could significantly influence their successful deployment or failure (Mishra et al., 2023). AI applications were not mentioned in the teachers’ interviews, but they have been gaining much interest according to recent studies (Alasadi and Baiz, 2023; Clark, 2023; dos Santos, 2023; Talanquer, 2023). In conclusion, as technology advances, teachers should learn and update their knowledge regarding MOTIs in order to stay relevant and support their students' needs.
Ethics
This study is part of a project that received ethical approval from the IRB of Haifa University, which led the project (21/285).Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest to declare.Appendix: descriptions of MOTIs during the interview
Descriptions of MOTIs were presented in the teachers’ interviews during the validation stage. Teachers were asked to state the extent to which they use each of the MOTIs and to give an example of a digital tool they use for that purpose.Supporting multi-level representations
Digital technology can show students the connection between the macroscopic level, the submicroscopic level, and the symbolic level, thus assisting them in understanding chemical phenomena or principles, for example, simulating the dissolution of salt in water, which includes the macroscopic level and the microscopic level (and sometimes also the symbolic level).Using digital tools for visualization
Digital technology can help students visualize phenomena that cannot be seen with the eye (relating mainly to the submicroscopic level) and thereby replacing tangible models, for example, the spatial structure of molecules, intermolecular bonds, the polarity of molecules, and the structures of proteins.Using virtual laboratories and videos of chemical experiments
In a virtual laboratory the parameters of the experiment can be changed and their effect on other parameters can be seen. Another example of using technology is presenting videos of experiments that cannot be performed in a laboratory (because the equipment is not available or when it involves working with dangerous substances).Enabling the outreach of chemistry research
Digital technology can expose students to authentic research tools and research methods that scientists also use, for example, remote operation of a sophisticated microscope, online conversations with scientists, using software that scientists use, and more. These tools are used with the aim of increasing students’ motivation and their self-efficacy perceptions to study chemistry and to think and act like scientists.Presenting chemistry in everyday life phenomena
Digital technology can help illustrate how chemistry is present and related to phenomena in everyday life. This includes, for example, the way chemistry is related to the food we eat, how chemistry is manifested in polymers or in dyes, and presenting the chemical aspect of the greenhouse effect.Using computational methods
Technology can be used to explain phenomena in chemistry through a visual presentation based on complex calculations. For example, a simulation that shows the angles between bonds within the molecule, and software that shows optimization of chemical structures at the submicroscopic level.Using open digital databases
Digital technology makes online database use in chemistry more accessible. Sometimes websites or software are used for a specific purpose, but in addition include much information about different elements or materials that can also be used as a database, for example, the dynamic periodic table and the protein data bank.Acknowledgements
The study was funded by the Chief Scientist of the Israeli Ministry of Education (36/12.2020). We would like to thank our collaborators Prof. Lily Orland-Barak and Dr. Alexandra Saad from Haifa University and Prof. Alona Forkosh-Baruch from the Levinsky-Wingate Academic College.References
- Accettone S. L. W., (2022), Student perceptions of remote chemistry laboratory delivery models, J. Chem. Educ., 99(2), 654–668 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00757.
- Adedoyin O. B. and Soykan E., (2023), Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities, Int. Learn. Environ., 31(2), 863–875 DOI:10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180.
- Alasadi E. A. and Baiz C. R., (2023), Generative AI in education and research: opportunities, concerns, and solutions, J. Chem. Educ., 100(8), 2965–2971 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00323.
- Alrige M., Bitar H., Al-Suraihi W., Bawazeer K. and Al-Hazmi E., (2021), MicroWorld: an augmented-reality arabian app to learn atomic apace, Technologies, 9(3), 53 DOI:10.3390/technologies9030053.
- Altman D. G., (1990), Practical statistics for medical research, CRC Press LLC, 1st edn, vol. 12 DOI:10.1201/9780429258589.
- Anci F. F., Paristiowati M., Budi S., Tritiyatma H. and Fitriani E., (2020), Development of TPACK of chemistry teacher on electrolyte and non-electrolyte topic through lesson study, Melville.
- Angeli C., (2005), Transforming a teacher education method course through technology: effects on preservice teachers’ technology competency, Comput. Educ., 45(4), 383–398 DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.06.002.
- Angeli C. and Valanides N., (2005), Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: an instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge, J. Comput. Assisted Learn., 21(4), 292–302 DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00135.x.
- Angeli C. and Valanides N., (2009), Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK), Comput. Educ., 52(1), 154–168 DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006.
- Ardac D. and Akaygun S., (2004), Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 41(4), 317–337 DOI:10.1002/tea.20005.
- Artun H., Durukan A. and Temur A., (2020), Effects of virtual reality enriched science laboratory activities on pre-service science teachers’ science process skills, Educ. Inf. Technol., 25(6), 5477–5498 DOI:10.1007/s10639-020-10220-5.
- Avcı F., (2022), Teaching the “acid–base” subject in biochemistry via virtual laboratory during the COVID-19 pandemic, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., 50(3), 312–318 DOI:10.1002/bmb.21625.
- Barnea N., Dori Y. J. and Hofstein A., (2010), Development and implementation of inquiry-based and computerized-based laboratories: reforming high school chemistry in Israel, Chem. Educ. Res. Practice, 11(3), 218–228 10.1039/C005471M.
- Bass, M. and Lachish-Zalait, A., (2018), iScientist: Bringing scientists to class, Florence, Italy: New Perspectives In Science Education.
- Battle G. M., Allen F. H. and Ferrence G. M., (2010a), Teaching three-dimensional structural chemistry using crystal structure databases. 1. An interactive web-accessible eaching subset of the Cambridge Structural Database, J. Chem. Educ., 87(8), 809–812 DOI:10.1021/ed100256k.
- Battle G. M., Allen F. H. and Ferrence G. M., (2010b), Teaching three-dimensional structural chemistry using crystal structure databases. 2. Teaching units that utilize an interactive web-accessible subset of the Cambridge Structural Database, J. Chem. Educ., 87(8), 813–818 DOI:10.1021/ed100257t.
- Benedict L. and Pence H. E., (2012), Teaching chemistry using Student-Created videos and photo blogs accessed with smartphones and two-dimensional Barcodes, J. Chem. Educ., 89(4), 492–496 DOI:10.1021/ed2005399.
- Bergwerf H., (2014), Molview. Retrieved April 29, 2023 from https://molview.org/.
- Berman H. M., Westbrook J., Feng Z., Gilliland G., Bhat T. N., Weissig H., Shindyalov I. N. and Bourne P. E., (2000), The Protein Data Bank, Nucleic Acids Res., 28(1), 235–242 DOI:10.1093/nar/28.1.235.
- Bernholt S., Broman K., Siebert S. and Parchmann I., (2019), Digitising teaching and learning – additional perspectives for chemistry education, Isr. J. Chem., 59(6–7), 554–564 DOI:10.1002/ijch.201800090.
- Blonder R. and Dinur M., (2011), Teaching nanotechnology using student-centered pedagogy for increasing students' continuing motivation, J. Nano Educ., 3, 51–61 DOI:10.1166/jne.2011.1016.
- Blonder R., Feldman-Maggor Y. and Rap S., (2022), What can be learned from lecturers’ knowledge and self-efficacy for online teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic to promote online teaching in higher education, PLoS One, 17(10), e0275459 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0275459.
- Blonder R., Jonatan M., Bar-Dov Z., Benny N., Rap S. and Sakhnini S., (2013), Can You Tube it? Providing chemistry teachers with technological tools and enhancing their self-efficacy beliefs, Chem. Educ. Res. Practice, 14(3), 269–285 10.1039/c3rp00001j.
- Bortnik B., Stozhko N., Pervukhina I., Tchernysheva A. and Belysheva G., (2017), Effect of virtual analytical chemistry laboratory on enhancing student research skills and practices, Res. Learn. Technol., 25 1–20 DOI:10.25304/rlt.v25.1968.
- Broman K., Chorell E. and Holmboe M., (2021), Combining Virtual Reality and Zoom to visualize chemical structures in 3D and develop the spatial ability of university chemistry students 9th European Variety in University Chemistry Education Conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
- Brown B., Boda P., Ribay K., Wilsey M. and Perez G., (2021), A technological bridge to equity: how VR designed through culturally relevant principles impact students appreciation of science, Learn. Media Technol., 46(4), 564–584 DOI:10.1080/17439884.2021.1948427.
- Cell Size and Scale, (2020), University of Utah, Retrieved April 23, 2023 from https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cells/scale/.
- Chandrasegaran A. L., Treagust D. F. and Mocerino M., (2008), An evaluation of a teaching intervention to promote students' ability to use multiple levels of representation when describing and explaining chemical reactions, Res. Sci. Educ., 38(2), 237–248 DOI:10.1007/s11165-007-9046-9.
- Cheng S., Xie Z., Hu Q., Qian Y. and Ma X., (2023), Familiarizing undergraduate students with advanced Mass Spectrometry techniques: an example of detailed lipid structure characterization, J. Chem. Educ., 100(3), 1270–1276 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00824.
- Cheng G.-J., Zhang X., Chung L. W., Xu L. and Wu Y.-D., (2015), Computational organic chemistry: bridging theory and experiment in establishing the mechanisms of chemical reactions, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 137(5), 1706–1725 DOI:10.1021/ja5112749.
- Childers G. and Jones M. G., (2017), Learning from a distance: high school students’ perceptions of virtual presence, motivation, and science identity during a remote microscopy investigation, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 39(3), 257–273 DOI:10.1080/09500693.2016.1278483.
- Childs P. E., Hayes S. M. and O’dwyer A., (2015), Chemistry and everyday life: relating secondary school chemistry to the current and future lives of students, in I. Eilks and A. Hofstein (ed.) Relevant chemistry education: From theory to practice, SensePublishers, pp. 33–54 DOI:10.1007/978-94-6300-175-5_3.
- Chroustová K., Šorgo A., Bílek M. and Rusek M., (2022), Differences in chemistry teachers' acceptance of educational software according to their user type: an application of extended Utaut model, J. Baltic Sci. Educ., 21(5), 762–787.
- Clark T. M., (2023), Investigating the use of an artificial intelligence chatbot with general chemistry exam questions, J. Chem. Educ., 100(5), 1905–1916 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00027.
- Coburn C. E. and Penuel W. R., (2016), Research-Practice Partnerships in education: outcomes, dynamics, and open questions, Educ. Res., 45(1), 48–54 DOI:10.3102/0013189X16631750.
- Covalent Bond Energy and Length, (2019), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFzZdcMnlK4.
- Creswell J. W. and Clark Plano V. L., (2017), Designing and conducting mixed methods research, Sage Publications.
- Creswell J. W. and Creswell J. D., (2017), Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Sage publications.
- Davidowitz B. and Chittleborough G., (2009), Linking the macroscopic and sub-microscopic levels: Diagrams, Netherlands: Springer, vol. 4, pp. 169–191 DOI:10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_9.
- Davis C. R., Baker C. N., Osborn J. and Overstreet S., (2022), Understanding teacher self-efficacy to address students’ social-emotional needs in the COVID-19 pandemic, Urban Educ., 00420859221099834 DOI:10.1177/00420859221099834.
- Dayah M., (1997), Periodic Table – Ptable. https://ptable.com.
- de Jong O., Blonder R. and Oversby J., (2013), How to balance chemistry education between observing phenomena and thinking in models, SensePublishers, pp. 97–126 DOI:10.1007/978-94-6209-140-5_4.
- de Jong T., Linn M. C. and Zacharia Z. C., (2013), Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education, Science, 340(6130), 305–308 DOI:10.1126/science.1230579.
- Desai K., Belmonte U. H. H., Jin R., Prabhakaran B., Diehl P., Ramirez V. A., Johnson V. and Gans M., (2017), Experiences with multi-modal collaborative virtual laboratory (mmcvl). 2017 IEEE Third International Conference on Multimedia Big Data (BigMM).
- Dietrich N., Kentheswaran K., Ahmadi A., Teychené J., Bessière Y., Alfenore S., Laborie S., Bastoul D., Loubière K., Guigui C., Sperandio M., Barna L., Paul E., Cabassud C., Liné A. and Hébrard G., (2020), Attempts, successes, and failures of distance learning in the time of COVID-19, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 2448–2457 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00717.
- Díez-Pascual A. M. and Jurado-Sánchez B., (2022), Remote teaching of chemistry laboratory courses during COVID-19, J. Chem. Educ., 99(5), 1913–1922 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00022.
- Dorfman B.-S., Terrill B., Patterson K., Yarden A. and Blonder R., (2019), Teachers personalize videos and animations of biochemical processes: results from a professional development workshop, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 20(4), 772–786 10.1039/C9RP00057G.
- Dori Y. J. and Hameiri M., (2003), Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 40(3), 278–302 DOI:10.1002/tea.10077.
- dos Santos R. P., (2023), Enhancing chemistry learning with ChatGPT and bing chat as agents to think with: a comparative case study, arXiv, preprint, arXiv:2305.11890.
- Enneking K. M., Breitenstein G. R., Coleman A. F., Reeves J. H., Wang Y. and Grove N. P., (2019), The Evaluation of a hybrid, general chemistry laboratory curriculum: impact on students’ cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning, J. Chem. Educ., 96(6), 1058–1067 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00637.
- Erbas C. and Demirer V., (2019), The effects of augmented reality on students' academic achievement and motivation in a biology course, J. Comput. Assisted Learn., 35, 450–458 DOI:10.1111/jcal.12350.
- Erdosne Toth E., Morrow B. L. and Ludvico L. R., (2009), Designing blended inquiry learning in a laboratory context: a study of incorporating hands-on and virtual laboratories, Innovative Higher Educ., 33(5), 333–344 DOI:10.1007/s10755-008-9087-7.
- Esselman B. J. and Hill N. J., (2016), Integration of computational chemistry into the undergraduate organic chemistry laboratory curriculum, J. Chem. Educ., 93(5), 932–936 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00815.
- Gabel D., (1999), Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: a look to the future, J. Chem. Educ., 76(4), 548 DOI:10.1021/ed076p548.
- Gilbert J. K., (2005), Visualization: a metacognitive skill in science and science education, in J. K. Gilbert (ed.) Visualization in science education, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 9–27 DOI:10.1007/1-4020-3613-2_2.
- Gilbert, J. K. and Treagust, D. F., (2009), Introduction: Macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 1–8 DOI:10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_1.
- Gong X., Wei B., Bergey B. W. and Shockley E. T., (2023), Unpacking chemistry teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and decisions for a PhET simulation: a TPACK perspective, J. Chem. Educ., 100(1), 34–44 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00397.
- Grazioli G., Ingwerson A., Santiago, Jr. D., Regan P. and Cho H., (2023), Foregrounding the code: computational chemistry instructional activities using a highly readable fluid simulation code, J. Chem. Educ., 100(3), 1155–1163 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00838.
- Grushow A. and Reeves M. S., (2019), Using computational methods to teach chemical principles: overview, in Using computational methods to teach chemical principles, American Chemical Society, vol. 1312, pp. 1–10 DOI:10.1021/bk-2019-1312.ch001.
- Guo Y. and Lee D., (2023), Differential usage of learning management systems in chemistry courses in the time after COVID-19, J. Chem. Educ., 100(5), 2033–2038 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00850.
- Hancock L. M., McGarvey D. J. and Plana D., (2023), An investigation of the temperature dependence of a monomer–dimer equilibrium using UV-Vis and 1H NMR spectroscopies, J. Chem. Educ., 100(3), 1283–1288 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00917.
- Hanwell M. D., Curtis D. E., Lonie D. C., Vandermeersch T., Zurek E. and Hutchison G. R., (2012), Avogadro: an advanced semantic chemical editor, visualization, and analysis platform, J. Cheminf., 4(1), 17 DOI:10.1186/1758-2946-4-17.
- Harpe S. E., (2015), How to analyze Likert and other rating scale data, Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn., 7(6), 836–850 DOI:10.1016/j.cptl.2015.08.001.
- Hati S. and Bhattacharyya S., (2016), Incorporating modeling and simulations in undergraduate biophysical chemistry course to promote understanding of structure–dynamics–function relationships in proteins, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., 44(2), 140–159 DOI:10.1002/bmb.20942.
- Hawkins I. and Phelps A. J., (2013), Virtual laboratory vs. traditional laboratory: which is more effective for teaching electrochemistry? Chem. Educ. Res. Practice, 14(4), 516–523 10.1039/C3RP00070B.
- Hofstein A. and Kesner M., (2006), Industrial chemistry and school chemistry: making chemistry studies more relevant, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28(9), 1017–1039 DOI:10.1080/09500690600702504.
- Hou Y., Wang M., He W., Ling Y., Zheng J. and Hou X., (2023), Virtual simulation experiments: a teaching option for complex and hazardous chemistry experiments, J. Chem. Educ., 100(4), 1437–1445 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00594.
- Johnstone A. H., (1991), Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem, J. Comput. Assisted Learn., 7(2), 75–83 DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x.
- Jones M. G., Taylor A. R., Minogue J., Broadwell B., Wiebe E. and Carter G., (2007), Understanding scale: powers of ten, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 16(2), 191–202 DOI:10.1007/s10956-006-9034-2.
- Josephsen J. and Kristensen A. K., (2006), Simulation of laboratory assignments to support students’ learning of introductory inorganic chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Practice, 7(4), 266–279 10.1039/B6RP90013E.
- Kalman M., Kalender B. and Cesur B., (2022), Teacher learning and professional development during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive study. Educ. Res.: Theory Practice, 33(2), 1–22.
- Kaplan-Rakowski R., (2021), Addressing students’ emotional needs during the COVID-19 pandemic: a perspective on text versus video feedback in online environments, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 69(1), 133–136 DOI:10.1007/s11423-020-09897-9.
- Karabuz O. and Ogan-Bekiroglu F., (2020), Pre-service teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) Related to calculator-based laboratory and contextual factors influencing their TPCK, J. Curriculum Teach., 9(3), 57–75.
- Kelley E. W., (2021), LAB Theory, HLAB Pedagogy, and Review of Laboratory Learning in Chemistry during the COVID-19 Pandemic, J. Chem. Educ., 98(8), 2496–2517 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00457.
- Kozma R. B. and Russell J., (1997), Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 34(9), 949–968 DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199711)34:9
![[double bond splayed right]](https://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_e00a.gif)
949::AID-TEA7![[double bond splayed left]](https://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_e009.gif)
3.0.CO;2-U. - Krüger J. T., Höffler T. N., Wahl M., Knickmeier K. and Parchmann I., (2022), Two comparative studies of computer simulations and experiments as learning tools in school and out-of-school education, Instruct. Sci., 50(2), 169–197 DOI:10.1007/s11251-021-09566-1.
- Leelananda S. P. and Lindert S., (2016), Computational methods in drug discovery, Beilstein J. Org. Chem., 12, 2694–2718 DOI:10.3762/bjoc.12.267.
- Li R., (2020), Artificial intelligence revolution: How AI will change our society, economy, and culture, Simon and Schuster.
- Lunetta V. N., Hofstein A. and Clough M. P., (2007), Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: an analysis of research, theory, and practice, Handbook of research on science education, Routledge, pp. 393–441.
- Mahaffy P., Martin B., deBoon T., Oliver M., Ritter A., Lajeunesse M.-O., Hislop-Hook R., Ritter S. and Shekinah Starkey, S., (2014), August 23rd 2022, IUPAC periodic table of the elements and isotopes (interactive electronic version).
- Makransky G., Borre-Gude S. and Mayer R. E., (2019), Motivational and cognitive benefits of training in immersive virtual reality based on multiple assessments, J. Compu. Assisted Learn., 35(6), 691–707 DOI:10.1111/jcal.12375.
- Mandler D., Mamlok-Naaman R., Blonder R., Yayon M. and Hofstein A., (2012), High-school chemistry teaching through environmentally oriented curricula, Chem. Educ. Res. Practice, 13(2), 80–92 10.1039/c1rp90071d.
- Marchak D., Shvarts-Serebro I. and Blonder R., (2021), Teaching chemistry by a creative approach: adapting a teachers’ course for active remote learning, J. Chem. Educ., 98(9), 2809–2819 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01341.
- McDowell S. A. C., (2020), Asynchronous online assessment of physical chemistry concepts in the time of COVID-19, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 3256–3259 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00611.
- McIntosh M. J. and Morse J. M., (2015), Situating and constructing diversity in semi-structured interviews, Glob. Qual. Nurs. Res., 2, 1–12 DOI:10.1177/2333393615597674.
- Mishra P., (2019), Considering contextual knowledge: the TPACK diagram gets an upgrade, J. Digital Learn. Teacher Educ., 35(2), 76–78 DOI:10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611.
- Mishra P. and Koehler M. J., (2006), Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge, Teachers College record (1970), 108(6), 1017–1054 DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.
- Mishra P., Warr M. and Islam R., (2023), TPACK in the age of ChatGPT and Generative AI, J. Digital Learn. Teacher Educ., 39(4), 235–251 DOI:10.1080/21532974.2023.2247480.
- Moore E. B., Chamberlain J. M., Parson R. and Perkins K. K., (2014), PhET interactive simulations: transformative tools for teaching chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 91(8), 1191–1197 DOI:10.1021/ed4005084.
- Muzyka J. L., (2015), ConfChem conference on flipped classroom: just-in-Time teaching in chemistry Courses with Moodle, J. Chem. Educ., 92(9), 1580–1581 DOI:10.1021/ed500904y.
- Nolvachai Y., Zavahir J. S., Herron R. and Marriott P. J., (2023), Teaching analytical instrumentation through remote access – A gas chromatography perspective, J. Chem. Educ., 100(3), 1100–1108 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00569.
- Norman G., (2010), Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics, Adv. Health Sci. Educ., 15(5), 625–632 DOI:10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y.
- Özdilek Z. and Robeck E. C., (2019), Enabling pre-service chemistry teachers' development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) through case-based lesson planning, Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(1), 207–225 DOI:10.19171/uefad.533233.
- Pearsall J., (1999), The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Oxford University Press.
- Peterson C. N., Tavana S. Z., Akinleye O. P., Johnson W. H. and Berkmen M. B., (2020), An idea to explore: use of augmented reality for teaching three-dimensional biomolecular structures, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., 48(3), 276–282 DOI:10.1002/bmb.21341.
- Pyatt K. and Sims R., (2012), Virtual and physical experimentation in inquiry-based science labs: attitudes, performance and access, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 21(1), 133–147 DOI:10.1007/s10956-011-9291-6.
- Qu A., Nicolas M., Leung E. M., Jones S. M., Katyal P., Punia K., Maxfield M. and Montclare J. K., (2022), Exploring the viability and role of virtual laboratories in chemistry education using two original modules, J. Chem. Educ., 99(4), 1596–1603 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00892.
- Ramnarain U. and Penn M., (2019), A comparative analysis of virtual and traditional laboratory chemistry learning. Perspect. Educ., 37(2), 80–97 DOI:10.18820/2519593X/pie.v37i2.6.
- Rap S. and Blonder R., (2016), Let's Face(book) It: analyzing interactions in social network groups for chemistry learning, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 25(1), 62–76, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43867732.
- Rap S., Feldman-Maggor Y., Aviran E., Shvarts-Serebro I., Easa E., Yonai E., Waldman R. and Blonder R., (2020), An applied research-based approach to support chemistry teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 3278–3284 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00687.
- Renken M. D. and Nunez N., (2013), Computer simulations and clear observations do not guarantee conceptual understanding, Learn. Instruct., 23, 10–23 DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.08.006.
- Rodríguez-Becerra J., Cáceres-Jensen L., Diaz T., Druker S., Padilla V. B., Pernaa J. and Aksela M., (2020), Developing technological pedagogical science knowledge through educational computational chemistry: a case study of pre-service chemistry teachers’ perceptions, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 21(2), 638–654.
- Rodríguez-Rodríguez E., Sánchez-Paniagua M., Sanz-Landaluze J. and Moreno-Guzmán M., (2020), Analytical chemistry teaching adaptation in the COVID-19 period: experiences and students’ opinion, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 2556–2564 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00923.
- Rogers L., (2011), Developing simulations in multi-user virtual environments to enhance healthcare education, British J. Educ. Technol., 42(4), 608–615 DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01057.x.
- Rowe R. J., Koban L., Davidoff A. J. and Thompson K. H., (2018), Efficacy of online laboratory science courses, J. Formative Des. Learn., 2(1), 56–67 DOI:10.1007/s41686-017-0014-0.
- Rupnow R. L., LaDue N. D., James N. M. and Bergan-Roller H. E., (2020), A perturbed system: how tenured faculty responded to the COVID-19 shift to remote instruction, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 2397–2407 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00802.
- Rusek M., Klein P. and Schindler M., (2024), Editorial: eye tracking for STEM education research: new perspectives, Front. Educ., 9 DOI:10.3389/feduc.2024.1389962.
- Rusek M., Stárková D., Chytrý V. and Bílek M., (2017), Adoption of ICT innovations by secondary school teachers and pre-service teachers within chemistry education, J. Baltic Sci. Educ., 16(4), 510.
- Saldaña J., (2013), The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 2nd edn.
- Schmid M., Brianza E. and Petko D., (2021), Self-reported technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of pre-service teachers in relation to digital technology use in lesson plans, Comput. Human Behavior, 115, 106586 DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106586.
- Seery M. K. and McDonnell C., (2013), The application of technology to enhance chemistry education, Chem. Educ. Res. Practice, 14(3), 227–228 10.1039/C3RP90006A.
- Sendlinger S. C., DeCoste D. J., Dunning T. H., Dummitt D. A., Jakobsson E., Mattson D. R. and Wiziecki E. N., (2008), Transforming chemistry education through computational science, Comput. Sci. Eng., 10(5), 34–39 DOI:10.1109/MCSE.2008.124.
- Shulman L., (1987), Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform, Harvard Educ. Rev., 57(1), 1–23.
- Shwartz G., Avargil S., Herscovitz O. and Dori Y. J., (2017), The case of middle and high school chemistry teachers implementing technology: using the concerns-based adoption model to assess change processes, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18(1), 214–232 10.1039/C6RP00193A.
- Silva F. D., Santos K., Santos L. D., Lobato C. C., Costa J. S., Lopes G. and Santos C., (2015), Computational chemistry programs as a facilitating tool in the teaching and learning process, Br. J. Educ., Soc. Behav. Sci., 8(2), 134–146.
- Snyder H. D. and Kucukkal T. G., (2021), Computational chemistry activities with Avogadro and ORCA, J. Chem. Educ., 98(4), 1335–1341 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00959.
- Strauss A. L. and Corbin J. M., (1998), Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Sage, 2nd edn.
- Stuckey M., Hofstein A., Mamlok-Naaman R. and Eilks I., (2013), The meaning of ‘relevance’ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum, Studies Sci. Educ., 49(1), 1–34 DOI:10.1080/03057267.2013.802463.
- Sunasee R., (2020), Challenges of teaching organic chemistry during COVID-19 pandemic at a primarily undergraduate institution, J. Chem. Educ., 97(9), 3176–3181 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00542.
- Sypsas A. and Kalles D., (2018), Virtual laboratories in biology, biotechnology and chemistry education: a literature review Proceedings of the 22nd Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics, Athens, Greece DOI:10.1145/3291533.3291560.
- Talanquer V., (2011), Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: the many faces of the chemistry “triplet”, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 33(2), 179–195 DOI:10.1080/09500690903386435.
- Talanquer V., (2022), The complexity of reasoning about and with chemical representations, JACS Au, 2(12), 2658–2669 DOI:10.1021/jacsau.2c00498.
- Talanquer V., (2023), Interview with the chatbot: how does it reason? J. Chem. Educ., 100(8), 2821–2824 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00472.
- Thohir M. A., Jumadi J. and Warsono W., (2022), Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of pre-service science teachers: a Delphi study, J. Res. Technol. Educ., 54(1), 127–142 DOI:10.1080/15391523.2020.1814908.
- Thyssen C., Huwer J., Irion T. and Schaal S., (2023), From TPACK to DPACK: The “Digitality-Related Pedagogical and Content Knowledge”-Model in STEM-Education, Educ. Sci., 13(8), 769 DOI:10.3390/educsci13080769.
- Tóthová M. and Rusek M., (2022), “Do you just have to know that?” Novice and experts’ procedure when solving science problem tasks [Original Research], Front. Educ., 7, 1–12 DOI:10.3389/feduc.2022.1051098.
- Traube T. and Blonder R., (2023), A computational chemistry course for teachers: from research laboratories to high-school chemistry teaching, J. Chem. Educ., 100(11), 4360–4368 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00645.
- Treagust D. F. and Chandrasegaran A. L., (2009), The efficacy of an alternative instructional programme designed to enhance secondary students’ competence in the triplet relationship, in J. K. Gilbert and D. Treagust (ed.), Multiple Representations in Chemical Education, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 151–168 DOI:10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_8.
- Tretter T. R., Jones M. G., Andre T., Negishi A. and Minogue J., (2006), Conceptual boundaries and distances: students' and experts' concepts of the scale of scientific phenomena, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 43(3), 282–319 DOI:10.1002/tea.20123.
- Trust T., (2018), Why do we need technology in education? J. Digital Learn. Teacher Educ., 34(2), 54–55 DOI:10.1080/21532974.2018.1442073.
- Tuvi-Arad I., (2022), Computational chemistry in the undergraduate classroom–Pedagogical considerations and teaching challenges, Isr. J. Chem., 62(1–2), e202100042 DOI:10.1002/ijch.202100042.
- Tuvi-Arad I. and Blonder R., (2019), Technology in the Service of Pedagogy: Teaching with Chemistry Databases, Isr. J. Chem., 59(6–7), 572–582 DOI:10.1002/ijch.201800076.
- Weng C., Otanga S., Christianto S. M. and Chu R. J.-C., (2020), Enhancing students' biology learning by using augmented reality as a learning supplement, J. Educ. Comput. Res., 58(4), 747–770 DOI:10.1177/0735633119884213.
- Winkelmann K., Keeney-Kennicutt W., Fowler D., Lazo Macik M., Perez Guarda P. and Joan Ahlborn C., (2020), Learning gains and attitudes of students performing chemistry experiments in an immersive virtual world, Interact. Learn. Environ., 28(5), 620–634 DOI:10.1080/10494820.2019.1696844.
- Winkelmann K., Scott M. and Wong D., (2014), A study of high school students’ performance of a chemistry experiment within the virtual world of Second Life, J. Chem. Educ., 91(9), 1432–1438 DOI:10.1021/ed500009e.
- Wu B.-J., Wong S.-K. and Li T.-W., (2019), Virtual titration laboratory experiment with differentiated instruction, Comput. Animation Virtual Worlds, 30(3–4), e1882 DOI:10.1002/cav.1882.
- Yeh Y.-F., Hsu Y.-S., Wu H.-K., Hwang F.-K. and Lin T.-C., (2014), Developing and validating technological pedagogical content knowledge-practical (TPACK-practical) through the Delphi survey technique, Br. J. Educ. Technol., 45(4), 707–722 DOI:10.1111/bjet.12078.
- Yonai E. and Blonder R., (2022), Uncovering the emotional aspect of inquiry practices in a remote SEM environment and the development of a designated questionnaire, J. Chem. Educ, 99(12), 3932–3945 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00359.
- Yonai E., Shimoni E., Kahil K. and Blonder R., (2022), Authentic science learning during COVID-19: the adaptive design of a SEM outreach activity, The Biophysicist, 3(1), 35–48 DOI:10.35459/tbp.2021.000206.
- Zheng M., Zhao J., Cui C., Fu Z., Li X., Liu X., Ding X., Tan X., Li F., Luo X., Chen K. and Jiang H., (2018), Computational chemical biology and drug design: facilitating protein structure, function, and modulation studies, Med. Res. Rev., 38(3), 914–950 DOI:10.1002/med.21483.
- Zimmermann F., Melle I. and Huwer J., (2021), Developing prospective chemistry teachers’ TPACK–A comparison between students of two different universities and expertise levels regarding their TPACK self-efficacy, attitude, and lesson planning competence, J. Chem. Educ., 98(6), 1863–1874 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01296.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2024 |